United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on National 

Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Actions Needed to 

Strengthen Implementation 

and Oversight of DOD’s and 

the Coast Guard's Sexual 

Assault Prevention and 

Response Programs 

Statement of Brenda S. Farrell, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

 

GAO-08-1146T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 10, 2008

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Actions Needed to Strengthen Implementation and 

Oversight of DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual 

Highlights of GAO-08-1146T, a testimony Assault Prevention and Response Programs

before the Subcommittee on National 

Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

In 2004, Congress directed the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to

establish a comprehensive policy to 

prevent and respond to sexual 

assaults involving servicemembers.

Though not required to do so, the 

Coast Guard has established a 

similar policy. This statement 

addresses implementation and

oversight of DOD’s and the Coast

Guard’s programs to prevent and 

respond to sexual assault incidents. 

Specifically, it addresses the extent 

to which DOD and the Coast Guard 

(1) have developed and 

implemented policies and 

procedures to prevent, respond to, 

and resolve reported sexual assault 

incidents; (2) have visibility over

reports of sexual assault in the 

military; and (3) exercise oversight 

over reports of sexual assault

involving servicemembers. This 

statement draws on GAO’s report 

on DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s

Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response programs issued on 

August 29, 2008 (GAO-08-924). For 

this work, GAO reviewed

legislative requirements and DOD

and Coast Guard guidance,

analyzed sexual assault incident

data, and obtained through surveys 

and interviews the perspective of 

more than 3,900 servicemembers

on sexual assault matters.

GAO made 11 recommendations to

improve implementation of DOD’s

and the Coast Guard’s programs. 

These include, for example,

reviewing and evaluating guidance

and training, and improving

oversight of the programs. DOD 

and the Coast Guard concurred 

with the recommendations. 

DOD and the Coast Guard have established policies and programs to prevent, 

respond to, and resolve reported sexual assault incidents involving 

servicemembers; however, implementation of the programs is hindered by 

several factors. GAO found that (1) DOD’s guidance may not adequately 

address some important issues, such as how to implement the program in 

deployed and joint environments; (2) most, but not all commanders support 

the programs; (3) required sexual assault prevention and response training is 

not consistently effective; and (4) factors such as a DOD-reported shortage of 

mental health care providers affect whether servicemembers who are victims

of sexual assault can or do access mental health services. Left unchecked,

these challenges can discourage or prevent some servicemembers from using 

the programs when needed. 

GAO found, based on responses to its nongeneralizable survey administered 

to 3,750 servicemembers and a 2006 DOD survey, the most recent available, 

that occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being reported, 

suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only limited visibility over the 

incidence of these occurrences. At the 14 installations where GAO 

administered its survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that they had been 

sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of these, 52

servicemembers indicated that they did not report the sexual assault. GAO 

also found that factors that discourage servicemembers from reporting a 

sexual assault include the belief that nothing would be done; fear of 

ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip. 

There were also concerns that reporting an incident would negatively affect 

their careers or unit morale and that a report made using the restricted 

reporting option would not remain confidential. 

Although DOD and the Coast Guard have established some mechanisms for 

overseeing reports of sexual assault, neither has developed an oversight 

framework—including clear objectives, milestones, performance measures,

and criteria for measuring progress—to guide their efforts. GAO’s prior work 

has demonstrated the importance of outcome-oriented performance measures 

to successful program oversight, and that an effective plan for implementing

initiatives and measuring progress can help decision makers determine 

whether initiatives are achieving desired results. DOD provides information 

on reports of alleged sexual assaults annually to Congress. However, DOD’s 

report does not include some data that would aid congressional oversight, 

such as why some sexual assaults could not be substantiated following an 

investigation. Further, the military services have not provided data that would 

facilitate oversight and enable DOD to conduct trend analyses. While the 

Coast Guard voluntarily provides data to DOD for inclusion in its report, this 

information is not provided to Congress because there is no requirement to do 

so. Without an oversight framework, as well as more complete data, decision 

makers in DOD, the Coast Guard, and Congress lack information they need to

evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-1146T. 

