U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

52–186 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–17] 

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: 

PREVENTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 6, 2009 
(II) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

DAVID KILDEE, Professional Staff Member 

JEANETTE JAMES, Professional Staff Member 

ROSELLEN KIM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Friday, March 6, 2009, Sexual Assault in the Military: Prevention ................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Friday, March 6, 2009 ............................................................................................. 41 

FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2009 

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: PREVENTION 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee ............................................................................. 1 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking Member, 

Military Personnel Subcommittee ...................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Bradley, Charlene M., Assistant Deputy for Force Management Integration, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs), United States Air Force ........................................................................ 8 

Bruneau, Raymond N., Manager, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Program, United States Marine Corps ............................................................... 7 

Collins, Carolyn R., Program Manager, Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program, United States Army ..................... 4 

Foubert, Dr. John D., Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, College 

Student Development Master’s Program, Oklahoma State University ........... 28 

Lee, David S., MPH, Director of Prevention Services, California Coalition 

Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA) .................................................................. 30 

Robertson, Katherine, LCSW, Deputy Manager, Counseling, Advocacy and 

Prevention Program, Commander, Navy Installation Command, United 

States Navy .......................................................................................................... 6 

Whitley, Dr. Kaye, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office 

(SAPRO), Department of Defense ....................................................................... 26 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bradley, Charlene M. ....................................................................................... 81 

Bruneau, Raymond N. ...................................................................................... 69 

Collins, Carolyn R. ........................................................................................... 50 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 45 

Foubert, Dr. John D. ........................................................................................ 115 

Lee, David S. ..................................................................................................... 123 

Robertson, Katherine ....................................................................................... 60 

Slaughter, Hon. Louise McIntosh, a Representative from New York .......... 48 

Whitley, Dr. Kaye ............................................................................................. 98 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 47 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Shea-Porter ................................................................................................ 132 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 131 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 
(1) 

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: PREVENTION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Friday, March 6, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY 

PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mrs. DAVIS. Good morning. The meeting will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is the second of the series of hearings that our 

subcommittee will hold this year looking at sexual assault in the 

military. 

Sexual assault is a complex problem that does not lend itself to 

a single hearing. And today we continue our examination of sexual 

assault in the military by holding a series of hearings on individual 

subjects so that members and witnesses can have in-depth discussions about various issues to build towards a comprehensive understanding of the problem. This will guide our deliberations on what 

can and should be done next. 

The first hearing in this series looked at victim advocacy and 

support. And we heard from a former service member who had 

been sexually assaulted while in uniform, as well as from an impressive panel of service members whose job it is to assist victims 

following an assault. 

Today’s hearing will look at current and planned Department of 

Defense (DOD) programs to prevent sexual assault. As I think today’s witnesses will demonstrate, the Services have applied a high 

level of commitment, resources and expertise to prevention programs to educate service members and change cultural norms. Now 

we have to see just how effective these programs are at preventing 

assaults. The final hearing in this series, which we will hold later 

in the year, will examine how assaults are prosecuted by the military. This hearing will look at what programs the individual services and the Department as a whole have in place to prevent assaults from ever occurring. 

Prevention programs can take many forms. Some seek to prevent 

potential perpetrators from ever committing a sexual assault. Others, so-called bystander programs, aim to teach people how to spot 

potential sexual assaults so that they can intervene and prevent 

them. There are also programs that educate people on how to avoid 

placing themselves in vulnerable situations. 
2 

We will hear from the Services about what prevention programs 

they have already implemented and what programs they are fielding now and what programs they have on the drawing board. And 

we will then get to hear what overarching guidance the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is providing the Services, as well 

as what outside experts think of all of these programs. We will also 

have the opportunity to hear how the Department of Defense’s programs compare to other prevention programs outside the military. 

Just as we have a responsibility to ensure that victims of sexual 

assault receive all the support that can be provided following an attack, we also have an obligation to do all we can to prevent such 

attacks from ever taking place. 

The Department of Defense has made significant improvements 

in recent years. But the question we need to ask is, has enough 

been done? 

We have with us today each service’s subject matter expert for 

sexual assault prevention. We have Ms. Carolyn Collins, Program 

Manager of the Army Sexual Harassment and Assault Response 

and Prevention (SHARP) Program; Mr. Raymond Bruneau, Manager of the Marine Corps Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Program; Ms. Katherine Robertson, Deputy Manager of the Navy’s 

Counseling, Advocacy and Prevention Program; and from the Air 

Force, Ms. Charlene Bradley, Assistant Deputy for Force Management Integration. 

I want to thank you all for being here. 

Our second panel will include witnesses from the Department of 

Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention Response Office (SAPRO), Dr. 

Kaye Whitley, as well as two outside experts on sexual assault prevention; Dr. John Foubert of Oklahoma State University; and Mr. 

David Lee, Director of Prevention Services for the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA). And I will make more involved introductions before that panel testifies. 

I want to reiterate that the purpose of this hearing is to focuses 

on sexual assault prevention programs. Other issues will, of course, 

come up. But I would like to save in-depth conversations about 

those other subjects for our later hearing so that we can give each 

of the topics the attention and the discussion that they deserve 

today. 

Also joining us, I believe, is Mr. Michael Turner, who is not here 

yet. But I would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to participate in the hearing, as well as another member or two who join 

us today. 

And now to dispense with some administrative business, I would 

ask unanimous consent that all of the witness testimony be entered 

into the record, as well as the written testimony from Ms. Louise 

Slaughter. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Slaughter can be found in the 

Appendix on page 48.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, once again, all of you, for being here 

today. And Mr. Wilson do you have any opening comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 45.] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis. 

Today’s hearing is important because the key to eliminating sexual assault in the military is to prevent it. 

I welcome the members of our two panels, who I believe can provide useful insight into prevention programs. I sincerely appreciate 

the willingness of Dr. John Foubert and Mr. David Lee to join us 

to talk about strategies for combatting sexual assault based on 

their research and programs throughout the United States. I applaud the Department of Defense and the military services for recognizing the importance of prevention and for the steps they have 

taken to improve programs based on preventing this crime. With 

that said, we must not only be assured that the Department of Defense concentrates on programs to prevent sexual assault, but also 

the Department will spare nothing to provide victims of sexual assault with the services they need. We also must know that the Department will aggressively pursue and prosecute perpetrators of 

this heinous crime. 

Today I hope to hear from our witnesses how the Department 

and the military services are implementing the prevention aspect 

of the comprehensive policy for the prevention and response to sexual assaults. Congress mandated this policy through the work of 

this subcommittee in 2005. What policies and programs are working? How do you measure the program success? Where does the 

system fall short? Have you identified areas that need improvement? How can we help as a Member of Congress? 

And, indeed, I am very pleased to see all of the Services represented today. And I know that this, I think, will be a hearing 

which will indicate the extraordinary success and the sincere implementation efforts that you have made. 

It is clear that the Department and the military services have 

recognized the importance of partnering with nationally recognized 

civilian experts to identify best practices and find the right solutions to prevent this devastating crime. I commend the leadership 

for looking outside of their own organizations and for utilizing all 

available resources to protect the health and welfare of our service 

members. Our commitment to help you achieve this goal is unwavering. 

With that, I would like to thank our witnesses for participating 

in the hearing today. I look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 47.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

And I know, with some of the presentations, we are going to see 

some video clips, and presenters will just introduce those as we 

move forward. And of course, as always, we are going to entertain 

a number of questions. 

And so if you can keep your remarks to the four or five minutes 

if you have to, that would be greatly appreciated. The other thing 

I might mention is I believe we are going to have a vote in just 

a few minutes, so we will get started, Ms. Collins, and then we 

may perhaps have a second presentation, and then we will have to 
4 

break and come right back. But I believe it is only one vote at this 

time. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Collins, would you proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN R. COLLINS, PROGRAM MANAGER, 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT RESPONSE AND PREVENTION (SHARP) PROGRAM, UNITED STATES ARMY 

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, distinguished 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today and to discuss the Army’s efforts to combat sexual 

assault. On behalf of the Secretary, the Chief of Staff and Lieutenant General Rochelle, the Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, I am honored 

to be here today to reassure you that the Army considers sexual 

assault a very serious issue and to share with you the aggressive 

actions we are taking to eliminate this crime from our ranks. 

Behavior such as sexual assault violates the very essence of what 

it means to be a soldier. The Secretary and the Chief continue to 

reinforce the fact that American soldiers are members of a band of 

brothers and sisters bound together by common values that set 

them apart from the rest of society. Time and again our soldiers 

display acts of heroism to protect and save the lives of their fellow 

soldiers. Such acts are not uncommon, and they are expected of our 

soldiers when protecting their battle buddies both on and off the 

battlefield. 

It is within this context that we consider the crime of sexual assault to be incongruent with the Army’s core values. We believe it 

is the duty of every soldier to intervene and stop incidents before 

they occur. Soldiers who fail to intervene and protect their fellow 

soldier from harassment or the risk of sexual assault have forsaken 

the warrior ethos to never leave a fallen comrade. 

The Army’s goal remains unchanged: To eliminate sexual assault 

and harassment by creating a climate where the inappropriate behavior is not accepted. Creating and maintaining such a climate is 

the responsibility of every leader at every level throughout the 

Army. 

With the Secretary and Chief personally providing leadership 

support and guidance, we launched a comprehensive sexual assault 

campaign in September of 2008. The campaign centers on leaders 

establishing a positive command climate where soldiers understand 

and adhere to the Army’s intent to prevent sexual assault. The 

campaign encourages soldiers to personally execute peer-to-peer 

intervention and to not tolerate behavior that could lead to sexual 

assault. 

The cornerstone of the Army’s Sexual Assault Prevention Campaign is the ‘‘I. A.M. Strong’’ program, where the letters I, A, and 

M stand for intervene, act and motivate. Today, throughout the 

Army, leaders are implementing the ‘‘I. A.M. Strong’’ initiatives 

and motivating soldiers to proactively prevent sexual assault. ‘‘I. 

A.M. Strong’’ features soldiers as influential role models and provides peer-to-peer messages outlining the Army’s intent for all its 

members to personally take action. 
5 

The Secretary of the Army introduced the Sexual Assault Prevention Campaign and ‘‘I. A.M. Strong’’ during the Army Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Training Summit on September 9, 2008. With over 250 attendees and nearly 70 general officers in attendance, as well as subject matter experts, Representatives from Congress, DOD and our sister services, our commanders 

and our Sexual Assault Prevention Program managers down to the 

division level represented both active, National Guard, and Reserve 

commands, to include commands deployed from the U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM) area of operation. 

The summit served as a forum to launch the prevention campaign by providing training on best practices from across the Nation and the opportunity to develop their own commands’ prevention plans in alignment with our overarching prevention strategy. 

Our campaign strategy, which is outlined in my written statement, 

consists of four overlapping phases that extend to 2013. 

The first phase initiated our aggressive prevention initiatives, 

which will be followed by the other phases we will build upon. The 

measurement of our strategy’s success is to increase the soldiers’ 

propensity to report this crime. This reporting will demonstrate 

their confidence in their command and their fellow soldiers and 

will allow the Army the ability to hold offenders accountable. 

Other key components of the prevention campaign include a comprehensive effort to improve our Army’s investigation and prosecution of sexual assault. We have started several initiatives in our 

Criminal Investigation Command and Judge Advocate General’s 

(JAG’s) Corps, which will increase our ability and our expertise to 

investigate and prosecute sexual assault crimes. These initiatives 

include additional investigators and prosecutors at our busiest jurisdictions, resulting in a capacity similar to the civilian special victims units. 

And I would like to stop at this point to have an opportunity to 

have you see the video. We are just going to be showing the end 

of the video right now, the last couple minutes of it. But it will certainly address our prevention areas. And then we will stop to speak 

to the rest of the program quickly. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

[Video played.] 

Ms. COLLINS. With that, let me just conclude in saying that, although we are starting new prevention initiatives, refined prevention initiatives, and increasing those efforts, we continue to support 

and emphasize our response capabilities and services. We continue 

to fully resource the Army-wide Victim Advocacy Program (VAP) 

led by our sexual assault response coordinators who interact directly with our victims of sexual assault and other response agencies. 

