Single Living Accommodation Lived Experience Survey: May 2022
Published 22 September 2022
© Crown copyright 2022
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/single-living-accommodation-lived-experience-survey-2022/single-living-accommodation-lived-experience-survey-may-2022
This release provides statistics from the Single Living Accommodation (SLA) Lived Experience Survey from May 2022. The Survey was intended to understand what Service personnel in the UK Armed Forces want and need from SLA and how SLA is currently being used.
Main points
- Overall, most Service personnel selected quality as the most important factor regarding SLA in comparison to choice, cost, and value for money.
- Most Service personnel were satisfied with the welfare provision on site, convenience of SLA, lighting, parking facilities. Most Service personnel were least satisfied with current snack preparation facilities, response to requests for maintenance/repair and WIFI provision.
- 46% of Service personnel were satisfied with the amount they pay per month for their SLA compared to 30% who were dissatisfied.
- Service personnel prioritised having enhanced cooking facilities and an ensuite in SLA and many wanted/expected this in future SLA.
- 65% of Service Personnel would prefer a full shared kitchen with no/limited access to dining facilities in associated messes, whereas 30% of Service personnel would prefer a snack preparation area with access to dining facilities in associated messes. Only 5% of Service personnel would prefer dining facilities as provided now in associated messes and no snack preparation facilities.
- Service personnel were fairly evenly split between those who currently do, sometimes do and those who do not use dining facilities available at their base to purchase and eat meals.
- 49% of Service personnel said their experience of SLA had no impact on their intentions to stay or leave the Armed Forces. 9% of Service personnel said SLA increased their intention to stay in the Armed Forces and 34% of Service personnel said SLA increased their intentions to leave the Armed Forces.
Responsible Statistician: People Accommodation Analysis Head of Branch Further information: [email protected] Background Quality Report
Please refer to the Supplementary tables for all data presented in this publication.
Introduction
Context
The Single Living Accommodation (SLA) Lived Experience Survey was designed by the Ministry of Defence to produce statistics that would help to inform decisions on the future design of SLA. The survey was intended to understand what Service personnel in the UK Armed Forces want and need from SLA and how SLA is currently being used.
Single Living Accommodation is normally provided in the form of accommodation blocks inside military bases. It is available to single and unaccompanied personnel who are married/in a civil partnership undertaking initial training or those serving on a regular engagement with the UK Armed Forces, including Full Time Reserve Service (Full Commitment). It can be used as a permanent residence for some Service personnel or on an ad hoc basis by others, where they have an additional residence, for example their own home. For more information about Single Living Accommodation please see the Joint Service Publication 464: Tri-service accommodation regulations Volume 3
Single Living Accommodation Survey
The survey was open to all Regular and Reserve Service personnel, whether in receipt of SLA or not, in April and May 2022 using an online questionnaire.
Overall, 9,901 survey responses were received. After data cleaning there were 8,655 valid survey responses representing a response rate of 4.6%.
Reference tables, the Background Quality Report (BQR) and questionnaire are published as separate documents and can be found on GOV.UK. The BQR contains full details of the survey methodology, analysis, and data quality considerations.
Throughout the report, where statistical significance tests are applied, they are carried out at the 95% confidence level. This means there should be a 95% chance that the value for the population as a whole lies within the associated confidence intervals.
The glossary contains definitions of terminology used in this publication.
Use of Single Living Accommodation
This section covers how Service personnel currently use Single Living Accommodation.
Most responses to the survey (76%) were from Service personnel who were currently living in SLA. This proportion is higher for responses from Other Ranks (81%) compared to Officers (57%). Of those who lived in SLA, 51% used SLA as their home or primary place of residence. These results do not reflect the actual number of Service personnel living in SLA.
Figure 1: Number of nights Service personnel typically spend living in Single Living Accommodation.
Figure 1 is a bar chart of the number of nights Service personnel typically spend living in Single Living Accommodation. Most Service personnel who currently live in SLA do so for either 5 nights a week (33%) or 7 nights a week (33%). The data in this chart is available in Table 8 of the Reference Tables.