For more information, contact Brenda S. 

Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today for this follow-up hearing 

to discuss issues related to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) and the 

Coast Guard’s programs to prevent, respond to, and resolve reported 

incidents of sexual assault. Sexual assault is a crime that contradicts the 

core values that DOD, the military services,1

 and the Coast Guard expect

servicemembers to follow, such as treating their fellow members with 

dignity and respect. Recognizing this, in 2004 Congress directed the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy for DOD on the 

prevention of and response to sexual assaults involving servicemembers, 

including an option that would enable servicemembers to confidentially 

disclose an incident of sexual assault. Since 2005, active duty 

servicemembers have had two options for reporting an alleged sexual 

assault: (1) restricted, which allows victims of sexual assault to disclose a 

sexual assault incident to specific individuals and receive medical care 

and other victim advocacy services without initiating a criminal 

investigation, and (2) unrestricted, which entails notification of the chain 

of command and may trigger a criminal investigation. Although these 

requirements do not apply to the Coast Guard, which is overseen by the 

Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard has adopted similar 

reporting options. 

Mr. Chairman, you have recognized the need to shed light on this 

important issue. Specifically, you and the Ranking Member asked GAO to 

examine sexual assault prevention and response programs at the military 

academies as well as at military installations within DOD and the Coast 

Guard and during deployments. In response, we issued a report in January 

2008 that reviewed programs to address sexual assault and sexual 

harassment at the military and Coast Guard academies.2

 Also, on July 31, 

2008, we testified before the subcommittee on our preliminary 

observations on DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s Sexual Assault Prevention

 1

For purposes of this testimony, we use “military services” to refer collectively to the Army, 

the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. While the Coast Guard is a military service, 

it generally falls under the control of the Department of Homeland Security and not the

Department of Defense. Therefore, we address the Coast Guard separately from the other 

military services. 

2

GAO, Military Personnel: The DOD and Coast Guard Academies Have Taken Steps to

Address Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault, but Greater Federal Oversight Is

Needed, GAO-08-296 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2008).

Page 1 GAO-08-1146T 
and Response Programs.3

 Further, on August 29, 2008, we issued a 

comprehensive report that expanded upon the preliminary observations 

we discussed during the July hearing that examines implementation and 

oversight of sexual assault prevention and response programs for the 

active duty servicemembers in DOD and the Coast Guard, including during 

deployments.4

My testimony today summarizes the findings and recommendations of our 

comprehensive August 2008 report. Specifically, in my remarks today I will 

discuss the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard 

• have developed and implemented policies and programs to prevent, 

respond to, and resolve sexual assault incidents involving 

servicemembers; 

• have visibility over reports of sexual assault involving servicemembers; 

and 

• exercise oversight over reports of sexual assault involving

servicemembers. 

To conduct our work, we reviewed legislative requirements; reviewed 

DOD’s, the military services’, and the Coast Guard’s guidance and 

requirements for the prevention of, response to, and resolution of sexual

assault; analyzed sexual assault incident data; and visited 15 military 

installations in the United States and overseas to assess implementation of 

the programs. At the installations we visited, we met with sexual assault 

prevention and response program coordinators; victim advocates; judge 

advocates; medical and mental health personnel; criminal investigative 

personnel; law enforcement personnel; chaplains; various military 

commanders, including company and field grade officers; and senior 

enlisted servicemembers. We also obtained the perspective of more than 

3,900 servicemembers by administering a total of 3,750 confidential 

surveys to a nonprobability sample of randomly selected servicemembers 

and conducting more than 150 one-on-one, structured interviews with 

randomly selected servicemembers at 14 of the 15 installations we visited. 

Our survey is the first since 2006 to obtain the perspectives of selected 

 3

GAO, Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations on DOD’s and Coast Guard’s 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs, GAO-08-1013T (Washington, D.C.: 

July 31, 2008). 