The Army is committed to fully implementing new initiatives; assessing our efforts; sustaining and refining our comprehensive and 

effective Sexual Assault Prevention Campaign. The Army is one of 

our national treasures whose positive reputation is largely due to 

its values, warrior ethos and dedicated professionals. With the success of our ‘‘I. A.M. Strong’’ initiatives, our soldiers will set the 

standard of conduct with their peers, ensuring soldier safety within 

the Army. 
6 

In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. Your continued support of the Army, our soldiers and families and your partnership in helping us address this important 

issue. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins can be found in the Appendix on page 50.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

And Ms. Robertson, I think we have time to have your presentation. 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE ROBERTSON, LCSW, DEPUTY 

MANAGER, COUNSELING, ADVOCACY AND PREVENTION 

PROGRAM, COMMANDER, NAVY INSTALLATION COMMAND, 

UNITED STATES NAVY 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson 

and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

share with you the Navy’s efforts to prevent sexual assault. Thank 

you for your leadership in this vital issue. 

Sexual Assault Victim Intervention, SAVI, is one of the many 

critical programs servicing the fleet, fighter and family. Implementing the responsive SAVI program with an effective prevention 

strategy is a top priority for Navy leadership. 

Established in 1994, the Navy SAVI program served as a role 

model for the Department of Defense and provides a standardized 

comprehensive victim-sensitive system that deters and responds to 

sexual assaults. Prevention of sexual assaults, response for victims, 

and offender accountability are Navy priorities. Sexual assault is 

incompatible with our core values, our high standards of military 

professionalism and personal discipline. 

SAVI is well grounded with scientific knowledge and best practices in the civilian population. We incorporate new research in 

prevention methods all the time. SAVI prevention and awareness 

training aims to ensure that all personnel afloat and ashore know 

what constitutes sexual assault and sexual harassment, understand the meaning of consent, and know the reporting options of 

victims. Our curriculum has focused on risk reduction with the emphasis on the role played by alcohol that can lead to sexual assaults and the importance of watching out for your shipmate’s safety. 

Annual training is designed to prevent sexual assault, reduce 

risk and is provided for all levels of leadership. We have best practices such as Liberty Call and Prevent that are focused for 18- to 

26-year-olds on decision-making processes. SAVI is a command-led 

program. Commanders fill key SAVI positions with skilled personnel to ensure that we have trained victim advocates 24/7 to provide response on and off the installation and during deployment. 

All port visits require pre-briefings from the ship’s leadership regarding expectations for behavior. 

How do we measure our prevention initiatives? We have multiple 

ways. We have Navy inspector general visits. Our accreditation 

process for our SAVI program all include focus groups with command, the fleet and our key stakeholders. We recently did a Navywide study, scientific study, the SAVI Quick Poll, in 2008 for leadership to gauge sailors’ knowledge and perception of the Navy 
7 

SAVI program and resources. Our Quick Poll results show increased awareness of the SAVI program to include restrictive reporting and services available to victims. We have positive trends 

and gains in awareness for all groups between 2004 and 2008 since 

we have been doing the survey. Most importantly, there was a significant increase in the number of sailors who indicated that they 

would report a sexual assault to Navy authorities, which is very 

important to us. 

Increasing prevention and awareness with a strong messaging 

campaign is a major focus. We have done multiple public service 

announcements to include one with the Secretary of the Navy, another one focusing on bystander intervention and restrictive reporting. Today you will see a movie, an award winning movie, ‘‘Megan’s 

Story,’’ which we released and is used in all of our annual training. 

Navy commanding officers are charged with providing the safest 

possible physical and emotional environment for sailors to establish 

a command climate of respect. We are planning to conduct a Department of Navy senior leadership and key stakeholder summit 

this year as a part of a comprehensive sexual assault prevention 

strategy. We thank you for your leadership in this issue. We are 

committed to implementing our enhanced prevention strategy in 

the Navy in alignment with the OSD prevention policy. We want 

to address culture change. 

And we thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to 

showing you ‘‘Megan’s Story’’ and answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Robertson can be found in the 

Appendix on page 60.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I think we have time. It is about two and 

a half to three minutes. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. It is three minutes. 

[Video played.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We will be back in just a few minutes, 

about 10 minutes or so. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. 

Thank you all for waiting. We are going to proceed. 

Mr. Bruneau. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND N. BRUNEAU, MANAGER, SEXUAL 

ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PROGRAM, UNITED 

STATES MARINE CORPS 

Mr. BRUNEAU. Good morning Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and members and guests of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for your continuing support for Marines and their families. 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response is a very serious matter. As the Marine Corps continues its efforts to prevent sexual assault, directly care for our victims, and ensure offenders are held 

accountable, we appreciate your unfailing support in efforts to raise 

awareness of this important issue. 

People are our most important resource. Marines have a long history of taking care of their own, which means that we do not intentionally harm one another, nor do we leave a comrade behind. Victims of sexual assault are entitled to our support and care and deserve to be returned to the fight as fully functioning Marines. 
8 

The Marine Corps is committed as always to caring for its own 

because it is the right thing to do. The Marine Corps has worked 

diligently to stand up and evolve this program through lessons 

learned and through collaboration with our sister services in the 

Office of Secretary of Defense. 

During 2009–2010, we are additionally committed to preventionoriented program improvements, including hiring full-time program 

coordinators at the regional level; leveraging technology to make 

better use of available training platforms; implementing the Department of Defense’s prevention strategy, which we strongly believe supports our core values of honor, courage and commitment; 

and in concert with a parent service or a parent department, the 

Department of the Navy, examining all functional areas of this program in-depth. 

And in closing, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to thank you 

again for spotlighting an issue which is not only important to us 

as a military service but is important to our society as a whole. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bruneau can be found in the Appendix on page 69.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Bradley. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLENE M. BRADLEY, ASSISTANT DEPUTY 

FOR FORCE MANAGEMENT INTEGRATION, OFFICE OF THE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (MANPOWER 

AND RESERVE AFFAIRS), UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

Ms. BRADLEY. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and 

subcommittee members, it is a privilege to appear before you this 

morning to be the voice for a team of dedicated professionals who 

have worked enthusiastically since 2004. 

Prevention is a never-ending commitment. It requires consistent 

continuing education and training; continuing emphasis by leadership on standards and values; visible support for victims; and deterrence. In 2004, Air Force leadership directed an Air Force-wide 

assessment, and the resulting report shaped our entire approach to 

prevention. 

The most crucial finding was that we simply did not understand 

the realities of sexual assault. We recognized the immediate need 

for subject matter experts external to the Air Force to share their 

research and expertise to inform our efforts. Key things that we 

learned from them: First, the majority of assaults, both in the military and the general population, are committed by nonstrangers. 

Among these nonstranger assailants, there are those individuals 

who crossed the line into criminal behavior because of a one-time 

set of circumstances culminating in an assault. 

Second, there is also a very small percentage of men, serial sexual predators, who are responsible for a vastly disproportionate 

amount of the sexual violence in any community. They do significant damage. They premeditate their assaults and they get away 

with it because victims do not report. 

Finally, significant barriers exist to reporting, and some of those 

are unique to the military. Traditional prevention and risk-reduction programs focus on changing the behavior of the potential vic-
9 

tim, primarily females, assuming that if they avoided unsafe situations, they would not be assaulted. Our approach to prevention and 

risk-reduction training also focuses on understanding how perpetrators behave and include sessions on making responsible 

choices, setting good boundaries, and developing good communication skills, as well as avoiding behaviors that can make a person 

vulnerable to a sexual assault. 

Commanders must create safe working environments, and they 

must establish and maintain a climate that doesn’t tolerate disrespectful or inappropriate behavior. 

Our first prevention effort in 2005 focused on educating every Air 

Force member about the crime, debunking the myths and introducing a positive role airmen could take to prevent a sexual assault 

before it happened. The Air Force developed standardized training 

for schools and professional military education at all levels beginning with the sessions. About to be released is a module for 

predeployment covering those topics unique to the deployed environment. While the training is currently being presented at all 

these levels, we continue to develop standardized modules to enhance consistency of the training. 

Our current prevention initiative focuses on development of a Bystander Intervention Training Program. Bystander intervention is 

a strategy that motivates people who may see, hear or otherwise 

recognize signs of inappropriate or an unsafe situation to act in a 

positive prosocial manner. We and the experts believe the most effective prevention efforts must be focused on airmen who, by their 

participation in peer groups and activities, might either actively or 

passively provide support or camouflage for the sexual predators in 

their midst. 

To continue our prevention efforts, we are developing a long-term 

plan consistent with the recently released DOD Prevention Plan 

that will provide the continuing emphasis and attention to our ultimate goal, which is to create an environment and a culture where 

sexual assault does not occur. 

We work closely with Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserves, our sister services, the Joint Staff and the SAPRO staff. 

Secretary Michael Donnelly and General Norton Schwartz have 

specifically charged Air Force leaders with the responsibility to set 

and uphold the highest standards that will not tolerate sexual assault. We will continue to serve our airmen with the passion that 

they deserve. 

We particularly appreciate the opportunity to share our journey 

with you, and we appreciate the dedication that you have shown 

to this issue and to our airmen. 

The clip, ma’am, that we would like to show you is one of our 

standardized modules. In each one of our standardized training 

models, we are trying to insert something on bystander intervention. In addition to the broad training that we are about to put out, 

this particular excerpt will be shown to instructors who are trained 

at Basic Military Training (BMT) and at tech training schools to 

help them demonstrate the very fundamental behaviors that we 

want them to teach our airmen. 

[Video played.] 
10 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bradley can be found in the Appendix on page 81.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. I want to thank you for bringing the videotapes, because I think that is helpful to us to see, and we might have a 

chance to talk about them some as well. 

One of the questions, I think, that goes throughout your testimony and certainly is something that we understand and share 

when you talk about the fact that none of the service cultures tolerate sexual assault, but then we go on to talk about how we need 

to change the culture. And so I am wondering if you could help us 

understand better and kind of drill down on this, too, to look at, 

what of the military culture you think doesn’t tolerate sexual assault and, in fact, what elements perhaps may enable it? And what 

is it that you are trying to get out specifically? 

I think we certainly have a sense of that. The bystander issue 

is one. But if you could all just think a little bit more about that 

and why that might not necessarily be in sync, because we certainly applaud your interest in trying to change the culture, and 

yet we applaud the values as well. 

Anybody want to start with that. 

Ms. BRADLEY. Ma’am, let me address it just a little bit, please. 

In society as a whole, there are behaviors that appear to be very 

normal. A young man, who, I mean the terminology is often used 

to scuttle out and have a hit or whatever. Those behaviors are not 

really as normal as they seem with certain individuals, with the serial predators that I talked about. 

I also mentioned there are occasions where young men step over 

that limit on a one-time occasion. But we are finding that we have 

a larger number than I would hope of young women who are coming into the service with prior assaults. National studies have been 

done that this is a tragedy of youth. So we have both that societal 

issue to deal with, and if you have, frankly, a serial sexual predator in your midst, they are going to use all the vulnerabilities they 

can. And when a lot of young women come into the military, they 

are looking for a home; they are looking for stability; they are looking for trust. And someone who is really going to use that can do 

so in a military environment. 

Ms. COLLINS. Ma’am, if I could. We just recently did focus groups 

with our young soldiers coming into the military as well within the 

first two weeks of them coming in. And what they expressed to us 

was they are, based on images and socially what they believe—do 

you need me a little closer? What they stressed to us is events or 

actions that they would not consider sexual assault outside the 

military, they are learning immediately they can be charged with 

inside the military. And so I think it is a cultural change where 

we have to address all the images and possibly 22 years of things 

that may have been socialized into them as acceptable and let them 

know immediately. 

That is why we are aggressively targeting our newest sessions 

with our training, that those actions, behaviors are not acceptable 

and will not be acceptable within the Army. And so I do believe it 

is the social aspect we have to get at that we are countering images 

all the time, advertisements, media that tells them certain actions 

may be acceptable, and we have to counter that message. 
11 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Madam Chairwoman, I would also like to talk 

a little bit about, we are, as we are talking about, a microcosm of 

society. So we do have people enter the service that have had a history of assault, as Charlene was referring to. And so we want to 

make it a safe place. 

