Armed Forces and Veteran Housing Policies: The United Kingdom 2021 Vision
Abstract: Accessing suitable accommodation post transition into civilian life from the military is one of the key markers for future success and wellbeing. For many this process can and does start during their military career. Some veterans struggle to find appropriate housing, often complicated by other difficulties associated with employment, physical and mental injuries, or difficulties with relationships. Over the past two years the position of veterans, veterans’ families, and service people in transition in the United Kingdom (UK) has gained increased national and international visibility through the establishment of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. The Ministry of Defence’s 2018 Strategy for Our Veterans’ report contains a key theme that veterans in the UK should have a secure place to live either through buying, renting or social housing. However, the National Audit Office (NAO) recently reported that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is not meeting its commitment to provide high-quality, subsidised accommodation to all service personnel. Satisfaction with single living accommodation has declined in recent years and can impact on the retention of military personnel, risking the MOD’s ability to deliver defence capabilities. This review looks at the policy changes made in the past two years to support quality UK service accommodation, aid, sustain successful post-military transitions, and ensure veterans do not want for adequate housing.
Abstract: Background: Exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) during military service can lead to moral injury (MI) outcomes and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). This longitudinal study examined the relationships between PMIE exposure, MI outcomes, and PTSS among Israeli combat veterans, and the potential protective role of dispositional forgiveness in these associations. Method: Participants were 169 Israeli combat veterans who participated in a six-year longitudinal study with four measurement points (T1: 12 months before enlistment, T2: Six months following enlistment- pre-deployment, T3: 18 months following enlistment- post-deployment, and T4: 28 months following discharge). Participants’ characteristics were assessed via semi-structured interviews (T1) and validated self-report measures (T2-T4) between 2019-2024. Results: Approximately 36% of participants reported exposure to PMIEs during service, with 13% exceeding the clinical threshold for probable PTSD at T4. PMIE-Betrayal at T3 was positively associated with MI outcomes of shame and trust violation at T4. The indirect effect of PMIEs on PTSS through MI outcome-Shame depended on forgiveness levels. Among veterans with low forgiveness, higher exposure to PMIE-Betrayal was associated with increased MI shame, which was linked to more severe PTSS. Conversely, for those with high forgiveness, exposure to PMIE-Self and Other was associated with decreased MI shame and subsequently reduced PTSS. Conclusion: Dispositional forgiveness moderates the relationship between PMIE exposure and MI outcomes, particularly shame, which mediates the development of PTSS. These findings highlight forgiveness as a potential target for intervention in treating moral injury and preventing PTSS among combat veterans.