4

GAO, Military Personnel: DOD’s and Coast Guard’s Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Programs Face Implementations and Oversight Challenges, GAO-08-924 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2008). 

Page 2 GAO-08-1146T 
servicemembers in each military service and the Coast Guard on sexual 

assault issues, and the first to assess sexual assault issues in the Coast 

Guard since the restricted reporting option became available in December 

2007. Because we did not select survey and interview participants using a 

statistically representative sampling method, our survey results and the 

comments provided during our interview sessions are nongeneralizable 

and therefore cannot be projected across DOD, a service, or any single 

installation we visited. However, the survey results and comments provide 

insight into the command climate and implementation of sexual assault 

prevention and response programs at each location at the time of our visit.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 through August 2008 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

DOD has taken steps, in response to congressional direction, to develop

and implement policies and programs to prevent, respond to, and resolve 

reported sexual assault incidents, and the Coast Guard has taken similar 

steps on its own initiative. However, we found that DOD’s guidance may 

not adequately address some important issues, such as how to implement 

the program in deployed and joint environments. We also found that 

implementation is hindered by (1) the lack of support from some 

commanders, (2) training that is not consistently effective, and (3) 

limitations on access to mental health services. Further, based on 

responses to our survey and a 2006 DOD survey, we found that 

occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being reported,

suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only limited visibility over 

the incidence of these occurrences. DOD and the military services provide 

information on reports of alleged sexual assaults annually to Congress in 

accordance with statutory requirements. However, DOD’s report does not 

include some data that would aid congressional oversight, such as why 

some sexual assaults could not be substantiated following an 

investigation. Further, while the Coast Guard voluntarily provides data to

DOD for inclusion in its report, this information is not provided to 

Congress because there is no requirement to do so. Importantly, we also 

found that while DOD and the Coast Guard have established some 

mechanisms for overseeing reports of sexual assaults involving 

servicemembers, both lack an oversight framework—including clear 

Summary 

Page 3 GAO-08-1146T 
objectives, milestones, performance measures, and criteria for measuring 

progress—to guide their efforts. DOD also lacks key information needed

to evaluate the effectiveness of the department’s sexual assault prevention

and response program. GAO made 11 recommendations to improve 

implementation of DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s programs. These include, 

for example, reviewing and evaluating guidance and training, and 

improving oversight of the programs. DOD and the Coast Guard concurred 

with the recommendations. 

Implementation of Sexual 

Assault Prevention and 

Response Programs Is 

Hindered by a Number of 

Factors 

DOD has taken positive steps to respond to congressional direction by 

developing and implementing policies and a program to prevent, respond 

to, and resolve reported sexual assault incidents involving 

servicemembers, and the Coast Guard has on its own initiative taken 

similar steps. However, DOD’s guidance may not adequately address some 

important issues, and implementation of the program is hindered by 

several factors. To their credit, DOD and the Coast Guard have issued 

guidance for preventing and responding to reports of sexual assault and 

have established offices to oversee sexual assault matters.5

 The military 

services and the Coast Guard have also established and staffed key 

positions to manage programs at installations and require servicemembers 

to receive periodic training on their respective sexual assault prevention 

and response programs. However, DOD’s guidance may not adequately 

address some important issues, such as how to implement the program 

when operating in deployed or joint environments. Program officials we 

met with overseas told us that DOD’s guidance does not sufficiently take 

into account the realities of operating in a deployed environment, in which 

unique living and social circumstances can heighten the risks for sexual 

assault and program resources are more widely dispersed than they are in 

the United States, which can make responding to a sexual assault 

challenging. For example, at one installation we found no criminal 

investigative presence, and program officials told us that it can take 48

hours or longer for the criminal investigative organization with jurisdiction 

to respond to some sexual assaults. Further, we identified a number of 

factors that hinder implementation of the programs, including the 

following. 