But the people who have been victims in the past are usually the 

most easily targeted in the future. We want to recognize and provide a safe environment. We want to focus on risk reduction. We 

want to make sure that we are not doing victim blaming. We want 

to make sure that we utilize bystander intervention and other 

methods so that it is not always on the female to watch all their 

actions and to try to be safe. 

So we are all using the civilian experts. We are using what we 

see in society to really make a difference. And as Carolyn is talking 

about, we are holding them to a standard that might not be as high 

as what they are used to before they are getting in. 

We really are focusing on offender accountability. We want to get 

the message out, as in our ‘‘Megan’s Story’’ and in all the training 

that we are doing, that we are going to hold offenders accountable. 

So we really take this very seriously. We want to make a difference. 

Mr. BRUNEAU. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The fact is that most Marines, the vast majority of Marines do 

not commit this crime. 

As Ms. Bradley said, predators do exist. They constitute a very 

small percentage of those whom we receive in from the civilian sector. However, they know what they are doing. They know how to 

pick a victim. They know how to groom a victim, and they know 

how to make their premeditation succeed with not necessarily—not 

tacit support, but inaction. 

That is why the focus of our prevention strategy on bystander 

intervention is so important. It is as important for us to educate 

our Marines how to recognize inappropriate behavior and riskladen scenarios and how to give them the tools to react appropriately to prevent a crime from occurring in the first place. 

Mrs. DAVIS. My time is up. And we will have some more rounds. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

And as a 31-year veteran of the Army, as the father of four sons 

currently serving in the U.S. military, I agree with Ms. Collins. 

And that is that sexual assault violates the essence of being a soldier. 

I also want to thank you for the video on Army values. I wish 

more people in our country knew of the Army values. These are the 

values that all of us should live by. In particular, strong bonds of 

trust is the culture of America’s military. So what you are doing 

is so crucial. 

And Mr. Bruneau, I particularly want to cite the Marine Corps. 

I am very grateful. All female Marines in the world have been 

trained at Parris Island, South Carolina, which I am very grateful 

to represent. And so when I meet female Marines anywhere in the 

world, I immediately have a strong bond and appreciation of their 

service. 
12 

And whoever would like to answer this. Your written statements 

and your testimony this morning clearly show that each military 

service has undertaken a huge resource-intensive effort to combat 

sexual assault. What are your thoughts about how effective your 

programs are? How do you plan to measure whether your programs 

are effective? 

Ms. COLLINS. Sir, I can go ahead and start to answer that question for you. 

We did a full assessment of our program last year. We stood up 

in a General Officer Steering Committee and did a full assessment 

of the program after our annual report came out because we were 

still experiencing assaults within the Army, so we were not to the 

point where we wanted to be as a service. With that full assessment, we revised our prevention efforts and released our new strategy and campaign in September. And with that, every piece of our 

strategy across our campaign has measurement tools for each 

phase and including building up the propensity to report and bringing down the number of assaults. Each action we are rolling out 

within our strategy, all of our education efforts and prevention efforts have, metrics built into them, because we do want to continue 

to assess ourselves and refine our efforts with this effort. 

Bystander intervention is a relatively new form of doing so, and 

with those efforts, we want to make sure that we are getting the 

results we want with our training and that our assaults are being 

eliminated within the military. 

Mr. WILSON. And how specifically do you judge effectiveness? 

Ms. COLLINS. Specifically on the training, sir? We also will be 

doing annual surveys with our soldiers to determine their propensity to report, how many assaults have occurred that we do not 

know about that may not have been reported within the last year. 

But we certainly are looking at, not only the different tools, but 

there is a synergy of the prevention efforts that are going to go on. 

So we want to see which are having the most effect with our soldiers, which messages speak to them the strongest and are influencing their behaviors. 

Mr. WILSON. Would anybody else like to cite their programs and 

effectiveness? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. I will sir. I, too, am a family member. I have 

two sons in the military; one in Djibouti serving right now, and one 

getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan in the Army. So I understand the military values, so I am really proud to be here and talk 

about this program and take it as a personal interest. 

For the Navy, we do Navy inspector general (IG) visits every region, every site, to look at the programs. In Sexual Assault Victim 

Intervention, our SAVI program, we do focus groups. We really 

look at, what are they aware of? What is out there? Are we reporting effectively? We had a Navy IG study in 2004 that showed lots 

of areas we needed to improve. But the good news is we have made 

all those improvements with the changes in the DOD policy, increased staffing, new training, emphasis on training using civilian 

experts. We have vetted our curriculum with the national civilian 

experts Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) and National 

Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA). We continue to evolve 

and change and improve our processes. 
13 

We also have an accreditation program that goes out and interviews the fleet, the commanders, our key stakeholders; medical, 

legal, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), and looks at 

our program to make sure that we are meeting all the policy requirements. And then, as I talked about quickly, was the SAVI 

Quick Poll which we did in 2004, 2005 and 2008, which really is 

a measurement of awareness of the program, of the resources, and 

if victims would feel comfortable reporting their sexual assault. 

And our 2008 poll was very gratifying. We are getting the word 

out. They are getting the message. We are focusing again on our 

recruit command on our 18- to 26-year-olds. We have a lot of products out about decision-making processes and will continue to improve and focus on bystander intervention. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am particularly interested in measurements. 

And so I would be very interested to receive a copy of the information and the polling that you just indicated. If you could provide 

that to us. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. I will take that for the record and be glad to do 

that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 131.] 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you for your family’s service. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Did anybody else want to comment on that briefly or perhaps you 

can in the next round with other speakers? 

Thank you. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Yes. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I have a question to address sort of the underlying cultural 

issues that you have all referred to. When the Air Force Academy 

first started to be aware of the issue of sexual assault in the academies, one of the things they found in the culture was that one out 

of five of their students, or their cadets, did not believe women 

should be in the military. Have you all examined that in the course 

of trying to deal with addressing the underlying culture of your 

services? I just wonder if there has been any research done on this 

or on the fundamental belief that women should be serving with 

men. Is that a no? 

Ms. BRADLEY. Ma’am, I have not, or our team has not taken that 

on specifically, but we are very aware of it, as is the Academy, and 

they work that those cultural issues about women are full up members of the team. Gender, race, anything like that should have no 

play in our effort together to be the defense for this Nation. We do 

know, as we have done in our training, that many of the things 

that cause this kind of behavior are disrespect for one another, are 

myths about women, about other races. And we are purposefully in 

all of our training addressing that about how women are treated, 

as the one that you just saw. You don’t be disrespectful to someone 

on your team, regardless of who they are. So we are definitely 

aware of it, and we are including it in every piece of training we 

have. 

Ms. TSONGAS. As a part of the change in the culture? 

Ms. BRADLEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Is that true across the board? 
14 

The other issue I wanted to address is the issue of bystander. 

And I applaud you for your efforts around that. But one of the concerns I have is how the command structure embraces all the good 

work that you are doing and to the extent that there are issues 

with commanders not being fully endorsing of all the work that you 

are doing; in essence, they become the ultimate bystander. So I am 

curious as to how you manage to work from the top down to be 

sure that every element of the Services endorses the fact that they 

have an important role to play as a bystander, whether or not it 

is stopping a specific act that may be in progress or potentially in 

progress, but at the very top creating a culture that says none of 

us are going to be indifferent to this? 

Ms. BRADLEY. In the Bystander Intervention Training that I 

mentioned that we have recently developed, there are three phases, 

and one is specifically for leaders. Our deputy chief of staff of personnel in fact is going to receive that training the middle of this 

month before it goes out, but training that specifically leaders take 

to show how they must intervene in circumstances. 

But part of the basic is getting people to understand the dynamics of sexual assault, the complexities of it, and the behaviors that 

are associated with it. So we will have training for leaders, training 

for men, and training for women in the bystander intervention. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Is there any work being done in the coursework, 

the kinds of courses people take in the course of their professional 

progress, the War Colleges? Is there any kind of training going on 

there for the leaders in the making? 

Ms. COLLINS. Ma’am, if I may. 

The Army implemented training from basic training to our general officer level back in November of 2004. And we have revised 

that once, and we are on our second revision of that training right 

now. So as you go up in leadership roles and go to higher leadership schools, you get sequential training on your requirements 

under the program. 

With the launch of our summit this last September, that 

launched our first phase which is titled Committed Army Leadership, and the Secretary and Chief were extensive in the direction 

with all commanders that they will be highly engaged with this 

program. Our commanders left that summit with their own action 

plan to immediately implement when they got back to their command areas, and they began in implementation, which we will be 

briefing out during our next summit, which is in early April this 

year. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Ma’am, I would like to tell you that the Navy 

also has different levels of training, and we have specific leadership 

training. At the Senior Enlisted Academy this last year, we gave 

them real-life case scenarios for discussion so that they could really 

look at what went well, what didn’t go well, what are the system 

issues. And so we take it very seriously that each level of leadership needs a different type of training to focus on what their position is and to look at it a different way. So I commend you for your 

comment and question because it is important that we address this 

training at all different levels. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 
15 

I don’t know what my time is, but thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

This question is for each one of you. And I have been very concerned about the high rate of moral waivers that have been given 

to entrants, in particularly the Army, over the past few years. And 

my question is, although you don’t work with that part, do you see 

any connection? Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of what 

number of men who have gotten moral waivers are actually causing trouble on bases? I have been concerned about that, and I can’t 

get the information I need right now. So I just want to know how 

many people have received moral waivers, if you know. And if any 

of the moral misconduct, and I know some of it can be very small 

misdemeanor stuff, but if any of it has to do with sexual misconduct, do you know that at all? 

Let me start with Ms. Collins. 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the opportunity to address that issue. 

Our office does not track or do comparisons. That is not a regular, reoccurring requirement for our case data or our report requirements that we provide up through DOD or to our leadership. 

With the second part of your question, on offenders potentially 

coming into the military, previous offenders, we have policy in 

place that speaks to personnel recruitment issues and that recruiters cannot recruit individuals or provide waivers for an individual 

who has committed a violent sexual offense. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. So any recruits, potential recruits, who 

show up at a recruiting office and have had something in their past 

cannot enter the Army? 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, ma’am. The policy states that they cannot be 

assessed into the military if they have a criminal history of sexual 

violence. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And is each potential recruit’s background 

searched for that? 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, ma’am. We do do security checks on the background of our recruits. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. And, as far as you know, have there 

been any surprises, anybody who has slipped through that? 

Ms. COLLINS. Not to my knowledge, ma’am. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

Ms. Robertson. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Thank you, ma’am. As Ms. Collins stated, this 

is a program not within our purview for my responsibilities, the 

SAVI program. I would be glad to take this for the record. It is 

under our personnel policy. 

But I will tell you that our policy does state that we will not recruit or admit any convicted sex offenders. So it is in our policy, 

has been in our policy for many years, but I would be glad to take 

the question for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 132.] 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay, well, I appreciate that. But I guess 

what I am getting at is, are we finding all of them before they come 

in? Because I don’t believe that just getting into the military turns 
16 

you into that. I think they come into the military with those tendencies and that aggressiveness. And so I am wondering what we 

have in place to catch them beforehand. It is hard for me to believe 

they never exhibited that kind of behavior until they get in the 

Army or into the Air Force and suddenly you find out that you 

have one in the group. 

So what do we do to make sure we find them beforehand? Because we know that they may not have a criminal record, but what 

do we do to look in their background to see if they have had problems, if there have been any kinds of accusations? How good is the 

work to prevent them from entering, is what I am asking. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Shea-Porter, may I just add to your question? 

Because I think what we are also looking for, are our screening 

tools adequate? 

Do you feel that the work that you have done or the work of experts around the country have made a contribution to trying to 

have screening tools that actually provide us with the kind of information that might raise a red flag in some of those early efforts 

to talk to people about their entrance into the Services? 

Mr. BRUNEAU. Thank you, Congresswoman Shea-Porter. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to this. 

I am not in recruiting, I am not an expert on recruiting. But my 

understanding is that Marine recruiters routinely perform a local 

records check on all of their applicants. And Marine Corps policy 

and Marine Corps order specifically prohibits the enlistment or 

commissioning of a registered sex offender. 