36% of Service personnel who were Other Ranks lived in SLA for 7 nights a week, compared to 20% of Officers. Most Service personnel who lived in SLA had seen no change to the number of nights they would spend in SLA due to COVID-19 (89%). However, 10% of Officers have now or will remotely work from their family home at times and only require SLA less than 4 nights per week.
Temporary use of Single Living Accommodation
This section covers Service personnel preferences for the temporary use of Single Living Accommodation. SLA can be permanently or temporarily allocated. Temporary SLA is service provided accommodation (SLA or hotel) currently booked as and when required with no or limited provision for storage of personal possessions. Service personnel thought staying in SLA for less than two (24%) or three (27%) nights per week would be considered temporary usage. This view was similar across the Services.
Service personnel were asked how they would prefer to book SLA if it was offered on a temporary basis. The majority (80%) stated they would prefer to book using an online booking tool, compared to 12% who wanted to book via a clerk and 4% who wanted to email an administrator. 88% of Officers wanted to book using an online booking tool.
Figure 2: Percentage of Service personnel who would be content to stay in a true mixed-rank block if Single Living Accommodation was offered on a temporary basis similar to a hotel.
Service personnel were asked if SLA was offered on a temporary basis whether they would be content to stay in a true mixed-rank block. Figure 2 is a bar chart showing the percentage of all Service personnel, Royal Navy/Royal Marines (RN/RM), Army and Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel who agree, disagree or neither agree nor disagree to staying in a true-mixed rank block in temporary SLA similar to a hotel. The data in this chart is available in Table 12 of the Reference Tables.
Overall, 45% of Service personnel agreed with staying in a true mixed-rank block, compared to 34% who disagreed. Royal Air Force personnel were most likely to agree with this statement (53%). Army Officers (59%) were most likely to disagree with this statement, compared to Officers from the Royal Navy/Royal Marines (47%) and Royal Air Force (41%). 48% of Other Ranks agreed with this statement, compared to 30% who disagreed. However, 52% of Officers disagreed with this statement, compared to 35% who agreed.
Figure 3: Percentage of Service personnel who would be content to stay in a mixed-rank block where Senior and Junior ranks are separated by floor if Single Living Accommodation was offered on a temporary basis similar to a hotel.
Service personnel were also asked if SLA was offered on a temporary basis whether they would be content to stay in a mixed-rank block where Senior and Junior ranks were separated by floor. Figure 3 is a bar chart showing the percentage of all Service personnel, Royal Navy/Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force personnel who agree, disagree or neither agree nor disagree to staying in a mixed rank block where Senior and Junior ranks are separated by floor in temporary SLA similar to a hotel. The data in this chart is available in Table 13 of the Reference Tables.
Overall, 47% of Service personnel agreed with the statement to stay in a mixed-rank block where Senior and Junior ranks were separated by floor. Officers were more likely to agree with this option (48%) rather than those who disagreed (32%).
Service personnel were most likely to be content with a differing level of provision (for example, room size) being offered in temporary SLA (49%). Officers were more likely to agree to this (54%) than Other Ranks (47%). 61% of Service personnel anticipated issues with the storage of kit and equipment if SLA was offered on a temporary basis. 50% of Service personnel thought they were in a role or had sports kits that would require extensive storage (for example multiple wardrobes worth) if they were to use SLA on a temporary basis. This was followed by 41% who thought they would need some storage (for example one wardrobes worth).
Satisfaction with Single Living Accommodation
This section covers Service personnel satisfaction with Single Living Accommodation. Questions in this section were only asked to Service personnel who currently lived or had lived in SLA within the last 5 years.
Figure 4: Service personnel satisfaction with different aspects of Single Living Accommodation.
Service personnel were asked to state whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with different aspects of Single Living Accommodation. Figure 4 is a bar chart showing the percentage of Service personnel who are satisfied, dissatisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with different aspects of Single Living Accommodation. The data in this chart is available in Tables 17 to 29 of the Reference Tables.
Overall, most Service personnel were satisfied with the welfare provision on site (70%), convenience of SLA (66%), lighting (65%), parking facilities (57%). Around half of Service personnel were satisfied with value for money (51%). Most Service personnel were least satisfied with current snack preparation facilities (63%), response to requests for maintenance/repair (61%) and WIFI provision (54%). Around half of Service personnel were dissatisfied with the quality of maintenance/repair work (51%).