 5

Department of Defense Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

(SAPR) Program (Oct. 6, 2005), Department of Defense Instruction 6495.02, Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures (June 23, 2006), and Commandant 

Instruction 1754.10C, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program (SAPRP) (Dec. 

20, 2007). 

Page 4 GAO-08-1146T 
At the installations we visited, we generally found that commanders—that 

is, company and field grade officers6

—had taken actions to address 

incidents of sexual assault and were generally supportive of sexual assault 

prevention and response programs. However, at some of these 

installations we found evidence that not all commanders supported the 

program. Further, we found that implementation of the programs may be 

hindered at some installations where key program coordinator positions 

are a collateral duty. DOD’s guidance calls for commanders and other 

leaders to advocate a strong sexual assault prevention and response 

program, and the Coast Guard’s guidance similarly calls for commanders 

and other leaders to ensure compliance with Coast Guard policies and 

procedures. At the installations we visited, commanders told us that they 

set a zero tolerance policy for incidents of sexual assault, communicated 

the respective policies at command briefings, understood their roles and 

responsibilities in supporting the programs, and understood the need to 

protect victims. The results of our nongeneralizable survey supported 

these statements; at the 14 installations where we administered our 

survey, the percentage of servicemembers who indicated that they thought 

their direct supervisor (military or civilian) would address sexual assault, 

should it occur at their current location, ranged from 91 to 98 percent.

However, we also found evidence that some commanders did not support 

the programs. For example, at 3 of the installations we visited program 

officials told us of meeting with resistance from commanders when 

attempting to advertise, in barracks and work areas, the programs or the 

options for reporting a sexual assault. Also, some program officials told us 

that commanders do not support the programs because they do not 

understand them or do not consider sexual assault matters to be a priority 

in the military. Program officials also told us that they lacked the 

resources to promote the programs and raise servicemembers’ awareness 

of sexual assault matters. Further, some key program coordinators, such 

as Sexual Assault Response Coordinators or Employee Assistance 

Program Coordinators, lack the time and resources to devote to the 

programs. Neither DOD nor the Coast Guard has performed a systematic 

analysis to evaluate their processes for staffing key program coordinator 

positions, and thus both are hindered in their ability to ensure that key 

installation-level program officials can effectively perform their duties in 

implementing the programs. 

While Most Commanders 

Support the Programs, Some 

Do Not 

 6

Company grade officers encompass the ranks of O1-O3 and field grade officers encompass 

the ranks of O4-O6. 

Page 5 GAO-08-1146T 
Although DOD and the Coast Guard require that all servicemembers 

receive periodic training on their respective sexual assault prevention and 

response programs, our survey, interviews, and discussions with 

servicemembers and program officials revealed that most but not all 

servicemembers are receiving the required training, and that some who 

have received it still would not know or were not sure how to report a 

sexual assault using the restricted reporting option. We also found that 

neither DOD nor the Coast Guard has systematically evaluated the 

effectiveness of the training provided to date. Some servicemembers told 

us that the training they received was not engaging and, therefore, they did

not pay attention, and others said that servicemembers do not always take

the training seriously. For example, while the majority of respondents to 

our survey indicated that they had received required sexual assault 

prevention and response training and would know how to report a sexual 

assault using the restricted reporting option, as table 1 shows, the 

percentage of servicemembers we surveyed who indicated that they would 

not know or were not sure of how to report a sexual assault using the 

restricted reporting option, despite having received the training ranged

from 13 to 43 percent at the seven installations we surveyed in the United

States and from 13 to 28 percent at the seven installations where we 

administered the survey overseas. 