The etymology of predation is such that the perpetrators of this 

crime do it until they get caught. So it is not certain that a background check or a records check is going to reveal someone who is 

a predator, because they may not have been caught yet. 

Ms. BRADLEY. Ma’am, we also have a policy that prohibits us 

from either enlisting or commissioning anyone into the service with 

a qualified conviction. And we have not issued any waivers. 

But your question is absolutely on-spot. Back in 2004, we had all 

of our vice commanders in from the major commands, and we invited Dr. David Lisak, who is an expert on sex offenders, to talk 

to them. And he was explaining to them how these folks operate. 

And they immediately said to him, ‘‘Can you devise a screening tool 

for us so we never bring them in?’’ And Dr. Lisak’s response was, 

‘‘I cannot, because they look like you, they look like your son, they 

look like your cousin, they look like your grandson.’’ 

And it is very difficult, unless you are aware of this behavior and 

you can watch it over a certain amount of time, it is almost impossible to screen it. I wish we could. I sincerely wish that we could. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, I will say that I have a feeling that, if 

you talk to the high school and maybe some of the young women 

who graduated with some of those people, you would get an idea 

about whether you had somebody who was pretty aggressive and 

inappropriate. 

There just seems to be missing from this discussion the sense 

that we have to find them before they show up. And the numbers 

are just appalling. For all of the efforts—and I commend you for 

your efforts; they are just wonderful—but for all of the efforts, it 
17 

is still occurring. And the Army’s rate actually looks like it has 

shot up some. 

So we have to look further back than from the day they show up 

at the recruiter’s doorstep. I think it is essential. And, you know, 

how to do that, I think, is up to the experts there, but I am certain 

that there is something else to this equation here. 

Thank you all. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Bruneau, I am going to direct my question to 

you, just in the interest of time, but I certainly could direct it to 

any of the rest of you. 

I wanted to ask about the overseas situation, particularly the 

Iraq and Afghanistan situation now. How well do you think we are 

doing, and how do you monitor the following items: the availability 

of immediate counseling after some kind of an event; the availability of emergency health care, including referrals for any followup treatment a person may need; the availability of forensics, of 

high-quality forensics material for obtaining samples; and the 

availability of prosecution and help with the movement of witnesses and so on because of the mobilized situation? 

How do you monitor all those things, and how do you think we 

are doing? 

Mr. BRUNEAU. Thank you, Congressman Snyder. 

Our program, as it is operated in deployed environments, is designed to replicate as nearly as it can the program that we use in 

the states and garrison, understanding that there are some differences and unique challenges that are inherent in the combat environment. 

As I understand it, you would like to have some idea of what we 

are doing to provide immediate counseling for victims, the availability of forensics, I guess you mean sexual assault examination 

kits, and emergency care in place, as well as investigation and 

prosecution. Am I on the mark there, sir? 

Dr. SNYDER. It is not just the forensic kits, by the way. It is having professionals there that know that their medical notes better 

be legible, they better have an eye that whatever they say and do 

may have impact on a criminal case down the line. But, yes, that 

is the idea. 

Mr. BRUNEAU. Yes, sir. I would like to talk about the availability 

of forensics and sexual assault examination kits and that area first, 

if I may. 

Of course, for the Marine Corps, medicine is provided for us by 

the United States Navy. Each of the military treatment or the 

medical treatment facilities may not have a sexual assault examination kit on hand. If a victim presents and requests to have a kit 

performed, because it is at their option, then the responder, the 

health care provider at that military treatment facility will notify 

the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). An agent will 

bring the kit to the military treatment facility. 

Any health care provider who is qualified to conduct a basic obstetrical-gynecology exam is qualified to conduct a sexual assault 

examination. 
18 

Dr. SNYDER. In the interest of time, I am going to interrupt you, 

if I might. I understand that. And what you are describing is what 

the situation is stateside also. 

My question is, how do you monitor? And what you just described, how available is that for the convenience of the men and 

women who may have been sexually assaulted? How do you monitor that? 

Mr. BRUNEAU. Sir, the kit enters the—it is inducted into the evidentiary stream, the chain of custody, according to the protocol 

that is published by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, as well 

as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. There is a chain-ofcustody form that is used, and the health care personnel are 

trained on how to properly complete that form. 

The kit is delivered by the NCIS agent. The examination is conducted, and the evidence that is collected is sealed per the protocol 

and returned to the NCIS agent, who then takes care of shipping 

it back to the States to the laboratory. 

Dr. SNYDER. My time is about up. Maybe we should pursue this 

at another time. 

My question is, for example, right now, today, do we know, at 

Taji, do we know, are there kits there? Are they at Taji? If not, how 

long would it be? Time is a factor. You can’t say, ‘‘Well, we will 

have one in two days.’’ I assume we are talking about a matter of 

hours at the most that you would want time to go by. 

So how do you monitor whether those things are available or not 

in the overseas deployed situation? 

Mr. BRUNEAU. My understanding is that the kits are held by 

NCIS at the resident agency in Iraq. And the time factor is inherent to the combat environment. It is difficult to transport investigators to the victim, and it is difficult to transport victims back to 

where service may be provided. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Robertson, I wanted to ask you a question. If 

somebody believes that they had been sexually assaulted and reported it both to the civilian and military world, because the alleged perpetrator was somebody in the Navy, but were not satisfied 

with how the case was pursued, what are their options? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Thank you for your question. 

We have many options. For one thing, for victims of sexual assault, for all unrestricted cases, anyone who has pursued and involves an investigation, we have a monthly sexual assault case 

management group that includes legal, naval, criminal, NCIS, medical, chaplains, counselors, our sexual assault response coordinator, 

and a victim advocate. 

One of the main purposes of this group is to make sure that the 

victim is getting the care that they need, the victim is being heard. 

The victim advocate and the command representative represent 

that victim at the meeting to make sure that we have that full, 

multidisciplinary discussion. 

Anyone, at any time, could call the Navy Inspector General (IG). 

We have many avenues for a victim to let us know that they are 

not getting the help they need or they are not happy with the service they are getting. And we have to respond to that. When we do 

our Navy IG visits, we have findings that we have to respond to. 
19 

So we have many systems in place to make sure that—victim 

care is our number-one priority, response to victims. So it is irregardless of where it happens, location, we want to make sure that 

the victims are taken care of. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I do have a question, but I think, at this point, if it is okay, I 

would like to yield to our colleague, Mrs. Capps from California. Is 

that okay, Madam Chair? 

Mrs. DAVIS. That is okay, sir. 

We have been joined by Mrs. Lois Capps from California, who is 

very interested in this subject. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. I also don’t want to take time from Mr. 

Loebsack, but if I could use a couple of minutes mostly to thank 

this committee for holding these hearings. I understand this is the 

second of three hearings on the topic, and I think it is very appropriate. 

I am on a different committee, but this topic has been of great 

interest to our bipartisan Caucus for Women’s Issues. And, over 

the years, this topic has come up, as different members on this 

committee who are part of our caucus have brought the issue forward. 

I am very heartened by the fact that branches of the service are 

reaching to us to help, perhaps, provide resources, but at least provide the setting of a hearing. 

And I can now address you more in my background as a former 

school nurse in a public health capacity in my community. Working 

with high school students, these are the young people who then appear at the recruiter’s office. And we can’t detect—I mean, this is 

a challenge for us, starting with young kids and working with families to support a topic that is so very important as they raise their 

children who will then become adults in whatever capacity. 

And, as they join the military, this is one of many areas of very 

major concern, particularly now in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we see 

so many women joining in, which we believe they should, with 

their male counterparts in combat. The stressors, I believe, probably, although I am not an expert on this, only increase the tensions and the pressures. 

So, in many respects, I guess I would say, first of all, this is the 

kind of dialogue I hope that we can continue in Congress. And if 

there is any way—I am no longer Co-Chair of the Women’s Caucus, 

but many of us outside the Armed Services Committee are very interested in making sure that this is something—it is a burden, in 

a way, and a responsibility that you are carrying, but you are, in 

a way, carrying it on behalf of all of us. 

You are at the point in your work, in the line of your mission, 

where we are asking you to be leaders and to work with the lay 

community, civilians, to address an issue that faces every family in 

every community, every law enforcement, every aspect of our society, and yet it is in this very intense setting with hierarchies and 

with orders to follow and with missions to carry out. We must 

share the responsibility with you, as a civil society, and yet we do 
20 

expect a great deal from you, as our most precious resources, our 

sons and daughters, are entrusted to your care. 

So I don’t really have a question to ask you, but if you want to 

respond in some way, you know, perhaps even to say to our public 

schools, ‘‘What are you doing to help us? Because we are working 

with you, and you with us, to prepare the generations that are 

called upon in ways, you know, that maybe previous generations 

have not experienced in quite that same way.’’ 

So I am here to salute the committee, first and foremost, and to 

say I think this is a very, very significant set of hearings that you 

are conducting. And I am very mindful that there is a larger role 

that the military is representing that I want to make sure we all 

carry our share of responsibility for. So thank you very much. 

I will be happy to hear—although you may want to move on with 

the hearing, too, Madam Chair. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. No, I would like to hear any response, as well. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Capps. 

Ms. COLLINS. Ma’am, if I may, I would like to answer your question or at least give you an idea of what the Army is working with, 

as well as with DOD and our sister services. 

We are working with the Department of Education, Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, and others, Department of Justice, as we work through our efforts. We are working 

with our schoolhouses that we are engaged with with the military, 

down to the junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) level, 

as well as our ROTC programs throughout the colleges, with this 

program. 

And we are introducing training that will assess attitudes and 

behaviors before individuals take our training. And then, after they 

take the training, we know where we would like to take them, 

again, back to that bond of core values that the Army has that they 

expect their individuals—all of our individuals to have. And, as 

Ranking Member Wilson said, you know, that the broader spectrum, he would like everyone to look at this issue in. 

So, for us, it is a partnership with not only our national experts 

but our national agencies, as well, as we address this social problem. And we are going to have those individuals with our summit, 

as well as our sister services and DOD. And the Sexual Assault Advisory Council DOD holds has those members on it as well, and we 

all participate in working groups with them. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I am going to turn to Mr. Murphy because we are 

going to be pushed here in terms of time. 

Mr. Murphy. 

And then after Mr. Murphy, let’s see, we have Ms. Sanchez. I 

guess that is it, and we will try and wrap up this panel and go to 

the next one. I had hoped that we would have another round, but 

I think that we have had a chance to have a larger group here 

today, and that is a good thing. 

So, thank you. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thanks, Chairwoman Davis. I appreciate it. 

Thank you so much for all your testimony and especially for that 

video, which was terrific. 

I used to be a prosecutor in the Army Judge Advocate General 

(JAG) Corps, so unfortunately I had a lot of these cases. And I was 
21 

also a professor at West Point. And that was another thing, when 

sex assaults happened at our military academies, and because a lot 

of times it involves underaged drinking, and, you know, whether or 

not you should prosecute for the underlying offense, or potential 

underlying offense, there. 

I want to focus, though, there should be no doubt no service 

member, whether male or female, should ever be a victim of a sexual assault or harassment. And we should all agree that it is important not only to set up the programs to prevent such incidents 

from occurring but also to set up effective systems for helping victims and prosecuting offenders after the fact. And I do appreciate 

all of your efforts on that. 

One issue, though, that concerns me that I don’t think was addressed: Under the current don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy right now in 

the military, isn’t there a possibility that a homosexual service 

member who was assaulted or harassed might be afraid to come 

forward and file a report for fear that he or she would be discharged? Is there a concern that many same-sex sexual assaults go 

unreported? 

Kind of like my analogy to what happened in the military academy with underaged drinking, but in a broader scheme in our services with don’t-ask, don’t-tell. And I would appreciate if the panel 

could address that. 

Whoever wants to go first. 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, sir. For the Army, we are not aware of any 

data indicating that the don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy is—that, under 

the policy, there are any individuals who are not coming forward 

that have been assaulted. 

I will say that we do receive assaults of male victims within the 

Army, and we encourage those, as we do with our female victims. 

We want to encourage our propensity to report across the services 

for all victims. We know this is the most underreported crime in 

the Nation, and the data tells us it is more underreported by male 

victims than female victims. 