Most Service personnel from the Royal Navy/Royal Marines and Royal Air Force were satisfied with the welfare provision on site (RN/RM 74%; RAF 72%) and the convenience of SLA (RN/RM 71%; RAF 72%). The majority of Service personnel from the Army were satisfied with lighting (68%) and welfare provision on site (68%). Most Officers were satisfied with the convenience of SLA (75%) and parking facilities (74%). Most Other Ranks were satisfied with welfare provision on site (69%) and lighting (65%).
Most personnel from all Services and both Officers and Other Ranks were dissatisfied with the response to requests for maintenance/repair (RN/RM 70%; Army 57%, RAF 66%; Officers 62%; Other Ranks 61%) and current snack preparation facilities (RN/RM 68%; Army 60%, RAF 68%; Officers 63%; Other Ranks 63%). Service personnel were asked if their experience of SLA had any impact on their intention to stay or leave the service. 49% of Service personnel said their experience of SLA had no impact on their intentions to stay or leave the Armed Forces. 9% of Service personnel said SLA increased their intention to stay in the Armed Forces and 34% of Service personnel said SLA increased their intentions to leave the Armed Forces. 58% of Service personnel thought policy should permit a pet in SLA.
Value for Money
This section covers Service personnel satisfaction with the value for money of Single Living Accommodation. Questions in this section were only asked to Service personnel who currently lived in SLA or Substitute Single Living Accommodation.
There were more Service personnel who were satisfied (46%) with the amount they pay per month for their SLA than dissatisfied (30%). 24% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Those who were satisfied with the amount they paid, believed they paid a fair amount for the quality of the accommodation they utilised (77%). Those who were dissatisfied felt they paid too much for the accommodation (32%) and the quality of the accommodation was too low regardless of the cost (50%).
47% of Service personnel were prepared to pay more for better quality SLA, 26% would not like to pay more and 19% were happy with the current costs. Other Ranks (50%) were more prepared than Officers (35%) to pay more for better quality SLA. 52% of Service personnel were not prepared to pay less for lower quality SLA.
Figure 5: Amenities that Service personnel would like to have included in Single Living Accommodation to feel like they are getting good value for money.
Service personnel were asked which amenities they felt should be included to feel like they were getting good value for money. Figure 5 is a bar chart showing the percentage of Service personnel who would like each amenity to be included to feel like they were getting good value for money. The data in this chart is available in Tables 39 to 48 of the Reference Tables.
Most Service personnel thought the provision of an ensuite (67%), enhanced cooking facilities compared to current snack preparation facilities (62%) should be included. Around half thought better quality WIFI (51%) should be included. Officers thought the provision of an ensuite (80%), enhanced cooking facilities compared to current snack preparation facilities (59%), WIFI (57%) and a double bed (57%) should be included. Other Ranks thought enhanced cooking facilities compared to current snack preparation facilities (62%), an ensuite (64%) should be included.
Service personnel were then asked which amenities they would be willing to pay more for, if they had indicated the amenity should be included, to feel like they were getting good value for money. Of the Service personnel who thought getting a larger room would be good value for money, 54% would be willing to pay more for it. Around half of Service personnel were willing to pay more for an ensuite (51%) and enhanced cooking facilities (52%). Service personnel who felt better quality WIFI should be included to feel like they were getting better value for money were not prepared to pay more for it (55% would not pay more).
Future design of Single Living Accommodation
This section covers what Service personnel would like to see in Single Living Accommodation in the future.
Figure 6: Facilities/services Service personnel want/expect to see in Single Living Accommodation in the future.
Service personnel were asked what facilities and/or services they would want/expect to see in SLA in the future. Figure 6 is a bar chart of the percentage of Service personnel who selected each facility/service. The data in this chart is available in Tables 59 to 77 of the Reference Tables.
Regarding the provision of dining facilities, 61% of respondents said they wanted/expected enhanced cooking facilities in future SLA, 27% said they wanted/expected to see a snack preparation area and 18% selected that they wanted dining facilities within close proximity to their SLA. Officers (34%) were more likely to want/expect to see dining facilities within close proximity to their SLA compared to Other Ranks (14%).
