DoD and Army Consider Move to Privatize Army Barracks
The Army and the Department of Defense are considering a move to expand the number of privatized single-soldier housing units, informally known as barracks. Army officials have toyed with this idea since the 1990s and the most current version of the concept is being developed as a pilot program to see whether single soldiers should live in privatized barracks across the United States.
But given the track record of the DoD’s efforts to privatize military family housing (see below) is this move a good idea?
In 2024, the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) published an article about the DoD and the Army’s hopes to privatize single soldier housing, which includes the following:
“The Army recently announced a plan to construct 500 rooms for privatized junior enlisted barracks. Junior enlisted servicemembers face quality-of-life challenges brought on by $137 billion in deferred installation maintenance; Congress and DoD cannot correct 20 years of deferred installation maintenance overnight, and they see privatization as a shortcut to address this expensive and extensive problem.”
Army bases have had their barracks in the news for many years due to maintenance issues, unhealthy living conditions, rodent infestation, and fire hazards. Some Army single soldier living conditions also included inadequate plumbing, flooding, air conditioning, and a lack of official response to such problems.
There’s no easy fix to the military housing problem, but some argue that asking the DoD’s most junior troops to put up with low pay and inadequate housing is too much. Will turning over single soldier housing to a private company solve the issue?
>Never miss a military benefits update.
A Fully Funded Federal Government is Needed
In the absence of a fully funded government operating only under the funds provided under a Continuing Resolution (at press time,) federal funds cannot be allocated for new construction projects, including military housing.
A Congress that cannot or refuses to pass a full-year federal budget means new housing projects will not be funded until a proper federal budget is passed. This situation arrived at press time after multiple administrations failed to deal with it. Responsibility for this lies on both sides of the aisle.
Military.com reports that, in addition to a lack of urgency from the House and Senate, the Army’s single soldier housing system is generally “deeply underfunded.” Noting, “despite a roughly $2 billion annual budget for barracks maintenance and construction, the service faces a growing backlog of necessary repairs estimated at $7.5 billion. That figure continues to climb, exacerbated by inflation and years of deferred maintenance.”
Privatized Single-Soldier Housing?
At press time, a pilot project for privatized barracks is ongoing at Fort Irwin. However, some doubt the project’s ability to bring real results.
Why? The company responsible for that project, the Michaels Organization, also manages housing at Army bases. Military.com reported that in 2023, that same company “required military families to sign nondisclosure agreements as part of a settlement involving dangerous living conditions, including pest infestations and pervasive mold.”
Some feel that lack of transparency could interfere with military housing reform, and that it’s a poor way to begin a series of reforms.
How Bad Can Military Housing Get?
One military housing news story reported by WOKV, Jacksonville, Florida, mentioned a soldier stationed at Fort Belvoir in Virginia who had housing issues starting in 2018. “The health concerns for my family had become so severe that we ended up moving my family from the home that we were living in to a hotel...”
Privatization may be attractive to some in the federal government because it would result in what is perceived as long-term cost savings, as the financial burden of maintenance and repairs for military housing would be transferred to the private sector.
But can privatized military housing providers be trusted? Several scandals illustrate the potential dangers of expanding privatization. Substandard living conditions can negatively affect morale, well-being, and readiness, so privatization must lead to improvements, not further deterioration.
- Balfour Beatty Communities pleaded guilty to fraud. This private housing company, which manages a large number of military family homes, was found to have ignored maintenance requests, including those concerning mold and other hazardous conditions, and was ordered to pay over $65 million in fines. Balfour Beatty was sued in 2025 for further complaints.
- Reports of mold infestations are a recurring problem in privatized military housing across multiple Army bases. These infestations have led to health issues for service members and their families and have been the subject of numerous complaints and lawsuits.
- Privatized military housing has been plagued by a range of other issues, including pest infestations, sewage backups, and faulty wiring.
- These conditions have raised concerns about the adequacy of oversight and accountability in privatized housing arrangements.
As mentioned above, some private housing companies have required military families to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of settlements involving dangerous living conditions. This practice raises concerns about transparency and worries that service members may lose the ability to advocate for their right to safe housing.
Additional concerns include potential cost increases for soldiers, particularly if they must use their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to live in privatized barracks, and the need for clear lines of accountability in case of problems with privatized barracks. The long-term costs of privatization, including lease agreements and potential cost overruns, also need careful evaluation.
Finally, there is a concern that privatized barracks could negatively affect unit cohesion, as soldiers might be less likely to bond if living in more private, apartment-style settings. Housing is a major military quality of life issue. Given the above information, should military housing be entrusted to a for-profit entity?
>Never miss a military benefits update.
About the author
Editor-in-Chief Joe Wallace is a 13-year veteran of the United States Air Force and a former reporter/editor for Air Force Television News and the Pentagon Channel. His freelance work includes contract work for Motorola, VALoans.com, and Credit Karma. He is co-founder of Dim Art House in Springfield, Illinois, and spends his non-writing time as an abstract painter, independent publisher, and occasional filmmaker.