So, again, we are trying to build that trust factor within the military so all victims of sexual assault come forward and report the 

crime, so we can not only give the victim care, which is paramount, 

but also pursue the offender with prosecution. 

Mr. MURPHY. Ms. Collins, do you have any anecdotal stories you 

can share on that issue though in the Army? Or, nothing? 

Ms. COLLINS. No, sir. I don’t get individual case data. I get rollup data but not individual case data. 

Mr. MURPHY. How about any thought of immunity if it is a samesex type of thing or, I mean, even if it is under-age drinking in the 

military? You know, in Pennsylvania, the drinking age is 21. If 

they are at Carlisle Barracks or anywhere else in Pennsylvania, 

you know, some type of immunity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or is there any thought process to that? 

Ms. COLLINS. We do have within our policy, sir, it does speak to 

commanders giving first consideration of delaying any kind of collateral misconduct charges against a potential victim to encourage 

them to come forward and report the crime and for commanders to 

look at that very strongly. Because we are educating commanders 

across the board that it is paramount that we do have victims come 
22 

forward, and they need to do so without the fear of the collateral 

misconduct charge, potentially. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thanks, Ms. Collins. 

Anyone else like to address that? Ms. Robertson. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Thank you, sir. 

We also have male victims, and we have not seen a time that the 

don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy is a problem for them coming forward. 

We respond to victims, whether male or female. I agree with what 

Ms. Collins said, that it is probably more underreported for males. 

But we have had male victims in the past and continue to do so, 

and provide them the same level of care and services. 

We also address collateral misconduct. It has been our Navy policy since 1996, encourage commanders to provide the responsive 

care to victims and look at the issues with alcohol at a later time. 

We also, as you probably know, have the restricted reporting option for all the services, which allows a victim to come forward 

without reporting it to command or investigation. And some of 

those may probably, and do, involve alcohol. But we want to make 

it a safe place for victims to come forward and get the care they 

need, as well as be able to change to unrestricted so we can investigate and prosecute and look at offender accountability. 

Mr. MURPHY. Can I just—that restricted reporting, would that 

just be for, like, an underlying offense, such as underage drinking 

or some other misconduct, would that also apply to potential violations of don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy, that restricted reporting, so it 

wouldn’t go through the chain of command, so it wouldn’t be a 

Chapter 15? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Sir, we don’t look at it as the don’t-ask, don’ttell policy. We look at it—we are a victim-based program. So when 

a victim comes forward, we accept their report of sexual assault or 

sexual misconduct, and we provide them services, an array of services—medical, counseling, advocacy—and we don’t get into the specifics of what happened in the incident. We really try very hard to 

just respond to the victim, make sure they have the care that they 

need, and then if they are willing to have an unrestricted report, 

that it is investigated and taken to the level it needs to go to. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for having this series of hearings. 

As you know, I have been pretty active in this whole issue of domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault in the military. And, you know, I want to go back to the three things I think 

that we do on this committee in trying to change this. 

The first is to change the culture, which, of course, is the most 

difficult to do. 

The second would be that the laws are effective when we go to 

prosecute the people, not only as a deterrence but to actually take 

care of some of these people who are doing this. And I know that 

we did that when we changed the UCMJ a couple of years ago, and 

it has now been implemented. And many of the prosecutors at the 

level that Mr. Murphy was talking about say that it is working. 

And, of course, the third is the response; how do we treat the victims and what do we do for them? 
23 

I want to go back to one of the questions that was asked about 

surveys or asking this whole issue about should women even be in 

the military. And it is my understanding, at the academies in particular, that we were trying to do a sexual assault sort of survey 

every single year at the academy, and that was sort of pushed back 

to maybe once every two years because the comment from most of 

the cadets at the academies were that we were asking way too 

many times, way too many questions about sexual harassment and 

sexual assault and all of this. 

So my question would be, within the academies, do you know if 

in all of the surveys that we have our cadets do, which tend to be 

between three and four a year, if the questions about ‘‘do you believe that women should be in the academy or not’’ are still on 

those surveys? Is that question not being asked? 

And then what type of surveys, if any, with respect to this, do 

we take within the active forces, at least even here in the continental United States? Does anybody have any knowledge of that? 

Mr. BRUNEAU. Thank you, Congresswoman Sanchez. 

The Marine Corps’s Equal Opportunity Office within the Manpower Division conducts a survey, normally biennially, on the climate—command climate assessment. And, at our request back in 

2005, with the advent of restricted reporting—we must remember 

that this is a relatively young program, and developing all of the 

pieces and the mechanics that go into its success takes a little bit 

of time. And then to measure effectiveness, you have to be able to 

wait for some results. 

So we asked them in 2005 to include specific questions in their 

survey dealing with sexual assault. The survey itself is more focused towards sexual harassment. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And I understand that, because I have actually 

gone through the surveys, and I have spent a lot of time on this 

issue. But my question is the very basic question that was asked 

by one of my colleagues: Do women belong in the military? I mean, 

are we asking that question? 

Because if we want a culture change, it begins with ‘‘women belong in the military.’’ And at the time, I think it was with the Air 

Force Academy, we asked that question, and we found that almost 

a third of the male cadets said, ‘‘Hell no, women don’t belong here.’’ 

So my question is, are we asking that? Do we continue to ask 

that to see if even the very basic issue of should women be in the 

military—because that, I think, leads into diminishing and less respect for the woman, whether she is at an academy or whether she 

is in the services. 

Mr. BRUNEAU. I am sorry, ma’am, then I misunderstood the 

question. The Marine Corps does not have a service academy. I 

wouldn’t be qualified, really, to respond to that. So I would have 

to defer to my sister services. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Anybody have the answer—— 

Ms. BRADLEY. I will respond to that. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. To that? And if you don’t, then we 

need to talk to somebody to see if it is happening. 

Ms. BRADLEY. I am reasonably sure that the Air Force Academy 

does still have those attitude questions on their surveys. And in the 

classes on character and the numerous classes that they now re-
24 

ceive dealing with sexual assault, those very issues are addressed. 

The basic attitude toward an individual, respect, behaviors that we 

have, have to be addressed in order for this to go away. They are 

addressing it, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Do you have any comments, Ms. Collins? 

Ms. COLLINS. Ma’am, I am not aware that those questions are 

currently in the surveys at the academy. I would be certainly 

happy to take that back and ask that question. That would probably come under our Equal Opportunity Office at the academy 

itself, and I would certainly work that coordination to find out 

those answers. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. I would appreciate that. 

And then, this is with respect to the report that was done on the 

Coast Guard, in particular. The Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) came back with the report that some commanders actually 

were resistant to advertising programs or options for reporting sexual assault in barracks and work areas, et cetera. 

Within your individual services, how often do you find a commander who doesn’t understand how important this issue is and 

actually pushes back on training programs, advertising, noticing, 

bringing up the issue, et cetera? Can you speak to that, any of you? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Congresswoman Sanchez, thank you for that 

question. 

Navy senior leadership takes it very seriously, the sexual assault 

program and the reporting options, as well as domestic violence. 

We have done massive marketing. Our sexual assault response coordinators are putting up fliers all the time. 

The GAO report did talk about one location where they were 

taken down. We did some investigation to find out what is going 

on. It happened to be, what we call, Public-Private Venture (PPV) 

housing, the type of housing. There are certain places that posters 

need to be hung up. So we want to make sure that the word is out, 

that the posters are up, that the information is out throughout the 

commands. 

We took all the GAO recommendations very seriously. And the 

restricted reporting options from the top down, from senior leadership, they do know about it. I personally briefed the senior shore 

station leaders, and we spend most of our conversation—I have 30 

minutes, and it usually goes to an hour—about the reporting options, providing response to victims in our program, and making 

sure that there are messages from the leadership from the top 

down in every location. 

Mr. BRUNEAU. And, ma’am, in the Marine Corps, the commandant and our senior leadership and, indeed, all the leadership 

in the Marine Corps takes this subject very seriously. And the commandant has directed the inspector general of the Marine Corps to 

include assessment of compliance with our policies as part of their 

unit and command inspections. 

I personally have been involved in 18 of those major inspections. 

And at each one of those thus far, they have been found to be mission capable. And I have not run into one yet where I have experienced any type of pushback from a commander. Those inspections 

include an interview, a personal interview between myself and the 

commander. 
25 

So I have not seen that. I have not seen any of those units within 

the Marine Corps that have been inspected yet that have failed to 

comply with our policies. 

Ms. BRADLEY. Ma’am, I think we all have to realize that this is 

continuing education. We knew so little when we went into this 

about how complex this is. Restricted reporting is brand-new to our 

commanders. They are held responsible for what they know and 

what they don’t know. 

So, to get resistance from a commander about restricted reporting might be a very common thing, because they want to know you 

are going to hold them responsible for prosecuting whoever has 

done this. So they want to know that. 

I would say that would be the only question we get sometimes 

from commanders, is, you know, is this restricted reporting really 

helping me? And the answer is: Because then the people are getting help. Our senior leadership, I watched General Schwartz look 

every vice wing commander in the Air Force in the eye in late December and say, ‘‘You better get it.’’ And he said it in very strong 

terms. 

We have folks who go to our squadron commander school, to our 

group commander school, and the message is there. I feel, on the 

whole, our commanders are getting it and they are supporting it. 

And when I listen to them talk, I am thrilled about it. 

But we are going to keep continuing to educate at all levels. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. How about Ms. Collins? 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, ma’am. And for the Army, this has obviously 

been in our schoolhouse for a long time now. We have been training our commanders, and they have been implementing the program, and our IG has done an inspection on our programs as well, 

in addition to the GAO and other reviews we have had. 

I am not aware of any commander pushing back. I will say that, 

in our summit in September 2008, when we launched our new prevention initiatives in our first phase of committed army leadership, 

the Secretary and the Chief were very adamant about their expectations for commanders in this area. Each of the commanders did 

go back and immediately start implementing their command prevention programs. 

And the Secretary and the Chief personally went out to many 

senior-leader training forums this past fall to reinforce that message, as they trained all the senior leaders across the Army. And 

we have also done a midpoint review assessment up to the Secretary in January of where they are in implementing that first 

phase, and we will do a final review input to the Secretary as well. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. 

And thank you for being before us. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I want to thank all of you for being here. 

I think there are still many questions that we have. We probably 

didn’t focus on the exact, you know, changes in the program as 

much as we might have liked. Obviously, time makes it not possible to do that. 

We do have a number of questions that we would like to follow 

up with, so that you can give us a better idea, for example, how 

you are doing more interactive work, what is happening there. I 

know, in terms of the Navy, I am curious about how the ombuds 
26 

people are really focusing and working with you. What role do they 

have in this? And are there areas in which maybe it is not even 

appropriate for them to be involved? I think just down the line 

there are a number of questions. 

But we certainly appreciate your frankness here. I think the real 

test of all of this, of course, is the men and women who serve and 

whether they think that people are getting it and whether they 

think that they are being treated in a way that demonstrates that 

respect. And the idea that this is so critical to mission is one that 

is shared throughout the services, that it is important, the way 

that we treat people every day out in the field or whether they are 

on bases, wherever that may be. 

We appreciate your being here. We will have a follow-up panel 

just a few minutes after we come back. And it is important to look 

to outside experts, to have them either validate or share where the 

challenges are perhaps not being met in a way that is appropriate. 

And we are certainly interested in hearing from them, as well. 

I hope members can come back. And, if not, we certainly will 

make that testimony available to everybody. 

Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Hello. 

For our second panel today, we have Dr. Kaye Whitley, director 

of the Department of Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. The office serves as the Department’s single point of 

accountability for all sexual assault policy matters and reports to 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. 

Dr. Whitley has previously testified before this subcommittee, 

and we welcome you back. 

Dr. WHITLEY. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Next is Dr. John Foubert, associate professor and 

program coordinator for the College Student Development Program 

at Oklahoma State University. Dr. Foubert is an expert in sexual 

assault prevention programs, with a great deal of experience and 

research that looks at changing the behaviors of men to prevent assaults. 

Welcome. Thank you. 

And, finally, Mr. David Lee, director of prevention services for 

the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. One of his focuses 

has been on the development of community responses to end violence against women, which is relevant to our discussions today. In 

addition, he currently manages Prevention Connection, a national 

online project to advance primary prevention of violence against 

women. 

