The post deployment reintegration of Australian army reservists.

Abstract

The aim of the present research was to delineate the effects of deployment on Australian Army reservists serving on low-threat overseas stability operations. Even without exposure to traumatic events, reservists face challenges that differ from regular soldiers who prepare, deploy, and return within the constant context of their unit and wider army. More like civilian workers who deploy overseas to assist in disaster and post-conflict zones, Australian Army reservists are coalesced into temporary formations. They then leave the context of their families and civilian employment for the deployment and then return back to their civilian lives, often abruptly Participants were Army reservists deployed to Timor L'Este for seven months (N=92) in 2002/03, and three consecutive groups (N=350) deployed to the Solomon Islands in 2006/07. The research was broadened to also incorporate the experiences of civilian employers (N=126) and families (N=32) of Army reservists, whose experiences were largely unknown. The major findings across studies were as follows: 1) Reservists from all study groups returned in sound mental health and settled well. Measures taken at the end of deployment, six months after return, and two years post deployment found low rates of referrals for follow-up, low scores on mental health screening instruments (KI0, PCL-C, DASS-42), and a relatively unchanged pattern of alcohol use (AUDIT). 2) The deployment experience was reported as positive by 65-67%, with the number of positive statements (558) exceeding the number of negative statements (438) by a ratio of 1.30:1.00. 3) Readjustment to civilian life appeared uncomplicated and the reservists continued to be actively engaged with the Army. Their retention in a deployable status was more than twice the level seen among reservists as a whole. They promptly returned to service with their provider units after a substantial absence, despite what would have been the attractions and demands to attend to family, study, and civilian employment activities. Between 12%-25% enlisted in the regulars following their overseas service, and around 12% deployed overseas again within two years of returning. 4) As expected with low-threat military operations, traumatic stressors were only infrequently reported. Nevertheless, the few non-traumatic stressors reported by reservists during their tours were inversely associated with their reported deployment experience and what psychological distress could be detected. The primary source of a less-than-positive deployment experience and slightly elevated psychological distress predominately emanated from work-related sources, for example, the behaviour of others, leadership, and double standards. 5) These associations with non-traumatic stressors were moderated by psychological hardiness. Reservists with higher levels of hardiness nearly always reported a positive experience and negligible psychological distress, while reservists with lower levels of hardiness were more likely to report a less-than-positive deployment experience and low, but appreciable levels of psychological distress. 6) Employers and families reported seeing the benefits of deployment to the growth and satisfaction of their reservist. Both groups reported more positives than negatives when a reservist deploys (1.65:1 and 1.50:1 respectively). The implications of the present findings are discussed with respect to their application to reservists, employers and families, as well as other occupational groups such as ad hoc mission-specific organizations working in conflict and disaster zones.