Overall, 59% of Service personnel said they wanted/expected an ensuite in future SLA, 73% of Officers and 56% of Other Ranks. RAF personnel (75%) were more likely to want/expect an ensuite compared to Army (53%) and Royal Navy/Royal Marines personnel (63%).
Around half of Service personnel (51%) wanted/expected better quality WIFI and 36% wanted/expected a larger room and 38% a double bed. Army Other Ranks (43%) and RAF Other Ranks (45%) were more likely to want/expect a larger room in future SLA compared to RN/RM Officers (17%), RN/RM Other Ranks (20%), Army Officers (27%) and RAF Officers (27%). Officers (51%) are more likely to want/expect a double bed in future SLA compared to Other Ranks (35%). RAF personnel (47%) were also more likely to want/expect a double bed compared to Army (36%) and RN/RM personnel (36%).
Service personnel were asked to rank the facilities/services for their first, second and third priority of what they wanted/expected to see in SLA in the future. Ensuite was the most popular first priority with 31% of Service personnel selecting this as their first priority and 18% selecting it has second priority. En-suite was the most popular first priority for RN/RM Officers (40%), Army Officers (32%), RAF Officers (42%) and RAF Other Ranks (42%). Enhanced cooking facilities was the second most popular priority with a quarter (24%) of Service personnel selecting it as their first priority and 19% selecting it as a second priority. For Army Other Ranks both ensuite (28%) and enhanced cooking facilities (26%) were popular first priorities. Similarly for RN/RM Other Ranks enhanced cooking facilities (36%) and ensuite (33%) were popular first priorities.
Figure 7: Service personnel thoughts on whether SLA should follow a standard design or there should be different designs which they can pay more for.
Service personnel were asked if they feel that SLA should follow a standard design for all or whether there should be different designs which Service personnel can opt to pay more for. Figure 7 is a bar chart showing responses to this question from all Service personnel and RN/RM, Army and RAF personnel. The data in this chart is available in Table 81 of the Reference Tables.
Overall, 52% of respondents thought SLA should follow a standard design for all, compared to those who thought there should be different designs that Service personnel can opt to pay more for (40%). RN/RM personnel (56%) were more likely to feel there should be different designs for SLA, that Service personnel can opt to pay more for, than RAF (38%) and Army (35%) personnel. Army (56%) and RAF (56%) personnel were more likely to select that SLA should follow a standard design compared to RN/RM personnel (34%).
Dining
This section covers Service personnel views on dining facilities in Single Living Accommodation.
Service personnel were asked in their current or most recent SLA what cooking amenities they have access to and what additional amenities they wanted access to. The amenity which Service personnel would most like to have access to in their current or most recent SLA was an oven (53%); only 7% of Service personnel had access. Over a third of Service personnel wanted access to a hob (37%) and freezer (38%); only 25% (hob) and 17% (freezer) of Service personnel have access to these amenities in their current or most recent SLA, respectively. Half of Service personnel (50%) had access to a microwave in their current or most recent SLA and only 16% wanted access. RAF personnel were more likely to have access (58%) to a microwave compared to Army personnel (47%) and RN/RM personnel (53%). 44% of Service personnel did have access to a kettle/hot water tap in their current or most recent SLA; 18% wanted access. Almost half of Service personnel (46%) have access to a fridge and 19% of Service Personnel would prefer to have access to a fridge in their most recent or current SLA. RAF personnel (52%) and RN/RM personnel (50%) were more likely to have access to a fridge than the Army personnel (43%).
Figure 8: Service personnel preferences towards accessing dining facilities in SLA.
Service personnel were asked if given the choice would they prefer a full shared kitchen with no/limited access to dining facilities, a snack preparation area with access to dining facilities, or dining facilities as provided now in associated messes and no snack preparation facilities. Figure 8 is a bar chart of responses to this question by all Service personnel, Officers and Other Ranks. The data in this chart is available in Table 84 of the Reference Tables.
If given the choice, around two thirds of Service personnel (65%) would prefer a full shared kitchen with no/limited access to dining facilities. Other Ranks (70%) were more likely to prefer this option than Officers (43%). Officers (47%) were more likely to prefer a snack preparation area with access to dining facilities than Other Ranks (26%); overall, 30% of Service personnel selected this option. Only 5% of Service personnel would prefer dining facilities as provided now in associated messes and no snack preparation facilities.