Thank you all very much for being here. 

Dr. Whitley, could you start? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. KAYE WHITLEY, DIRECTOR, SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE OFFICE (SAPRO), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. WHITLEY. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you today about sexual assault prevention in the Department of Defense. 
27 

As you observed at the hearing in January, we have a devoted 

group of sexual assault response coordinators and victim advocates 

that work at installations worldwide to care for our victims. 

And today you have heard from their dedicated leadership, and 

I want to publicly thank each and every one of them for their outstanding service to our military men and women. I am fortunate 

to have their support and expertise, as we continue to institutionalize our program. 

I am also honored to share the panel today with two of our of 

Nation’s experts on this topic. 

We are proud of the improvements the Department has made in 

our response to sexual assault. However, I think we can all agree 

that it would be better if these crimes never occurred. 

The Department’s comprehensive prevention efforts really began 

in the summer of 2007 at a prevention summit in partnership with 

the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. We invited over 100 

civilian and military experts to help us map a course to prevent 

sexual assault. 

The participants at the summit developed three recommendations for a successful prevention strategy: First, the Department 

should implement lasting sexual assault prevention measures by 

using a framework that takes action at all levels of military society. 

Secondly, the Department should use a social marketing campaign 

to link together all of its efforts to prevent sexual assault. And lastly, the Department should focus on using bystander intervention 

techniques in its prevention efforts. 

The military services used these points to begin development of 

their own prevention programs. However, the Department believes 

that prevention can only occur with an organized, comprehensive 

approach that is based on research. So, consequently, during 2008, 

the Department collaborated once again with the Nation’s experts 

to develop our prevention strategy. 

Our strategy is built on what is called the ‘‘Spectrum of Prevention.’’ This nationally recognized framework has been used in other 

prevention campaigns across the country. My written testimony details its components. But, in short, the ‘‘Spectrum of Prevention’’ 

suggests that social harm can only be prevented by taking multiple 

actions at every level of a society. The levels of the spectrum range 

from improving individual skills at the lowest level to influencing 

policy at the highest levels. 

A supporting social marketing campaign will debut in April 2009 

for Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Social marketing, as you 

know, uses advertising concepts and techniques to persuade people 

to behave in ways that improve their own personal welfare and 

that of society. The campaign makes it very clear that each military member has a moral duty to step up and take action to prevent sexual assault. 

This initial campaign is designated to do two things: First, it informs our members about the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. And second, it demonstrates key points in the bystander intervention approach to sexual assault prevention. This 

strategy is a transformative process that will require commitment, 

cooperation, and, quite frankly, time and patience. The kind of 
28 

change we wish to effect is much like what we saw with the drunkdriving campaign or racial integration in the military. 

As we begin our campaign, we fully expect the number of reports 

of sexual assaults to increase. In fact, that is a goal of the Department, to increase the reports of sexual assault. As the comprehensive prevention strategy takes hold over the years, we look forward 

to the day that those numbers decrease, not because of fear or stigma of reporting, but because sexual assault is being systematically 

prevented. 

I would like to show you two of our public service announcements 

(PSAs) today that were developed by our partners from Men Can 

Stop Rape. Mr. Steve Glaude and Dr. Pat McGann have worked 

very closely with my deputy, Lieutenant Colonel Nate Galbreath, 

who is a clinical psychologist and used those skills to pull together 

our campaign. These are just two of the PSAs that we will be using 

in April. 

[Video played.] 

Dr. WHITLEY. And there is a second one. 

[Video played.] 

Dr. WHITLEY. Thank you. That concludes my opening statement. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Whitley can be found in the Appendix on page 98.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Foubert. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN D. FOUBERT, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND PROGRAM COORDINATOR, COLLEGE STUDENT 

DEVELOPMENT MASTER’S PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA STATE 

UNIVERSITY 

Dr. FOUBERT. Thank you, Representative Davis, Representative 

Wilson, and members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel. My name is John Foubert. I am an associate 

professor of college student development at Oklahoma State University, here to speak as an expert witness on the issue of sexual 

assault prevention. 

I am an academic researcher and program developer on the issue 

of sexual violence. In 1998, I founded the national nonprofit organization One in Four, a 501(c)(3) public nonprofit dedicated to ending 

rape and sexual assault on our Nation’s college campuses and in 

the military by using whatever methods have been shown most effective by research. 

There are many ways to approach the issue of sexual assault in 

the military. We can ignore it and pretend that it rarely happens. 

Alternatively, we can focus on doing all that we can to help survivors recover from the trauma that they have experienced. 

This is a more enlightened perspective, but by itself it does nothing to address the root of the problem. We can focus on prosecuting 

the heck out of all offenders and lock them up forever, and, although I admire the sentiment behind this approach, it is woefully 

inadequate. Survivors of rape rarely report what they have experienced for a wide variety of reasons, both within and outside the 

military. And research shows that the harshest of prosecutions 
29 

does nothing to convince potential perpetrators to alter their behavior. 

To get something done, you have to go to the root of the problem, 

and you have to fight the battle of prevention. To do it best, you 

must follow where the research leads you. The United States 

Armed Forces can provide all the services to survivors imaginable, 

and they should. You can lock up all of the rapists forever, and 

that would be just. But we will not begin to put a dent in the problem of rape in the military until there is a decision made to use 

the best data-driven methods available to prevent rape and other 

forms of sexual assault from happening in the first place. 

Until that time, we are simply in an endless cycle of consolation 

and punishment, with no end in sight. And, honestly, most of the 

people who need consoling are not getting served because they fear 

the stigma of being a survivor. And the overwhelming majority of 

those who should be punished aren’t even getting confronted, because, like elsewhere in our society, the last thing most survivors 

want to do is go through a daunting process. 

When you look at the data on sexual assault, a chilling statistic 

repeats itself over and over again: one in four. One in four college 

women have experienced rape or attempted rape at some point in 

their lifetime. This statistic was the initial impetus for the founding of the nonprofit organization that bears the same name, One 

in Four. 

However, there is another one-in-four statistic that I want you 

all to hear very clearly. And if there is nothing else that you get 

from me today, please hear this: A study was released in 2005 of 

female U.S. military veterans, both officers and enlisted. And it 

found that over one in four experienced rape or attempted rape 

during their military service. Please also hear this: 96 percent of 

the perpetrators were military personnel. 

So when you meet women in the military today, please remember 

that the consequences of us doing nothing at this point, the status 

quo, is that one in four will be raped by someone else in our own 

military. I think that is unacceptable; what do you think? 

I hope you think these statistics are alarming, and I hope you 

don’t take my word for it on their validity. I brought a copy of the 

study I just referenced with me, and I left it with your staff, Mr. 

Kildee. I hope you will read it for yourself. 

These numbers are why you need to focus on prevention programming. Not all approaches to prevention programming are created equally. There are a lot of good ideas out there that, honestly, 

do little, if anything, to prevent a single rape. The encouraging 

news is that there is now data to separate the merely good ideas 

from the approaches that are proven to make a difference. 

For the last 16 years, a team of researchers has worked to design 

a rape prevention program called ‘‘The Men’s Program.’’ According 

to the research, ‘‘The Men’s Program’’ is the only program in history where men who see it subsequently commit less sexual assault 

than men who don’t. It is the only program ever to document behavior change in sexual assault committed by young adult men. In 

controlled studies, those who see ‘‘The Men’s Program’’ commit only 

about half as much sexual assault as those who don’t see the program. Those who see the program, if they do commit an act of sex-
30 

ual assault, commit an act that is much, much less severe than 

those who don’t see the program. 

These are the kinds of research results that make professors like 

me do a little victory dance when we see our data charts come off 

the computer printer. 

The field of rape prevention has experienced major breakthroughs recently. And I can’t sit before you today and say that we 

can eliminate rape in the military. However, I can say with confidence that, with the right research-based and proven methods 

and targeted resources, our military can decimate the rate of rape 

in its midst. It just takes a sustained commitment to prevention 

programming, the resources, and the will to get it done. 

The data on rape in the military speaks for itself. The data on 

our ability to prevent it does so as well. I look forward to your 

questions to provide any information possible on how we can all 

work together to create a steep decline in rape in the armed services and to see that happen with all due speed, because, after all, 

our women and men in uniform deserve nothing less. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Foubert can be found in the Appendix on page 115.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Dr. Foubert. 

Mr. Lee. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. LEE, MPH, DIRECTOR OF PREVENTION SERVICES, CALIFORNIA COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL 

ASSAULT (CALCASA) 

Mr. LEE. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and other 

members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, thank you for 

the privilege of providing testimony about the efforts to prevent violence in the armed services. 

My name is David Lee, and I have been active in the efforts to 

prevent sexual violence and other forms of violence against women 

over the last 26 years. It is my honor to currently serve as the director of prevention services of the California Coalition Against 

Sexual Assault (CALCASA), one of the largest and oldest associations of sexual assault programs in the Nation. 

While we have always identified addressing the needs of those 

who have been sexually assaulted as necessary, we recognize that 

the problem of sexual assault is not one only of individual incidents, but also of a culture which allows sexual assault to flourish. 

And so I was heartened to hear earlier each of the services talk 

about how they will address that culture. 

Based on our experience in working in California, CALCASA was 

selected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop our project, Prevention Connection, which is the leading online resource on sexual violence prevention, drawing on experiences 

and knowledge gained by professionals within the rape crisis movement, public health practitioners, and research. 

Throughout my career, I have been involved in a variety of prevention efforts, working to identify the best practices and evidencebased strategies. In California, we conducted what was, at its time, 

the largest social marketing campaign to prevent sexual violence, 

the My Strength Campaign, which adapted Men Can Stop Rape’s 
31 

programs to meet the populations in California and be able to engage young men to speak out and stand up against sexual assault. 

I do not need to explain to you all about the epidemic of sexual 

violence. Your hearings have done great service to all of us to bring 

attention to this issue. And we recognize that sexual violence in the 

military is not unlike sexual violence in other segments of our society. It reflects not only individual’s experiences but reflects this 

culture that I talked about that condones sexual violence and, importantly, minimizes the responsibility of all members of our society or community to take any action to prevent it. 

The military has a unique opportunity to be able to take action 

to change those cultural factors and be able to encourage people to 

be able to speak out and take actions to be able to make change. 

What we have seen is that the military has begun to raise 

awareness about sexual assault, establish policies and procedures 

to make services available. Those are essential. However, developing services for those who have been abused is not sufficient to 

end sexual violence. 

Data from a variety of research informs sexual violence prevention work. Research has identified risk factors for victimization and 

perpetration. What we want to be able to focus on is how can we 

promote the protective factors and be able to address the negative 

social and environmental contributors that are important components to a public health approach to be able to prevent sexual violence. 

Some sexual violence prevention work seeks to alert potential 

victims to the risks they face from potential assault. While there 

is some value in this risk-reduction education, fundamentally it is 

insufficient to be able to prevent actual abuse. Without proper attention to the full context of sexual assault, risk-reduction activities may inappropriately hold victims of sexual assault responsible 

for not protecting themselves, such as, ‘‘You shouldn’t have put 

yourself in that situation.’’ 

To address sexual violence prevention in a truly comprehensive 

manner, strategies to prevent its initial perpetration, known as primary prevention, must have the same level of commitment as programs that respond to its consequences. 

A promising approach, what we can see from the research, for 

prevention is look at the bystander intervention effort. Based on 

this and other issues, work that has been initially done, we have 

embraced this strategy within sexual violence prevention. Instead 

of approaching people as potential victims of sexual assault or potential perpetrators of sexual violence, bystander intervention will 

approach people within a community as potential actors who can 

intervene in situations to the environment that may lead to sexual 

assault and intervene in situations that may lead to abuse. 

As this is developed, it is essential, the partnership between the 

military and prevention practitioners, to be able to enhance efforts. 

We have been doing work for over 35 years within the sexual violence prevention field. Our initial efforts didn’t work. We had to 

learn lessons, and we had to be able to refine this. As you are 

working on developing efforts within the Armed Forces, we will recognize that we need to learn lessons and adapt that learning curve. 
32 

Over the last several years, the Department of Defense and several branches of the military have solicited input from CALCASA 

and other prevention practitioners, and we feel this is very important. 

