In January 2016, General Motors Co. (GM) offered an internship program to retrain and “hire back” former female engineers who were looking to return to the workforce after an absence of two or more years, most often after starting a family. The company offered 12 potential internships and received more than 450 applications: a clear sign of the demand. Such programs are intriguing, but perhaps daunting, to the military services, where women resign their commissions or depart the service at twice the rate of their male counterparts.
While this “re-entry” program was relatively new for GM, the U.S. Coast Guard has offered a sabbatical-type of program for a quarter century. Since 1991, the service has allowed Coast Guardsmen—both men and women—to separate from active duty for up to two years and return to service without any additional obligation. This is how the Coast Guard’s Temporary Separation program was created.
In 1980, women made up less than 2 percent of the Coast Guard force; in 1990, less than 8 percent of the service was female.1 These low numbers were concerning. Then-Commandant Admiral Paul Yost chartered a working group to study women in the Coast Guard and explore the “utilization of women,” to determine ways to retain them in the service.2 The study’s leader was Rear Admiral George Passmore, head of the Office of Personnel and Training. The study was a collateral duty for him, as it was for most members of the group. Only one full-time person was dedicated to the cause: Commander Sandra H. Carey of the U.S. Naval Reserve. Carey was uniquely qualified for the job: she had written the Navy’s handbook on integrating women in ships and held a Ph.D. in social psychology.3
Captain Ken Hollemon, chief of the Workforce Planning Branch at Coast Guard Headquarters, also was on the team. Hollemon was a vocal advocate for innovative policies to attract and maintain women and minorities in the Coast Guard; he published three articles on the topic as early as 1975. Under the direction of Commander Carey, members of the working group (including then-Lieutenant Commander Sally Brice-O’Hara, Lieutenant Commander Jody Breckenridge, and Chief Petty Officer Vince Patton) surveyed more than 2,600 service members, conducted more than 2,000 interviews, and gathered perspectives on 11 major topics, including advancement, collocation, and child care. “Almost entirely,” Hollemon recalls, “respondents said, ‘no one cares about me.’ It was disturbing.”4
The report was released in July 1990, and among the findings was an organizational culture that resented pregnant women in the workforce.5 The pervasive belief was “that the [women] who took time off to give birth [were] ‘getting a vacation.’”6 Nearly 50 percent of Coast Guard men surveyed felt their female counterparts took more time off than men, when in reality, the study found the opposite to be true.7 “In the military, men had to take time off because they would get into a bar fight and break their jaws,” Carey says. “They’d get into motorcycle accidents and miss movement.”8 But perceptions are important as they can bolster (or hinder) individual and unit morale. In this case, perceptions were hindering cultural change.
Between 2009 and 2013, 136 Coast Guardsmen, male and female, officers and enlisted, took advantage of the Temporary Separation Program and separated from the service.
The report offered several recommendations to enhance an individual’s quality of life. One recommendation was influenced by a request from then-Lieutenant Joann McCaffrey: offer mothers an opportunity to separate from service for up to two years with a guarantee to return. And when they did return, offer them the opportunity to re-enter the Coast Guard at the same rank they left, without consequence. This idea of a “sabbatical” program was progressive, not to mention risky. Hollemon considered this program an “educated risk” the organization needed to take if the service wanted to attract and retain women. In his Coast Guard Alumni Bulletin article of June 1990, “Risk-taking and the ‘F’ Word,” Hollemon laments that the Coast Guard “reward[s] operational risk-takers [but] suppress[es] management risk-taking” because “managers,” he claims, “don’t want to fail.”9 “But leaders,” Hollemon recalled in 2016, “have to tolerate failure.”10
Patton and others knew the initiative would be a hard sell. The idea alone was “insane to people from the status quo—both officer and enlisted alike.” He adds, “The culture was not ready for it.” Fortunately, the team’s social psychologist was. When Carey drafted the sabbatical concept into the Care of Newborn Children (CNC) policy, she used her knowledge of diffusion of innovations theory, which describes how groups come to accept innovation, to make her point. Carey modeled her program after the service’s Weight Standards Policy, which essentially allowed those members “discharged for exceeding the maximum allowable weight or for appearance shortcomings” to “request re-enlistment to their former rate provided that they [were] within the allowable weight . . . and [had] been out of the Service from at least six . . . to twelve months.”11 A community can be more accepting of an innovation, Carey maintains, if “we can link it to something that we already approve and accept.” It worked. One year later, Carey’s recommendation was adopted and the CNC became available to the fleet. It was the first temporary separation program offered in any military service.
McCaffrey was overjoyed by the news, but there were stipulations associated with this opportunity of temporary separation: eligible members were those with no obligated service, who had been at their unit for at least one year, and the baby in question had to be less than 12 months old. McCaffrey’s youngest was now almost four, so she wrote another letter. “I wrote that I needed some time off—that if I didn’t get it, I’d resign my commission—but I’d rather leave and come back.” McCaffrey adds, “It took a long time to get a response.”
When McCaffrey did receive a response, it was in the form of a question: Were there any “extenuating circumstances” that might help headquarters approve her request—“health issues or special needs, perhaps?” McCaffrey said, “No, I’m sorry. My children are perfectly healthy. I just want to spend time with them.”
Shortly thereafter McCaffrey received a call from her detailer, Brice-O’Hara, who encouraged her to stand her ground.12 According to McCaffrey, Brice-O’Hara said, “The Coast Guard needs to find a way to approve this.” And it did, but only after the CNC program was expanded based on the recommendations of a 1992 follow-on study called the Family Support Programs Study, also known as the Work Life Study.
Before 1992, the term “Work Life” was nonexistent. There was no counseling provided for life issues such as stress, financial problems, or mental health. No holistic substance abuse prevention program existed, and the “performance-oriented culture. . . resulted in an imbalance. . . toward accomplishing the missions. . . [rather than] taking adequate care of [its people].”13 Survey results of 1991 indicated that roughly 30 percent of all Coast Guard members rated their quality of life below that of the national average.14 The new commandant, Admiral J. William Kime, was aware of this imbalance and chartered the Family Support Programs Study, creating 15 full-time officer and enlisted billets for this endeavor. Patton earned one of these billets. Over the course of two years, Patton and his teammates surveyed 5,400 members and dependents and also visited major corporations to evaluate civilian programs.15 When the study was completed in January 1992, it offered 180 specific recommendations for improving the quality of life for both individual members and the Coast Guard family at large; Kime mandated his fleet implement each one.
McCaffrey was a lieutenant commander with 12 years of service when she left the Coast Guard to take advantage of the CNC program. And she was reinstated at the same rank and years of service when she returned two years later in 1994. The program gave her space to volunteer in her community of Kempsville, Virginia, where she created the girls’ basketball and fast-pitch softball leagues. McCaffrey admits the program gave her a special appreciation for one-salary Coast Guard families, for her work, and being paid for her work.
“It’s a beautiful program,” says McCaffrey, “except for the promotion problem.” Those who separate from service have a noticeable gap in their evaluations, which can affect individual advancement. For McCaffrey, however, “the timing was right” because she separated from service just as she pinned on lieutenant commander, which allowed her to have several evaluations at that rank on file for her promotion board to review. Timing of separation continues to be important today.
Because of disparate recording systems, it is unclear exactly how many Coast Guardsmen have taken advantage of the CNC program and returned to service since 1991. The program transformed into the Temporary Separation Program in 2003, giving men the opportunity to leave the service, and return, as well. Accessible data shows that, 2009 and ’13, 136 officers separated from the service and 19 returned. While that figure seems low, it represents a 14 percent return on investment.16
Since 1990, the number of women in the Coast Guard has nearly doubled (2016 data shows the active-duty force was 14.8 percent women).17 The program has had success: in 2009, McCaffrey retired as a captain after serving 27 years. And what of those risk takers in personnel management, who recommended the CNC policy? They, too, were successful. Ken Hollemon served 30 years, Dr. Sandra Carey, 23, and both retired as captains. Jody Breckenridge became a vice admiral and served as commander of Coast Guard Pacific Area; Vince Patton earned his doctorate and in 1998 became the eighth Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard; Vice Admiral Sally Brice-O’Hara became the service’s 27th vice commandant in 2010. Each took necessary, innovative risks in personnel management to attract and retain a high-quality, diverse Coast Guard workforce. Collectively, their work created an organizational culture that, today, greatly values individuals and looks after their needs.
As the other military services and corporate America explore avenues to retain women, perhaps they should review this 27-year-old Coast Guard initiative that continues to support the service’s guiding principal: “Duty to People.”
1. Only two women were senior officers (O-5) in 1989. Report on the Study of Women in the Coast Guard, Commandant Publications P5312.7 (1990).
2. Ibid.
3. Phone interview with Dr. Sandra H. Carey, U.S. Navy (Ret.), 12 July 2016.
4. Phone interview with Captain Ken Hollemon, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret.), 11 July 2016.
5. Report on the Study of Women in the Coast Guard, Commandant Publications P5312.7 (1990) 8-17.
6. Ibid., 8-18.
7. Ibid., 8-17.
8. Phone interview with Dr. Sandra Carey, USCG (Ret.).
9. Captain K. C. Hollemon, “Risk-taking and the “F” Word,” Coast Guard Alumni Bulletin, June/July 1990
10. Ibid., 11 Jul 2016.
11. Coast Guard Weight Standards Policy, Commandant Instructions 1010.8B.
12. Brice-O’Hara was the first female assignment officer.
13. Work Life Study Report of June 1992, 1.16.
14. Ibid., 2.29.
15. Work Life Implementation Plan and Study Executive Report, June 1992.
16. Five-Year Data of Officer Temp Seps provided by Lieutenant Maggie Ward.
17. End of Fiscal Year 16 Data provided by Lieutenant Maggie Ward.
Lieutenant Commander Millard is a 2003 graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. She has eight years of sea duty acquired on board three cutters and served at Afloat Training Group, Atlantic. She currently is executive officer on the USCG cutter Eagle.