Service personnel were asked why they had chosen their preferred dining option. Of the 65% of Service personnel who wanted a full shared kitchen, over three quarters (79%) had selected this for ease of cooking and just over a third said it was to accommodate a specialist diet (34%) or to suit shift patterns (35%). Out of the 30% of Service personnel who selected they would prefer a snack preparation area with access to dining facilities if they had the choice, 57% chose this for ease of cooking. A further 33% preferred this for hygiene issues of current shared facilities or suiting shift pattern.
Out of the 5% who would prefer dining facilities as provided now in associated messes and no snack preparation facilities, almost half (46%) preferred this choice due to hygiene issues of current shared facilities. When Service personnel were asked how important the provision of cooking facilities are when booking temporary SLA on an ad hoc requirement basis, almost three quarters (72%) said a full kitchen was important, 14% said it was not important. A full kitchen was more likely to be important to Other Ranks (77%) compared to Officers (58%). Overall, 83% said that a snack preparation area was important.
Figure 9: Service personnel use of dining facilities at base.
Service personnel were asked if they currently make use of the dining facilities at their base to purchase and eat meals. Figure 9 is a bar chart showing the responses to this question broken down by Service and Rank. The data in this chart is available in Table 90 of the Reference Tables.
Over a third of Service Personnel (35%) currently make use of dining facilities available at their base to purchase and eat meals, and around the same number of Service personnel sometimes use dining facilities (36%). 29% of Service personnel do not currently make use of dining facilities available at their base to purchase and eat meals. Officers from the Army (45%), RAF (45%) and RN/RM (42%), and Army Other Ranks (38%) were more likely to currently make use of dining facilities available at base compared to RN/RM Other Ranks (24%) and RAF Other Ranks (28%).
Figure 10: Reasons why Service personnel currently make use of dining facilities at their base to purchase and eat meals.
Service personnel were asked why they currently make us of dining facilities at their base. Figure 10 is a bar chart of the reasons given by Service personnel who stated they do make use of dining facilities available at their base to purchase and eat meals. The data in this chart is available in Table 91 of the Reference Tables. Out of the 35% of Service personnel who do make use of dining facilities, half (50%) said this was because of convenience. Officers (59%) were more likely to select convenience compared to Other Ranks (48%). RAF personnel (62%) and RN/RM personnel (55%) were most likely to select convenience compared to Army personnel (45%). Over a third (37%) said they prefer the ease of eating in dining facilities.
Figure 11: Reasons why Service personnel do not make use of dining facilities at their base
Figure 11 is a bar chart of the reasons given by Service personnel who stated they do not make use of dining facilities available at their base to purchase and eat meals. The data in this chart is available in Table 92 of the Reference Tables.
Out of the 29% of Service personnel who do not make use of the dining facilities, most (73%) said this was because of quality of food and 64% said this was because of the choice of food. 59% of Officers said they did not make use of dining facilities because they prefer not to wear formal dress compared to 18% of Other Ranks. Also, 39% Officers said they prefer not to book mealtimes in advance compared to 17% of Other Ranks. Service personnel were asked if a full kitchen was available in SLA, would they still make use of dining facilities. Over a third (35%) said yes, they would often make use of dining facilities. Service personnel from the Army (38%) were more likely to say yes, often, compared to RAF personnel (31%) and RN/RM personnel (27%). 40% of Service personnel said they would sometimes make use of dining facilities if a full kitchen was available in SLA, 51% of Officers said sometimes compared to 38% of Other Ranks. A quarter (25%) of Service personnel said no they would not make use of dining facilities if a full kitchen was available.
Overall assessment of Single Living Accommodation
Figure 12: Most important factor for Service personnel about Single Living Accommodation
Service personnel were asked what they considered most important to them regarding SLA out of quality, choice, cost, and value for money. Figure 12 is a bar chart showing the percentage of Service personnel that selected each option to this question. The data in this chart is available in Table 95 of the Reference Tables.