This change requires making shifts in the culture to promote a 

culture where soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines identify taking 

action to prevent sexual violence as a core concept of being in the 

military. 

We recognize that sexual violence is a problem throughout our 

society, not only within military services, and I expect that armed 

services can make a difference to address a serious problem within 

its ranks, just as it made racist behavior unacceptable within its 

ranks. 

Mr. LEE. I am heartened to know that there have been important 

steps to address this issue within armed services. I am also aware 

there is much more to do to intervene when assault takes place as 

well as prevent this beforehand. Thank you for your attention, and 

I hope that we can continue to be of assistance in making next 

steps. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee can be found in the Appendix on page 123.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

I know we really appreciate having individuals like yourselves 

who have really looked at this program, not just in terms of the 

military but also in terms of colleges, universities and many other 

groups. 

Dr. Foubert, if I could just start with you because I think that 

what you said is quite dramatic. And we certainly appreciate that. 

Could you, and I will ask Mr. Lee as well, assess, a thumbnail assessment of the videos that you saw and the general approach that 

is being taken? And if you feel that the data collection that was 

discussed, and there may be a lot of details of that that you are 

not aware of, but generally speaking, are people kind of on the 

right track? And I ask about the videos because, as I watch them 

as well, and I understand that this is just a snippet, this is just 

a small piece of it, but I am just wondering, do those really resonate with the men and women who are watching them? And are 

we using our men and women to create those kinds of messages 

and videos? And if not, I think, why not? Aren’t they the best ones 

to do that? 

Dr. FOUBERT. I think there are a couple of questions there. 

To start with, an assessment of the videos. The approach that I 

use to prevention programming is to look specifically at the research on what shows works best, not necessarily to what I think, 

well, I think this might work or appeal to my better instincts, but 

to say, what research studies would say that this approach works? 

And so when I compare research studies on what tends to work in 

rape prevention programming to the videos that I saw, I see a fairly large disconnect. 

I don’t think that the videos, by and large, that we saw today, 

are in line with what is good practice in rape prevention programming. I think that the production quality of the videos is good. I 

think of the ones that we saw, the public service announcements, 

the little snippets, show the most promise. And I think they show 
33 

the most promise in the sense that those videos can reinforce bystander intervention messages. And I think the value of any of 

those videos could be to reinforce other messages that are received 

within any of the branches of the military. 

But I think the videos, and you did mention the fact that what 

we saw was snippets not the whole thing, and so I should certainly 

make it clear, I didn’t see the whole thing, but there was enough 

at least in some of them for me to say definitively I can think of 

six studies off the top of my head and one case that would say they 

were diametrically opposed to what research shows works best, let 

alone whether they would pass muster with your 19-year-old enlisted man in the Army. So I think what the military needs to do 

is to take a look at, here is what the research shows works best 

in terms of outcomes of lowering rape and lowering rape behavior 

and use that to inform prevention approaches. That might include 

a video; it might not. But I think there is a ways to go, at least 

in terms of the information that is included in the videos I saw. Although I am glad they are trying. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Lee, did you want to comment on those? 

Mr. LEE. Yes. We believe that it is important. And in the input 

that I have given to the Department of Defense and to some of the 

branches, we have talked about the value of a social marketing approach, and I appreciate that they are taking that. I do also believe 

though that media itself does not change behavior, and there is 

very little evidence of the media itself. The question is, ‘‘What is 

the context that the media is being used in? What are the forms 

of training, education and, more importantly, policies and procedures that are in place that will then lead to changes that actually 

take place?’’ 

The Armed Services actually know how to change culture. They 

change culture all the time in the way that they prepare people to 

be within their community. And they take that. And we need to 

draw on it as lessons. So I am heartened to see the appeal to military values that we saw, for example, in the Army program that 

that is a strong way to be able to resonate and be able to move forward. The media itself can’t create the change, but it can reinforce 

messaging. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I just want to ask a little bit more about the root problem that 

you see. And we asked earlier about military culture, and obviously, we recruit young men and women who are able to do things 

that a lot of people in our population are not comfortable doing, 

and they are nurtured and educated to do that. And yet some of 

that may go against what we are talking about right here. We 

might call it macho behavior, whatever that may be. And yet with 

the panel earlier we didn’t really hear that as an obstacle to getting out this message. Could you address that? 

Dr. FOUBERT. The problem in our society that leads to rape? 

There certainly is a problem in our society that leads to rape in 

terms of how we raise men and what behaviors are acceptable. And 

there are somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen, two dozen 

characteristics of men who are more likely to rape than other men. 

And there is this culture of masculinity, one-upmanship. Men who 

are more likely to rape tend to drink more. They tend to be more 
34 

hypermasculine. They tend to have characteristics that tend to be 

more associated with men who go into the military. 

So you start with a biased sample, from a researcher’s perspective, going into the military. So it is not surprising that you might 

have more of an issue with rape in the military than your average 

company, organization, those sorts of thing. The biggest problem I 

see with rape in the military right now is the military needs to be 

using more research-based approaches in its approach to rape prevention. There is some dabbling with some approaches that have 

support from one theory or another or have been shown to change 

knowledge, but you don’t change behavior by changing knowledge, 

and so I think there needs to be more work done in that. I think 

there is significant sincere interest among many people in the military in addressing this problem, and I applaud that. And I think 

that there are some really good souls who are trying to do their 

best. I think we need to move forward with research-based approaches that have shown positive outcomes. Like I said, there 

have been breakthroughs in rape prevention research just in the 

last few years. We need to start applying those to the military because we can do that, do that successfully and start addressing this 

problem. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I hope we will 

have a chance to get back to some of those issues. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And Dr. Whitley, thank you so much for being here. I also want 

to commend the people that you work with in the earlier panel, a 

number of professional people, who obviously are very caring, compassionate and competent. As I think of military service, to me, it 

is an extraordinary ability, uplifting opportunity for young people 

to serve through education, through meeting very competent and 

capable and patriotic fellow citizens by travel. 

I just got back two weeks ago from visiting with people in my 

home state who are serving in Guam, serving in Korea, serving in 

Okinawa, Japan. I was green with envy. I was so happy for them 

to have opportunities that I didn’t know existed, and so I am very 

pleased about military service. 

It was stated earlier that, being in the military, that some people 

join to be a part of a family. And I know that has been the experience with us. That it is a family. And it is also establishing lifelong 

friends. And so that goes to the point that you made that it is a 

moral duty to report. That would be not consistent with fellow family members. 

As you face the challenges of developing sexual assault prevention policies and programs, what are the major challenges that you 

have? Are there gaps in the programs, and what can we do to help 

you address the gaps? 

Dr. WHITLEY. Thank you for that question, Mr. Wilson. 

First, it is a monumental task to begin with, because we are talking about more than two million people that are stationed all 

around the world. And there is really no step-by-step guide for us 

to follow. I don’t think there is anyone that has ever done this on 

the scale that we are attempting to do it. 
35 

As far as the gaps, I think Dr. Foubert just hit on the main gap, 

is that what we had done to date did not necessarily—it was not 

necessarily based on research. Some of the videos that the service 

showed today, they were developed probably in the last few years 

because they have been in place for a while. The prevention strategy that we have just completed and presented to our leadership 

is based on research. And the two PSAs that Dr. Foubert said were 

getting closer to what they should be were evidence-based. And so 

we are moving in that direction. 

We have a lot more to do, but we are not shy about reaching out 

and asking for help. We held a second summit, I think I have that 

in my testimony as well, in 2008. And we brought together Men 

Can Stop Rape. We had Dr. Paul Schewe from the University of 

Chicago; Dr. Antonia Abbey from Wayne State; and Gail Stern 

from Catharsis Productions. We also worked with CALCASA and 

the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. And they are all ready, 

willing and able to help us as we implement and develop our prevention strategy. 

Mr. WILSON. And I was impressed by the videos. I particularly 

was impressed where it is persons of the same age group, peer 

group, in effect, hopefully speaking to each other instead of pontificating by persons of another age group. 

And Dr. Foubert, I am very interested to hear about the men’s 

program. And so if you could tell us about this, and also has any 

of this been picked up by the military? 

Dr. FOUBERT. The men’s program is a one-hour workshop presented in a peer education format. And it is presented right now 

mostly by college men to other college men. It is in place on 40 college campuses across the country. And they define rape. They then 

talk about how to help a sexual assault survivor after they show 

a videotape that graphically describes a rape situation, and then 

they talk about bystander intervention. 

The bystander intervention approach, which people have been 

talking about here, was sort of the final thing that was added to 

the program that really led to making the difference. What we 

found through the research is that when men can understand what 

rape might feel like, cast it in the light of, here is how you help 

a friend recover from rape, so we want you to understand what 

rape might feel like, but we are going to teach it to you under the 

guise of it can happen to a friend of yours, so we want you to understand what it might feel like, and then here is what you can do 

if you see it in a situation where it might actually happen. That 

combination of factors led to the behavior change. And that was 16 

years worth of research to get to that point. So that is the men’s 

program essentially. And your question in a military context, I 

have worked with two other consultants, Gail Stern and Christopher Kilmartin at the United States Naval Academy. And we 

have worked for the last three years, not only to implement the 

men’s program at the Naval Academy, but to put together 20 programs there over the course of the four years that the midshipmen 

are there. There is no institution of higher education in the United 

States who has taken a more comprehensive approach to rape prevention than the United States Naval Academy. They are taking 

this as seriously as any college or university in the country. And 
36 

part of what they use is the men’s program, but they use many others as well. And so they are doing that. I am also talking right now 

to folks in the United States Army about taking the program both 

into Europe and to the United States, and we are in the very, very 

late stages of those discussions. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you very much. And I am glad to hear 

of the military cooperation. I particularly am grateful to hear about 

the Naval Academy. I am the proud father of a graduate of the 

Naval Academy, and so I do have a high regard. 

Thank you very much. 

Dr. FOUBERT. You are welcome. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. I would like to thank the witnesses for staying around with us. This is very, very important for 

our military men and women, and for us to understand this better. 

I did have a couple of questions. 

Dr. Foubert, I wanted to start with you. You said that there were 

traits. Are those traits that we can search for and identify before 

we recruit? Can you say what they are? 

Dr. FOUBERT. You could. But the thing is someone could have all 

of those traits and not be a rapist. Someone could have all of those 

traits and not be someone who is going to commit a rape. But yes 

there are those traits, and you could screen for them. In some cases 

it would be, the screening tool would be rather lengthy. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, my question would be, not necessarily 

that we would be saying we are looking for this in you, but when 

they come into the recruiting office, could it be absorbed into a 

larger form where they fill out where you might have a couple of 

flags? And what are those traits? Is that something that a recruiter 

could learn to spot? 

Dr. FOUBERT. Many of them are complex personality variables 

that would take a sophisticated psychological test to get at. And so 

I don’t think you are—and this is not to disparage military recruiters, but they would be something like a sociopathic personalty disorder, which sociopaths by definition are very good at hiding their 

motives. Someone who drinks and gets drunk frequently could be 

an alcoholic, or they could be someone who is also more likely to 

commit sexual assault. That is an easy thing that someone can 

fake. There are, in the research literature, roughly 15, 16 different 

variables that have been found. I can get you all of that information certainly. And if that would be of interest to you, I can do that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 132.] 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I would appreciate that. After the first panel, 

several of the women were standing there saying, we were pretty 

good identifying just in our lives people that are aggressive. And 

I wonder if that is something that we could work more on. 

Dr. FOUBERT. The one thing that I can say that I have used as 

a screening tool when I interview, I talked before about having 40 

peer education groups on college campuses throughout the country 

of men who present to other men about rape and sexual assault, 

one of the things I screen for is their past history and whether they 

have committed violence against women. One of the questions I 

asked them is, ‘‘Tell me about the time in your life when you came 
37 

the closest to behavior that met the legal definition of sexual assault.’’ And one of the first things they say is, ‘‘Well, I never raped 

anybody.’’ Okay. ‘‘Well, think of consent on a continuum of zero to 

100, where zero is, you have countersigned paperwork with your 

attorney and hers and you have agreed to everything you are going 

to do in advance, which never happens; 100 is rape. Tell me about 

the time when it was a 5 or a 50 or somewhere in between, the 

one time where there was that oops, where you didn’t completely 

have complete consent, tell me about that time.’’ And so one of the 

things I found there is that men will admit in some cases to behavior that actually does meet the legal definition of rape, but they 

don’t understand that it does, or they will admit to risky behavior. 