Training Is Not Consistently 

Effective 

Page 6 GAO-08-1146T 
Table 1: Percentage of Selected Servicemembers Who Reported Receiving Required Sexual Assault Prevention and

Response Training and Also Reported They Would Not Know or Were Not Sure of How to Report a Sexual Assault Using the 

Restricted Reporting Option 

Installation 

Percentage of selected servicemembers 

who reported having received required 

training and also reported that they 

would know how to report a sexual 

assault using the restricted reporting

option

Percentage of selected

servicemembers who reported having 

received required training and also

reported that they would not know or

were not sure how to report a sexual 

assault using the restricted reporting

option

United States Percentage Percentage

Camp Lejeune 68 32

Fort Bliss 81 19

Fort Drum 84 16

Integrated Support Command Portsmoutha60 40

Lackland Air Force Base 87 13

Marine Corps Base Quantico 57 43

Naval Station Norfolk 78 22

Overseas 

Al Udeid Air Base 85 15

Balad Air Base 82 18

Camp Arifjan 83 17

Camp Ramadi 87 13

Camp Stryker 72 28

Logistics Support Area Anaconda 82 18

Naval Support Activity Bahrainb78 22

Source: GAO.

a

Includes servicemembers from Yorktown Training Center, Virginia.

b

Includes Coast Guard members under the operational command of U.S. Central Command. 

Servicemembers who have not received the required training or who have

received training that is not effective may not know how to mitigate the 

possibility of being sexually assaulted or how to seek assistance if needed, 

and they are at risk for not knowing how to report an assault in a way that 

does not limit their option to seek treatment while maintaining 

confidentiality. 

DOD and the Coast Guard require that sexual assault victims be made 

aware of available mental health services, and in 2007, DOD’s Mental 

Health Task Force recommended that DOD take action to address factors 

that may prevent some servicemembers from seeking mental health care. 

Access to Mental Health 

Services May Be Limited 

Page 7 GAO-08-1146T 
However, we found that several factors—including a DOD-reported 

shortage of mental health care providers, the logistical challenges of 

operating overseas or in geographically remote locations, and 

servicemembers’ perceptions of a stigma associated with mental health

care—can affect whether servicemembers who are victims of sexual 

assault can or do access mental health services. Further, we could find no

indication that either DOD or the Coast Guard has performed an analysis 

to aid in addressing barriers to mental health care specifically for victims 

of sexual assault. To their credit, DOD and the Coast Guard screen 

servicemembers for mental health concerns, such as post-traumatic stress 

disorder, which can afflict victims of sexual assault. Officials at some of 

the installations we visited told us that one barrier to ensuring that victims 

of sexual assault receive mental health care if they desire it is the lack of 

adequate resources and staff at some installations. Some mental health

care officials we spoke with overseas said that the shortage of providers 

can make it even more difficult for servicemembers to seek mental health

care, for any reason, in overseas locations or geographically remote 

locations in the United States. However, we did find that the military 

services were taking steps to address this challenge. For example, DOD 

has established a memorandum of understanding with the Public Health 

Service to enable its uniformed providers to work in military treatment 

facilities. Perceptions of stigma may also discourage servicemembers from 

seeking mental health care following a sexual assault, but DOD recently 

took steps that may encourage servicemembers to do so by successfully 

advocating a revision to Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National 

Security Positions.7

 Under the revision, applicants no longer need to 

disclose certain noncourt-ordered mental health care treatment received 

in the preceding 7 years if it was (1) strictly marital, family, or grief 

related, as long as it was not related to violence committed by the 

servicemember, or (2) strictly related to adjustments following service in a 

military combat environment. Further, in an April 2008 memorandum from

the Secretary of Defense, DOD noted that professional care for mental 

health issues should not be perceived as jeopardizing an individual’s 

security clearance.8

 However, officials with DOD’s Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office told us that it is unclear whether these 

 7

Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, is a governmentwide 

form applicable not only to DOD servicemembers and civilians who occupy sensitive 

positions but to individuals who occupy sensitive positions across the federal government. 

8

Secretary of Defense Memorandum, “Policy Implementation—Mental Health Question, 

Standard Form (86), Questionnaire for National Security Positions” (Apr. 18, 2008).

Page 8 GAO-08-1146T 
steps will encourage servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault to

seek mental health care and whether the revisions apply to 

servicemembers who have been sexually assaulted and seek mental health

care. 