The majority of Service personnel (60%) selected quality as the most important factor regarding SLA and around a quarter (27%) chose value for money. Other Ranks (62%) were more likely to select quality compared to Officers (52%). Officers (33%) were more likely to select value for money compared to Other Ranks (25%).
Methodology
This section provides a summary of the methodology; more detailed information is available in the Background Quality Report for this release: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/defence-statistics-background-quality-reports-index
Target population
The target population for the Single Living Accommodation Lived Experience Survey 2022 was all Service personnel in the UK Armed Forces. This included UK Regulars and Reserves.
The survey
The survey was distributed as an online survey only. Survey participation was publicised internally to Service personnel using a variety of established communications channels, for example via weekly routine orders and Defence Connect and on social media platforms.
Data collection ran from 20 April to 20 May 2022. The survey was anonymous.
The sample and respondents
The survey was conducted as a census to ensure all Service personnel had the opportunity to participate. Overall, 9,901 survey responses were received, after data cleaning there were 8,655 valid survey responses used in the analysis giving a response rate of 4.6%.
The population figures for weighting were derived from MOD Quarterly service personnel statistics 2021
Table 1: Response rates by Service and Rank
| Service | Rank | Total Population | Surveys returned | Response rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tri-Service | Officers | 36,243 | 2,366 | 6.5 |
| Tri-Service | Other Ranks | 150,448 | 6,289 | 4.2 |
| Tri-Service | Total | 186,691 | 8,655 | 4.6 |
| Royal Navy and Royal Marines | Officers | 8,218 | 566 | 6.9 |
| Royal Navy and Royal Marines | Other Ranks | 29,707 | 847 | 2.9 |
| Royal Navy and Royal Marines | Total | 37,925 | 1,413 | 3.7 |
| Army | Officers | 19,296 | 938 | 4.9 |
| Army | Other Ranks | 92,968 | 3,779 | 4.1 |
| Army | Total | 112,264 | 4,717 | 4.2 |
| Royal Air Force | Officers | 8,729 | 862 | 9.9 |
| Royal Air Force | Other Ranks | 27,773 | 1,663 | 6.0 |
| Royal Air Force | Total | 36,502 | 2,525 | 6.9 |
Weighting methodology and non-response
Due to the survey being conducted as a census and the differences in prevalence of non-response between the Service and Rank strata, the distribution of characteristics amongst the respondents did not reflect the distribution in the whole Armed Forces population.
Response rates tend to vary by rank; therefore, responses are weighted by rank to correct for the bias caused by over or under-representation.
The weights were calculated by:
Proportion of population size within weighting class (p) / Proportion of responses within weighting class (r)
Weighting in this way assumes missing data are missing at random only within weighting classes. This means we assume that within a single weighting class the views of non-respondents do not differ (on average) to the views of respondents.
Table 2: Weightings used for SLA Lived Experience Survey 2022 analysis
| Service | Rank | Weighting Applied |
|---|---|---|
| Royal Navy and Royal Marines | Officers | 0.67 |
| Royal Navy and Royal Marines | Other Ranks | 1.63 |
| Army | Officers | 0.95 |
| Army | Other Ranks | 1.14 |
| Royal Air Force | Officers | 0.47 |
| Royal Air Force | Other Ranks | 0.77 |
The weightings in Table 2 have been rounded for presentational purposes.
Analysis and statistical tests
Attitudinal questions in the questionnaire have been regrouped to assist in analysing results and to aid interpretation. For example, questions asked at a 5-point level (for example: Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree) have been regrouped to a 3-point level (for example: Agree – Neutral – Disagree).
Missing values, where respondents have not provided a response/valid response, have not been included in the analysis. As a result, the unweighted counts (or ‘n’) will vary from question to question, and these are shown within the reference tables published alongside this report on the SLA Lived Experience Survey GOV.UK webpage.
Unless otherwise specified, “Don’t know” and “Not applicable” responses are ignored, and percentages are based only on the numbers of respondents who chose the remaining item response options. Percentages are calculated from unrounded data and presented as whole numbers. Charts have been produced from unrounded data.
Format of the reference tables
These are published separately to the report on the SLA Lived Experience Survey GOV.UK webpage. Each reference table refers to a question asked in the survey and includes estimates of the proportion of the population by category.