And I can pinpoint with them whether or not they are at risk. And 

that actually has been the most effective screening tool that I have 

used. And certainly if the military wanted to use it, they would be 

free to do so. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

And the other question was, you talked about the videos, and I 

think I had the same response that maybe some will be reached 

by that, and it was a great effort, but that I suspected that most 

of those who were involved would not really see themselves in that. 

So what about women, videos for women? I don’t even know if they 

are doing that. But are you aware of a series of videos that women 

talk to women, which would be more part of the prevention part 

in helping women to recognize and identify possible predators before? 

Dr. FOUBERT. I recently wrote a program for women on how to 

recognize perpetrators, and we do use a video that shows perpetrator behavior. And so, yes, there is such a program in existence, 

and I wrote it. It is not geared though towards blaming women for 

being a victim. And you have to be very careful about that dynamic. But one of the things the research has shown is that women 

are less likely to experience rape if they are able to pick up on cues 

in men that make the men more likely to commit sexual assault. 

And so one of the things that we do in the program is to teach 

women more of the danger signs in men for what makes them more 

likely to sexually assault women. And one of the videos we showed 

was actually originally filmed by Dr. David Lisak, who has been 

mentioned a couple of times at this hearing, where he shows a 

scene that a man who has committed rape acts that out. So we use 

that video, in part, as a training tool for women to understand this 

is what a rapist looks like, and we process that in many different 

ways. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And Dr. Whitley, I see you nodding. Is there 

a film that you wanted to talk about, a video. 

Dr. WHITLEY. We use the Lisak training as well in our training 

throughout all the services. It is quite chilling. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And effective, measurably effective. 

Dr. WHITLEY. And effective. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Lee, did you want to add? 

Mr. LEE. I would also add that in approaching women, look at 

the bystander approach of being not just men, but also the role 

that women can be able to play in creating an environment where 
38 

sexual assaults are not acceptable and not just putting the burden 

on women to protect themselves, but to look at all service members 

to be able to look at how, including women, on how they can be 

able to do that. 

And from a prevention standpoint, we really want to be able to 

look at the bystander approach and how we can integrate that into 

the work that we are able to do. I am skeptical of a magic screening device that can be done on the scale of the military recruiting, 

but I think there are ways that we should also be looking at how 

we can bring people into the military who are going to become active bystanders and be able to create the values and the behaviors 

that we are expecting within the armed services. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I will say that having kids that went to college, I was amazed at how woefully unaware so many of these students were on campus at not recognizing situations, possible situations, not recognizing anything. So I think we need to also beef 

that up, too. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. And we are just going to have 

one or two questions. We are going to wrap up in just a few minutes. 

One of the things that was mentioned is the research and what 

we know about the fact that many of the women who come into 

sort of services have had prior sexual victimization. Do you see that 

knowledge that we have about that playing itself out in some of the 

work that is being done now? And is that something that can be 

utilized or played down? How do you see that so you know that, 

okay, they get that part of it? How do we use that? 

Dr. FOUBERT. One of the things that we know in the research is 

that women who have been sexually assaulted before are more likely than the average woman to be sexually assaulted again. And so 

that is problematic from the perspective of, you are more likely to 

be sexually assaulted again if you have been sexually assaulted before. So you are dealing with, in the military, a population of 

women who are, statistically speaking, more likely to be sexually 

assaulted than the average woman. So you are not only dealing 

with a population of men, the research shows, coming into at least 

some branches of the military who are more likely to commit sexual assault, you are dealing with a population of women who are 

more likely to be sexually assaulted. So you are coming in with a 

population that is—you have a real problem. And so I think what 

that says is you need to take that issue extremely seriously and 

much more seriously than the average organization would, which 

means you need to approach this as something that is just as serious as, how do you load a gun? How do you sink in a submarine? 

How do you do all of these things? And give the time to it that it 

needs. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Whitley, could you respond to that some, too? In your role, 

are you provided the tools, the authorization, to really push that 

issue a little bit more with the services as they are working on 

their programs? How often does that come up? How great a play 

is it? 

Dr. WHITLEY. Well, one of the issues is that the program is still 
39 

fairly new. And what we are finding as we interact with our experts and as we implement pieces of our program and continue 

down this path and have GAO investigations and defense task 

forces and people looking at us a lot, we get a lot of recommendations. So it is just growing by leaps and bounds. And we are finding 

we need to do more and more, and we need to do it better. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Can I ask you to just follow up with a capacity question in terms of the resources that you have? We have all said that 

this costs the military an awful lot of money to deal with this. And 

are we putting the resources there at the level of expertise in your 

department that is going to actually be able to provide the kind of 

care in this area that we need? 

Dr. WHITLEY. I think we are moving in that direction. We have 

budgeted out for five years. And we just took a new step in terms 

of looking at exactly where the money goes. My leadership asked 

each of the services to come back and let us know how much they 

spend on victim care, how much they spend on administering the 

program. And they have to break it down by program element 

codes. And we have just recently gotten that information, and we 

are analyzing it. And part of my oversight role is to ensure that 

they are funded. 

But we identify new requirements every day and continue to request new resources. I do have full support of my leadership. Secretary Gates has come on board as being very interested in four 

areas. And those four areas are the training of prosecutors and investigators and commanders and sustaining that training, and also 

we are really looking closely at stigma. And we have to get back 

to him with action plans on those areas. So that is going to help 

having support all the way down from the Secretary of Defense 

(SECDEF). 

Dr. FOUBERT. Madam Chairwoman, if I may, over time I wonder 

how much money the military could save if they did really effective 

prevention programming, and there were less rapes committed, and 

you had more women who weren’t leaving the military? How much 

does it cost when you train a woman to do a specialized job and 

she leaves because she is sexually assaulted? How does it affect 

troop morale? How does it affect any number of things? And so if 

we can have fewer women accessing services, how much does that 

cost? 

Now, in the beginning when you implement a good rape-prevention programming, reporting usually goes up. And so there is the 

short-term cost going up, but long-term, it should go down. So I 

think there is the short-term investment, but the long-term gains 

can be so cost effective, not to mention the fact that it is just the 

right thing to do. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Right. Thank you. I couldn’t have said it better myself. 

I want to thank you all so much for being here. I think this has 

been very helpful. I know we have had discussions outside the 

room as well today. And I certainly appreciate the work that you 

are all doing. I think we all wholeheartedly support the men and 

women in the military. We recognize that we give them a very, 

very difficult job to do, and we want to be sure that they are able 
40 

to progress in an environment that is healthy and safe for everyone. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 6, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 6, 2009 

(45) 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 6, 2009 

(131) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Sexual Assault Victim Intervention (SAVI) Quick Polls were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to determine baseline awareness and perceptions of sexual 

assault in the Navy and of the SAVI program. The 2008 SAVI Quick Poll was conducted to update the earlier polls, and to provide current information to address recommendations from the GAO report released in August 2008. 

The standard Navy Quick Poll methodology developed by the Navy Personnel Research Studies and Technology Laboratory (NPRST) was used. The 2008 SAVI 

Quick Poll included questions adapted from the 2004 and 2005 SAVI Quick Polls; 

as well as newly added items on awareness of restricted and unrestricted reporting 

of sexual assault (SA). Randomly selected Sailors, stratified by officer/enlisted status 

and gender, ensured adequate representation of officer and enlisted men and 

women. Navy messages were sent to commands requesting selected personnel complete the poll online at the Quick Poll website within 12 business days. A reminder 

Navy message was sent midway through the fielding period. The poll was deployed 

from 10 to 26 September 2008, and could only be accessed once by the selected Navy 

personnel using correct usernames/passwords. The response rate was 33% and the 

margins of error were ±4% or less for both enlisted and officers. 

Summary 

• Compared to the 2004/5 polls, awareness of SAVI program and services has increased. 

Æ Positive trends were found for all groups from 2004 to 2008 among both 

junior and senior personnel. 

• The percentages reporting both SA-related training attendance and having attended SAVI training in the year prior also increased: 

Æ Over 90% of enlisted personnel and over 80% of officers attended SA 

training in the prior year. 

Æ All groups reported that the training increased their awareness of SA-related issues. 

• Awareness of the Victims and Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) declined 

from 2005 to 2008 (68% to 48% for officer women; 64% to 55% for enlisted 

women). A similar pattern was found regarding awareness of VWAP for officer 

and enlisted men. For most groups, awareness of other programs to assist victims of sexual assault, e.g., the SAVI program and the Civilian Rape Crisis 

Center, increased or remained the same from 2005 to 2008. 

• Seventy percent or more were aware of restricted and unrestricted reporting 

and one-third or more had seen flyers and posters about the reporting options 

at their commands. 

Æ Two-thirds or more know to whom to report sexual assault without command knowledge, i.e., how to make a restricted report. 

• Over 90% believe SA is a criminal act and know what actions are considered 

SA. 

• Eighty percent or more report that SA is not tolerated at their command, know 

what to do if assaulted, and feel free to report SA. 

• Half of enlisted women and 38% of officer women report that SA is a problem 

in the Navy; under 20% of both groups report that SA is occurring at their command. 

• More than 75% indicate that they would report SA to Navy authorities. 

Æ Fear of not being believed, embarrassment, and fear of public disclosure 

were key reasons for not reporting. 

Actionable Items 

• Incorporate poll results into SAVI training to demonstrate positive gains and 

highlight areas needing improvement. 

• Determine reasons for decrease in Victims and Witness Assistance Program 

awareness and, if appropriate, take steps to increase awareness. 
132 

• Develop Plan of Action to increase awareness of sexual assault reporting options 

and address barriers to reporting sexual assault. 

• Brief results to the Department of the Navy (DON) Sexual Assault Advisory 

Committee (SAAC), U.S. Navy leadership at all echelons, and the DOD Sexual 

Assault Advisory Council Subcommittee on Research. 

• Conduct follow-up SAVI Quick Poll in 2010 to monitor trends. [See page 13.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Since February 2005, Army policy has prohibited the enlistment 

or appointment (officer or enlisted) of any applicant previously convicted of a violent 

sexual offense. Furthermore, personnel separated as a result of the convicted sex offender policy are ineligible to reenter the Army. Additionally, since January 2008, 

every applicant for enlistment is automatically screened against the National Sex 

Offender Public Registry. Those who are registered are not allowed entry and do not 

make it past the individual recruiter in the enlistment process. 

To the best of our knowledge, after reviewing recruiting and appointment records, 

the Army has not accessed anyone who was in violation of Army or DOD policy. The 

Army does the very best it can with local/national police and background checks and 

local/national registries, but unfortunately these are not 100% accurate, as not all 

sex offenders are registered as required by their conviction. However, while conducting this review, we did identify gaps in our policies, as well as discrepancies 

between Army and DOD policy. 

To resolve these gaps and discrepancies, the Army has convened a policy review 

group under the direction of the Army G-1 and in partnership with the FBI and 

DOJ. The group has identified necessary policy and procedure changes and an opportunity to better partner with other governmental agencies. The review group will 

submit its findings, recommendations, and timeline to the senior leadership of the 

Army later this summer. [See page 15.] 

Dr. FOUBERT. The question regarded whether there are traits that distinguish 

men who are more likely to commit sexual assault and/or rape. There are indeed 

many such traits. I caution that an individual could have all such traits and still 

not have committed rape and still not commit rape in the future. However, research 

has identified many traits and characteristics in men that are associated with a 

higher risk for committing rape and other forms of sexual assault. The enclosed 

handout identifies these characteristics with citations attached to their source in the 

research. 

As the author of the only sexual assault prevention program shown by research 

to lead to a decline in sexual assault behavior by college-aged men, I hope that I 

can maintain an ongoing relationship with your committee and the branches of the 

military as we work together to eradicate rape from our midst. Please call on me 

anytime I can be of assistance. [See page 36.] 
133 
134 
135 

Æ