Survey Data Suggest That 

Occurrences of Sexual 

Assault May Exceed Rates 

Reported 

We found, based on responses to our nongeneralizable survey 

administered to 3,750 servicemembers and a 2006 DOD survey, the most 

recent available, that occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the 

rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only 

limited visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. We recognize 

that the precise number of sexual assaults involving servicemembers is not 

possible to determine, and that studies suggest that sexual assaults are 

generally underreported in the United States. Nonetheless, our findings 

indicate that some servicemembers may choose not to report sexual 

assault incidents for a variety of reasons. In fiscal year 2007, DOD received 

2,688 reports of alleged sexual assault, brought with either the restricted

or unrestricted reporting option, involving servicemembers as either the 

alleged offenders or victims. The Coast Guard, which did not offer the 

restricted reporting option during fiscal year 2007, received 72 reports of 

alleged sexual assault brought with the unrestricted reporting option 

during that time period. However, servicemembers told us that they were

aware of alleged sexual assault incidents involving other servicemembers 

that were not reported to program officials, and a 2006 Defense Manpower 

Data Center survey found that of the estimated 6.8 percent of women and 

1.8 percent of men who experienced unwanted sexual contact9

 during the 

prior 12 months, the majority chose not to report it. At the 14 installations 

where we administered our survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that 

they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months.10 Of 

these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not report the sexual 

assault. Notably, respondents to our survey revealed a number of reasons 

that discouraged servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault incident. 

Commonly cited reasons by survey respondents at the installations we 

visited included (1) the belief that nothing would be done; (2) fear of 

 9

The 2006 Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members defines unwanted sexual 

contact to include rape, nonconsensual sodomy (oral or anal sex),or indecent assault 

(unwanted, inappropriate sexual contact or fondling) that can occur regardless of gender,

age, or spousal relationship. 

10Of these 103 servicemembers, 85 were female, 14 were male, and 4 did not indicate a 

gender on the survey. 

Page 9 GAO-08-1146T 
ostracism, harassment, or ridicule by peers; and (3) the belief that their 

peers would gossip about the incident. There were also concerns that 

reporting an incident would negatively affect their careers or unit morale 

and that a report made using the restricted reporting option would not 

remain confidential. 

While DOD and the Coast 

Guard Have Established 

Some Mechanisms for 

Oversight, They Lack an 

Oversight Framework 

While DOD and the Coast Guard have established some mechanisms for 

overseeing reports of sexual assaults involving servicemembers, both lack

an oversight framework, and DOD lacks key information needed to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the department’s sexual assault prevention 

and response program. DOD’s instruction charges the Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office (within the Office of the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense for Plans) with identifying and managing trends and

establishing program evaluation, quality improvement, and oversight 

mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of the sexual response 

prevention and response program. Our prior work has demonstrated the 

importance of outcome-oriented performance measures to successful 

program oversight, and that an effective plan for implementing initiatives 

and measuring progress can help decision makers determine whether 

initiatives are achieving their desired results.11 However, neither DOD nor 

the Coast Guard has developed an oversight framework that includes clear

objectives, milestones, performance measures, or criteria for measuring 

progress. While DOD and the military services provide information on 

reports of alleged sexual assaults annually to Congress in accordance with 

statutory requirements, its report does not include some data that would 

aid congressional oversight, such as why some sexual assaults could not 

be substantiated following an investigation. Further, because some of the 

data collection elements are not clear, some data included in DOD’s 

annual reports to Congress are open to misinterpretation and may not 

provide the information needed to facilitate congressional oversight or 

understanding of victims’ use of the reporting options. In addition, the 

military services are not providing DOD with installation- and case-specific 

data beyond those statutorily required for inclusion in the department’s 

annual report. Without such data, DOD lacks the means to fully execute its 

oversight role. Congress also lacks visibility over extent to which sexual 

assaults involving Coast Guard members occur. While the Coast Guard 

voluntarily provides the data to DOD for inclusion in its report, this 

 11GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

Page 10 GAO-08-1146T 
information is not provided to Congress because there is no requirement 