Tables are arranged in the order in which they were asked in the questionnaire, which may be different from the order of the sections in the Main Report.
Glossary
Future Accommodation Programme (FAM): Ministry of Defence programme looking at how it can improve the accommodation offer for Service personnel, to make it fairer and more flexible, whilst keeping it affordable for the MOD.
Missing at Random (MAR): Statistical theory that states that those who did not respond to a question do not differ from those who did respond.
Missing Value(s): Refers to the situation where a respondent has not submitted an answer or a valid answer to a question.
Ministry of Defence (MOD): The United Kingdom government department and headquarters of the UK Armed Forces, responsible for the development and implementation of government defence policy. The principal objective of the MOD is to protect the security, independence and interests of the United Kingdom at home and abroad. The MOD also manages day to day running of the Armed Forces, contingency planning and defence procurement.
Officer: An Officer is a member of the UK Armed Forces holding the Queen’s Commission to lead and command elements of the forces. Officers form the middle and senior management of the Armed Forces. This includes ranks from Sub-Lt/2nd Lt/Pilot Officer up to Admiral of the Fleet/Field Marshal/Marshal of the Royal Air Force but excludes Non-Commissioned Officers.
Other Ranks: Other Ranks are members of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force who are not Officers, but other ranks include Non-Commissioned Officers.
Royal Air Force (RAF): The Royal Air Force is the aerial defence force of the UK.
Reserves: Individuals who voluntarily accept an annual training commitment and are liable to be mobilised to deploy on operations. They can be utilised on a part-time or full-time basis to provide support to the Regular Forces at home and overseas.
Royal Marines (RM): Royal Marines are sea-going soldiers who are part of the Naval Service.
Royal Navy (RN): The sea-going defence forces of the UK but excludes the Royal Marines and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service (RFA).
Service(s): Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, and Royal Air Force
Service Families Accommodation (SFA): Houses for Service personnel to live in with their families, which are typically on or near to military bases.
Single Living Accommodation (SLA): Single Living Accommodation is normally provided in the form of accommodation blocks inside military bases. It is available to single and unaccompanied personnel who are married/in a civil partnership undertaking initial training or those serving on a regular engagement with the UK Armed Forces, including Full Time Reserve Service (Full Commitment). It can be used as a permanent residence for some Service personnel or on an ad hoc basis by others, where they have an additional residence, for example their own home.
Substitute Service Family Accommodation (SSFA): Properties that are rented from the open/private rental market when no suitable Service Families Accommodation property is available within the required distance.
Substitute Service Single Accommodation (SSSA): Properties that are rented from the open/private rental market when no suitable Service Families Accommodation property is available within the required distance.
UK Regulars: Full-Time Service personnel, including Nursing Services, excluding FTRS (Full Time Reserve Service) personnel, Gurkhas, mobilised Reservists, Military Provost Guarding Service (MPGS), Locally Engaged Personnel, and Non-Regular Permanent Service.
Unweighted count: Refers to the actual number who provided a valid response to a question in the survey.
Weighting Class: Refers to those members of a specific rank group to whom a weighting factor is applied.
Further Information
Disclosure Control and Rounding
Where rounding has been used, totals and sub-totals have been rounded separately and so may not equal the sums of their rounded parts.
Revisions
Corrections to the published statistics will be made if errors are found, or if figures change because of improvements to methodology or changes to definitions. When making corrections, we will follow the Ministry of Defence Statistics Revisions and Corrections Policy. All corrected figures will be identified by the symbol “r”, and an explanation will be given of the reason for and size of the revision. Corrections which would have a significant impact on the utility of the statistics will be corrected as soon as possible, by reissuing the publication. Minor errors will also be corrected, but for efficient use of resource these corrections may be timed to coincide with the next release of this publication.
Contact us
We welcome feedback on our statistical products. If you have any comments or questions about this publication, you can contact us as follows:
Email: [email protected]
If you have any comments or questions about the statistics produced by Defence Statistics in general, you can contact us as follows:
Email: [email protected]
If you require information which is not available within this or other available publications, you may wish to submit a Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Ministry of Defence.
For general MOD enquiries, please call: 020 7218 9000
For press enquiries, please call MOD Press Office: 020 7218 3253