to do so. To provide oversight of DOD’s program, in 2004 Congress 

directed the Secretary of Defense to establish the Defense Task Force on 

Sexual Assault in the Military Services to undertake an examination of 

matters relating to sexual assault in which members of the Armed Forces 

are either victims or offenders. Although DOD considers the task force’s 

work to be an important oversight element, the task force only began its 

review in August 2008. Without an oversight framework, as well as more 

complete data, decision makers in DOD, the Coast Guard, and Congress 

lack information they need to evaluate and oversee the programs. 

Recommendations from 

Our August 2008 Report 

In our recently issued report, we suggested that Congress may wish to 

improve oversight of sexual assault incidents in the Coast Guard by 

requiring the Coast Guard to annually submit to Congress sexual assault 

incident and program data that are methodologically comparable to those 

required of DOD. We also made a number of recommendations to improve 

implementation of sexual assault prevention and response programs and 

improve oversight of the programs in DOD and the Coast Guard. With 

regard to DOD, to improve program implementation we recommended 

that the agency review and evaluate its guidance for the prevention of and 

response to sexual assault, to ensure that adequate guidance is provided to

effectively implement the program in deployed environments and joint 

environments; evaluate its processes for staffing and designating key 

installation-level program positions, to ensure that these individuals have

the ability and resources to fully carry out their responsibilities; review 

and evaluate its training, to ensure that the military services are meeting 

requirements and to enhance training effectiveness; systematically 

evaluate any factors that may prevent or discourage servicemembers from 

accessing mental health services following a sexual assault; and emphasize 

to all levels of command their responsibility for supporting the program, 

and review the extent to which resources are available to raise 

servicemembers’ awareness of sexual assault matters. To enhance 

program oversight, we recommended that DOD develop an oversight 

framework to guide continued program implementation and evaluate

program effectiveness; take specific steps to improve the usefulness of its 

annual report to Congress as an oversight tool; direct the service 

secretaries to provide installation-level incident data to the Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office; and direct the Defense Task Force on 

Sexual Assault in the Military Services to begin its examination 

immediately, now that all members of the task force are appointed. With 

regard to the Coast Guard, we recommended that it evaluate its processes 

for staffing key installation-level program positions, to ensure that these 

Page 11 GAO-08-1146T 
individuals have the ability and resources to fully carry out their 

responsibilities, and that it develop an oversight framework to guide 

continued program implementation and evaluate program effectiveness. In 

written comments on a draft of our report, both DOD and the Coast Guard 

concurred with all of our recommendations. 

In closing, we want to recognize that DOD and the Coast Guard have taken 

positive steps to prevent, respond to, and resolve reported incidents of 

sexual assault. However, a number of challenges—such as limited 

guidance for implementing DOD’s policies in certain environments; limited 

support from some commanders, and limited resources for the programs; 

training that is not consistently effective; limited access to mental health 

services; and the lack of an oversight framework—could undermine the 

effectiveness of their efforts. Left unchecked, these challenges could 

undermine DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s efforts by eroding 

servicemembers’ confidence in the programs and thus decreasing the 

likelihood that sexual assault victims will turn to the programs for help 

when needed, and by limiting the ability of DOD and the Coast Guard to 

evaluate the overall successes, challenges, and lessons learned from their 

programs. 

Concluding Observations 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 

prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may

have at this time. 

Page 12 GAO-08-1146T 
Page 13 GAO-08-1146T 

Contacts and Acknowledgments 

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this testimony, please 

contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Key contributors to this 

statement include Marilyn K. Wasleski, Assistant Director; Joanna Chan;

Pawnee A. Davis; K. Nicole Harms; Wesley A. Johnson; Ronald La Due 

Lake; Amanda K. Miller; and Cheryl A. Weissman. 

(351270) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER