Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and Oversight Challenges
Published: 2008-08-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2004, Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to sexual assaults involving servicemembers. Though not required to do so, the Coast Guard has established a similar policy. In response to congressional requests and Senate Report No. 110-77, GAO evaluated the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard (1) have developed and implemented policies and programs to prevent, respond to, and resolve sexual assault incidents involving servicemembers; (2) have visibility over reports of sexual assault involving servicemembers; and (3) exercise oversight over reports of sexual assault involving servicemembers. To conduct this review, GAO reviewed legislative requirements and DOD and Coast Guard guidance; analyzed sexual assault incident data; and obtained through surveys and interviews the perspective on sexual assault matters of more than 3,900 servicemembers.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DOD and the Coast Guard have established polices and programs to prevent, respond to, and resolve reported sexual assault incidents involving servicemembers; however, implementation of the programs is hindered by several factors. GAO found that (1) DOD's guidance may not adequately address some important issues, such as how to implement its program in deployed and joint environments; (2) most, but not all, commanders support the programs; (3) required sexual assault prevention and response training is not consistently effective; and (4) factors such as a DOD-reported shortage of mental health care providers affect whether servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault can or do access mental health services. Left unchecked, these challenges can discourage or prevent some servicemembers from using the programs when needed. GAO found, based on responses to its nongeneralizable survey administered to 3,750 servicemembers stationed at military installations in the United States and overseas and a 2006 DOD survey, the most recent available, that occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only limited visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. At the 14 installations where GAO administered its survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not report the sexual assault. GAO also found that factors that discourage servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault include the belief that nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip. Although DOD has established some mechanisms for overseeing reports of sexual assault, and the Coast Guard is beginning to do so, neither has developed an oversight framework--including clear objectives, milestones, performance measures, and criteria for measuring progress--to guide its efforts. In compliance with statutory requirements, DOD reports data on sexual assault incidents involving servicemembers to Congress annually. However, DOD's report does not include some data that would aid congressional oversight, such as why some sexual assaults could not be substantiated following an investigation. Further, the military services have not provided data that would facilitate oversight and enable DOD to conduct trend analyses. While the Coast Guard voluntarily provides data to DOD for inclusion in its report, this information is not provided to Congress because there is no requirement to do so. To provide further oversight of DOD's programs, Congress, in 2004, directed the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services to conduct an examination of matters relating to sexual assault in the Armed Forces. However, as of July 2008, the task force had not yet begun its review. Without an oversight framework, as well as more complete data, decision makers in DOD, the Coast Guard, and Congress lack information they need to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Sexual assault is a crime that contradicts the core values that the  Department of Defense (DOD), the military services, and the Coast Guard  expect servicemembers to follow, such as treating their fellow members  with dignity and respect. Within DOD and the Coast Guard, sexual assault  also presents a force protection challenge and can negatively affect units’  readiness and cohesion. In 2004, following a series of high-profile sexual  assault cases involving servicemembers, Congress directed the Secretary  of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy for DOD on the prevention  of and response to sexual assaults involving servicemembers, including an  option that would enable servicemembers to confidentially disclose an  incident of sexual assault. Since July 2005, active duty servicemembers  have had two options for reporting an alleged sexual assault: (1)  restricted, which allows victims of sexual assault to disclose a sexual  assault incident to specific individuals and receive medical care and other  victim advocacy services without initiating a criminal investigation; and  (2) unrestricted, which entails notification of the chain of command and  may trigger a criminal investigation. Although these requirements do not  apply to the Coast Guard, which is overseen by the Department of  Homeland Security, the Coast Guard has adopted similar reporting  options.
To help inform congressional deliberations on these issues, in August  2006, Congressman Christopher Shays, then Chairman of the House  Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security,  Emerging Threats, and International Relations, asked GAO to examine  sexual assault prevention and response programs at the military  academies as well as at military installations within DOD and the Coast  Guard and during deployments. In August 2007, Congressmen John  Tierney, in his new position as Chairman of the House Committee on  Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security  and Foreign Affairs, signed on to the original request submitted by  Congressman Shays. In response, we issued a report in January 2008  reviewing programs to address sexual assault and sexual harassment at  the military and Coast Guard academies. That report found that, while the  academies have taken steps to prevent, respond to, and resolve sexual  assault and sexual harassment incidents, such incidents may be  underreported, suggesting that the academies may not have full visibility  over all sexual assault and sexual harassment incidents and that greater  federal oversight of their efforts is needed. In that report, we made a  number of recommendations to DOD to improve its visibility and oversight  of reported incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the  military academies, and to the Coast Guard to improve its oversight of  reported incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the Coast  Guard Academy. In commenting on that report, both DOD and the Coast  Guard concurred or partially concurred with our recommendations and  specified actions they would take to address them. For example, DOD  stated that it was in the initial stages of identifying servicewide  performance metrics to help assess the academy’s programs, while the  Coast Guard noted that it had recently published additional guidance and  would work with DOD to help improve oversight of its program.
Subsequent to receiving the congressional request, the Senate Armed  Services Committee directed GAO to review sexual assault prevention and  response programs at DOD military installations and during deployments  overseas. In addition, several individual senators requested that we  examine issues surrounding mental health concerns that can result from  sexual assault. On July 31, 2008, we testified before the House Committee  on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security  and Foreign Affairs, on our preliminary observations of DOD’s and the  Coast Guard’s sexual assault prevention and response programs. This  report expands upon the preliminary observations we discussed at that  hearing and addresses sexual assault prevention and response programs in  the active components of DOD and the Coast Guard, including during  deployments. Specifically, it evaluates the extent to which DOD and the  Coast Guard (1) have developed and implemented policies and programs  to prevent, respond to, and resolve sexual assault incidents involving  servicemembers; (2) have visibility over reports of sexual assault involving  servicemembers; and (3) exercise oversight over reports of sexual assault  involving servicemembers.
For our first objective, we reviewed legislative requirements; obtained and  analyzed DOD’s, the military services’, and the Coast Guard’s guidance and  requirements for the prevention, response, and resolution of sexual  assault; analyzed DOD’s annual reports to Congress for calendar years  2004, 2005, 2006, and fiscal year 2007; interviewed knowledgeable officials  about implementation of the programs; and visited 15 military installations  in the United States and overseas to assess implementation of the  programs. At the installations we visited, we met with sexual assault  prevention and response program coordinators, victim advocates, judge  advocates, medical and mental health personnel, criminal investigative  personnel, law enforcement personnel, and chaplains. We also met with  various military commanders, including company and field grade officers,  and senior enlisted servicemembers. We also obtained the perspective of  more than 3,900 servicemembers by administering a total of 3,750  confidential surveys to a nonprobability sample of randomly selected  servicemembers and conducting more than 150 one-on-one, structured  interviews with randomly selected servicemembers at 14 of the 15  installations we visited. Our survey is the first since 2006 to obtain the  perspectives of selected servicemembers in each military service and the  Coast Guard on sexual assault issues and the first to assess sexual assault  issues in the Coast Guard since the restricted reporting option became  available in December 2007. Because we did not select survey and  interview participants using a statistically representative sampling method,  our survey results and the comments provided during our interview  sessions are nongeneralizable and therefore cannot be projected across  DOD, a service, or any single installation we visited. However, the survey  results and comments provide insight into the command climate and  implementation of sexual assault prevention and response programs at  each location at the time of our visit. For our second objective, in addition  to analyzing our confidential surveys and one-on-one structured  interviews, we reviewed the results of surveys conducted by DOD and the  Army and Navy since 2004; reviewed DOD’s annual reports to Congress;  and obtained and analyzed data for reported sexual assaults in both DOD  and the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2007. We assessed the reliability of the  reported sexual assault data by interviewing DOD and Coast Guard  officials to understand the processes and databases used to collect and  record the data, existing data quality control procedures, and known  limitations of the data. We found these data were sufficiently reliable to  present an overall description of reported incidents of sexual assault. For  our third objective, we interviewed knowledgeable officials; obtained and  analyzed various pertinent documents, such as meeting minutes for DOD’s  Sexual Assault Advisory Council; reviewed reports issued by the services’  inspector generals and examined DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s responses  to recommendations from prior related studies; and analyzed all DOD and  Coast Guard installation-level data for reported sexual assaults for fiscal  year 2007. Further details about our scope and methodology, including the  development and administration of our survey and the one-on-one  structured interviews, can be found in appendix I. In addition, copies of  our survey questionnaires can be found in appendices VI and VII.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2007 through August 2008  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In October 2004, Congress included a provision in the Ronald W. Reagan  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 that required the  Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy for DOD on the  prevention of and response to sexual assaults involving members of the  Armed Forces. The legislation required that the department’s policy be  based on the recommendations of the Department of Defense Task Force  on Care for Victims of Sexual Assaults and on such other matters as the  Secretary considered appropriate. Among other things, the legislation  required DOD to establish a standardized departmentwide definition of  sexual assault; establish procedures for confidentially reporting sexual  assault incidents; and submit an annual report to Congress on reported  sexual assault incidents involving members of the Armed Forces.
In October 2005, DOD issued DOD Directive 6495.01, which contains its  comprehensive policy for the prevention of and response to sexual assault,  and in June 2006 it issued DOD Instruction 6495.02, which provides  guidance for implementing its policy. DOD’s directive defines sexual  assault as “intentional sexual contact, characterized by the use of force,  physical threat or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or  cannot consent. It includes rape, nonconsensual sodomy (oral or anal  sex), indecent assault (unwanted, inappropriate sexual contact or  fondling), or attempts to commit these acts. Sexual assault can occur  without regard to gender or spousal relationship or age of victim.  “Consent” shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the  victim to offer physical resistance. Consent is not given when a person  uses force, threat of force, coercion, or when a victim is asleep,  incapacitated, or unconscious.”
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has the  responsibility for developing the overall policy and guidance for the  department’s sexual assault prevention and response program. Under the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,  DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (within the Office  of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Plans) serves as the  department’s single point of responsibility for sexual assault policy  matters. These include providing the military services with guidance,  training standards, and technical support; overseeing the department’s  collection and maintenance of data on reported sexual assaults involving  servicemembers; establishing mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of  the department’s sexual assault prevention and response program; and  preparing the department’s annual report to Congress.
In DOD, active duty servicemembers have two options for reporting a  sexual assault: (1) restricted, and (2) unrestricted. The restricted reporting  option permits a victim to confidentially disclose an alleged sexual assault  to select individuals and receive care without initiating a criminal  investigation. A restricted report may only be made to a Sexual Assault  Response Coordinator (SARC), victim advocate, or medical personnel.  Because conversations between servicemembers and chaplains are  generally privileged, a victim may also confidentially disclose an alleged  sexual assault to a chaplain. In contrast, the unrestricted reporting option  informs the chain of command of the alleged sexual assault and may  initiate an investigation by the military criminal investigative organization  of jurisdiction.
Prior to December 2007, the Coast Guard only offered an option that  would enable servicemembers to confidentially disclose an incident of  sexual assault at the Coast Guard Academy. However, since then the Coast  Guard has employed Coast Guard-wide a definition of sexual assault  similar to DOD’s as well as similar options for reporting a sexual assault in  its guidance, Commandant Instruction 1754.10C. Under the Coast Guard’s  instruction, however, if the chain of command learns of an alleged sexual  assault they are required to notify the Coast Guard’s criminal investigative  organization, the Coast Guard Investigative Service, which will initiate an  investigation or inquiry.
At the installation level, the coordinators of the sexual assault prevention  and response programs are known as SARCs in DOD and as Employee  Assistance Program Coordinators (EAPC) in the Coast Guard. Other  responders include victim advocates, judge advocates, medical and mental  health providers, criminal investigative personnel, law enforcement  personnel, and chaplains.
section_title: Implementation of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs Is Hindered by Inconsistent Support, Training That Is Not Consistently Effective, and Limitations on Access to Mental Health Services
paragraphs: DOD has taken positive steps to respond to congressional direction by  establishing policies and a program to prevent, respond to, and resolve  reported sexual assault incidents involving servicemembers and the Coast  Guard, on its own initiative, has taken similar steps; however, DOD’s  guidance may not address some important issues. Further, implementation  of the programs is hindered by several factors, including (1) inconsistent  support for the programs, (2) training that is not consistently effective, and  (3) limited access to mental health services.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Taken Some Steps to Respond to Congressional Direction, and the Coast Guard on Its Own Initiative Has Made Similar Progress
paragraphs: In response to statutory requirements and recommendations from the  Department of Defense Care for Victims of Sexual Assaults Task Force,  DOD has established a program to prevent, respond to, and resolve sexual  assaults involving servicemembers. DOD’s policy and implementing  guidance for its program are contained in DOD Directive 6495.01 and DOD  Instruction 6495.02, respectively. Specific steps that DOD has taken  include:    establishing a standardized departmentwide definition of sexual assault;    establishing a confidential option to report sexual assault incidents,  known as restricted reporting;    establishing a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to serve as  the single point of accountability for sexual assault prevention and  response;  requiring the military services to develop and implement their own  policies and programs, based on DOD’s policy, to prevent, respond to, and  resolve sexual assault incidents;    establishing training requirements for all servicemembers on preventing  and responding to sexual assault; and  reporting data on sexual assault incidents to Congress annually.
Although not explicitly required by statute, the Coast Guard has had a  sexual assault prevention and response program in place since 1997. In  December 2007, the Coast Guard on its own initiative updated its  instruction to mirror DOD’s policy and to include a restricted option for  reporting sexual assaults.
In DOD, each of the military services has also established a Sexual Assault  Prevention and Response Office with responsibility for overseeing and  managing sexual assault matters within that military service. The Coast  Guard’s Office of Work Life (within the Health, Safety and Work Life  Directorate, which is under the Assistant Commandant for Human  Resources), is responsible for overseeing and managing sexual assault  matters within the Coast Guard.
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Directive and Instruction May Not Adequately Address Some Important Issues
paragraphs: While the establishment of DOD’s program represents a noteworthy step,  DOD’s directive and instruction may not adequately address some  important issues, such as how to implement the program when operating  in a deployed environment or in joint environments. Program officials we  met with overseas told us that DOD’s guidance does not sufficiently take  into account the realities of operating in a deployed environment, in which  unique living and social circumstances can heighten the risks for sexual  assault and program resources are more widely dispersed than they are in  the United States, which can make responding to a sexual assault  challenging. One program official we met with overseas told us that his  area of responsibility includes six to seven installations spread out over an  area the size of New Jersey, constituting a geographic challenge in terms  of responding to sexual assaults. At another installation, we found no  criminal investigative presence, and program officials told us that it can  take 48 hours or longer for the criminal investigative organization with  jurisdiction to respond to some sexual assaults. Similarly, program  officials told us there is a need for better coordination of resources when a  sexual assault occurs in a joint environment. At one overseas installation  we visited, Coast Guard members told us that they were confused about  which program they fell under—DOD’s or the Coast Guard’s—and thus  who they should report an alleged sexual assault to. We also found that  installations can have multiple responders responsible for responding to  an assault, potentially leading to further confusion. Concerns over  implementing the sexual assault prevention and response program in joint  environments are also highlighted in the department’s fiscal year 2007  annual report. For example, DOD noted the need to address challenges  that arise in environments wherein two or more services are operating  together, while the Army noted that challenges with joint environments  have often resulted in unnecessary duplication of services and  inconsistent application of policy with regard to sexual assault matters.
section_title: Implementation of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs Is Hindered by Inconsistent Support from Commanders and Limited Effectiveness of Program Coordinators for Whom Program Management Is a Collateral Duty
paragraphs: Commanders in DOD and the Coast Guard have taken actions to address  incidents of sexual assault and are generally supportive of sexual assault  prevention and response programs; however, we found evidence that  some commanders do not support the programs. In addition,  implementation of the programs may be hindered at installations where  key program coordinator positions are a collateral duty because  servicemembers must balance their duties with mission-related priorities,  especially in deployed environments.
subsections: section_title: While Most Commanders Support the Programs, Some Do Not
paragraphs: While commanders—that is, company and field grade officers—in DOD  and the Coast Guard have taken actions to address incidents of sexual  assault, we found evidence that some commanders do not support the  programs. According to DOD’s instruction, commanders and other leaders  are responsible for advocating a strong program and effectively  implementing sexual assault prevention and response policies. The Coast  Guard’s instruction similarly requires that commanders and other leaders  ensure compliance with the Coast Guard’s policies and procedures. At the  installations we visited, we found that commanders were supportive of  addressing incidents of sexual assault. For example, commanders told us  that they set a zero tolerance policy for incidents of sexual assault,  communicated the respective policies at command briefings, understood  their roles and responsibilities in supporting the programs, and  understood the need to protect victims. The results of a nongeneralizable  survey we conducted support these statements. For example, at the 14  installations where we administered our survey, the percentage of  servicemembers who indicated they thought their direct supervisor  (military or civilian) would address sexual assault, should it occur at their  current location, ranged from 91 to 98 percent.
However, we found evidence that some commanders do not support the  programs. For example, at three of the installations we visited program  officials told us of meeting with resistance from commanders when  attempting to place, in barracks and work areas, posters or other materials  advertising the program or the options for reporting a sexual assault. A  victim advocate at one Navy installation we visited told us that her  command did not support the program and that her command did not feel  that servicemembers in the unit should be able to utilize DOD’s restricted  reporting option. According to the individual, the command demonstrated  its resistance by routinely taking down any posters advertising the unit’s  victim advocates or DOD’s reporting options. In some cases, commanders  we spoke with told us that they supported the programs but did not like  the restricted reporting option because they felt it hindered their ability to  protect members of the unit or discipline alleged offenders.
Some program officials told us that some commanders do not support the  programs because they do not understand them or do not consider sexual  assault matters to be a priority in the military. The following are some  examples of what we found:    At some of the installations we visited, commanders we spoke with were  unfamiliar with the options for reporting a sexual assault, mistakenly  believing that servicemembers could use the restricted option and still  report a sexual assault to them—that is, without their being obligated to  then initiate an investigation.
Army unit victim advocates at one location we visited told us that senior  enlisted leaders tend to ignore sexual assault matters until they become  public knowledge and affect the morale of the unit.
Marine Corps unit victim advocates at one location we visited told us that  some commanders do not want to hear from them or from junior enlisted  Marines about sexual assault matters.
At some of the installations we visited, program officials told us that some  commanders of all-male units do not believe that sexual assault matters  are a problem for their units or that the programs are relevant to their  units. For example, a SARC at one installation we visited told us that some  commanders from all-male units have prevented her from providing  required training to the units.
Commanders who do not emphasize and prioritize sexual assault  prevention and response programs—including those in all-male units—or  who do not understand the policies and procedures effectively limit  servicemembers’ knowledge about the program and ability to exercise  their reporting options. Consequently, sexual assault prevention and  response program coordinators’ efforts to raise awareness at these  installations may also be limited.
Program officials told us they need sufficient resources to appropriately  implement sexual assault prevention and response programs. However,  there is no direct funding for sexual assault prevention and response  programs at military installations. To fund the programs, funds from other  installation programs need to be utilized. At some of the installations we  visited, SARCs and other program officials told us that they lacked  sufficient funding to promote the programs, train servicemembers, or  otherwise raise servicemembers’ awareness of sexual assault matters. In  such instances, program officials told us that they had to find creative  ways to implement the programs. One Army SARC told us that because of  limited funding she could not bring in any outside speakers during Sexual  Assault Awareness Month and had to rely on donations from units to print  posters advertising the program. Similarly, SARCs we met with in the Navy  and Marine Corps told us that they had only limited resources to train  servicemembers. In the Coast Guard, program officials told us that they  were expected to comply with the Coast Guard’s instruction to provide  training to victim support personnel and servicemembers. However, they  were not provided with funding and did not know how they were going to  meet the new requirements. Program coordinators who are not provided  sufficient funding by their commands cannot ensure that their program is  appropriately implemented.
At the installations we visited, we found that commanders have taken  action against alleged sexual assault offenders. In both DOD and the Coast  Guard, commanders are responsible for discipline of misconduct,  including sexual assault, and they have a variety of judicial and  administrative options at their disposal. Commanders’ options are  specified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual  for Courts-Martial and include (1) trial by courts-martial, (2) nonjudicial  punishment, and (3) administrative actions. At the installations we visited,  commanders told us that they were supportive of the need to dispose of  sexual assault cases and were generally familiar with the options available  to them. For further information on the disposition of sexual assaults in  DOD and the Coast Guard, see appendix IV.
section_title: Program Coordinators Are Challenged in Providing Program Management as a Collateral Duty
paragraphs: To implement the sexual assault prevention and response program at  military installations, DOD and the services rely largely on SARCs. DOD’s  instruction directs the military services to establish the position of the  SARC and criteria for selecting them. However, DOD’s instruction leaves  to the military services’ discretion whether these positions are filled by  military members, DOD civilian employees, or DOD contractors, and thus  whether SARCs perform their roles as full-time or collateral duties. We  found that the military services are using a variety of models for staffing  the SARC position. For example, at the installations we visited in the  United States, the Army, Navy, and Air Force were using full-time civilian  or contractor employees, while the Marine Corps was using both civilian  and military servicemembers for whom the duty was collateral. At the  installations we visited overseas, we found that the Army assigned this  position to servicemembers as a collateral duty, the Navy assigned it to a  full-time civilian employee, and the Air Force assigned it to  servicemembers as a full-time duty. We found that the time and resources  dedicated to implementing the sexual assault prevention and response  program are more constrained where program coordinator positions are  staffed by servicemembers for whom these duties are collateral. Program  officials with whom we spoke told us that SARCs’ ability to effectively  implement DOD’s program depended on whether they served in full-time  or collateral-duty positions. For example, Army SARCs overseas told us  that in addition to the sexual assault prevention and response program  they are also responsible for supporting the Army’s Equal Opportunity  program, and that when they handled an equal opportunity complaint or  had other mission requirements, those became their full-time job. As a  result, they had less time to support the sexual assault prevention and  response program. DOD has not systematically evaluated its policy for  staffing SARCs; however, without evaluating its policy and the services’  processes for filling the SARC position, DOD is hindered in its ability to  ensure that the SARCs can effectively perform their function in managing  the sexual assault prevention and response program.
The 13 EAPC positions in the Coast Guard are staffed by full-time federal  civilian employees who are responsible for simultaneously managing  multiple work-life programs, including sexual assault prevention and  response, for a designated geographic region. Officials in the Coast  Guard’s Office of Work Life as well an EAPC with whom we met  acknowledged that because of the number of programs they are  responsible for managing, the EAPCs do not have the time to effectively  launch and implement the Coast Guard’s sexual assault prevention and  response program. As a result, these officials believe they will not be able  to train servicemembers on the Coast Guard’s program, including the new  restricted reporting option, while also providing assistance to victims and  managing other work-life programs. Officials at Coast Guard headquarters  estimate that they need an additional 13 EAPCs across the Coast Guard to  address their workload requirements. Without evaluating its processes for  staffing these positions, the Coast Guard is hindered in its ability to ensure  that its sexual assault prevention and response program is effectively  implemented.
section_title: Training Is Not Consistently Effective
paragraphs: Although DOD and the Coast Guard require servicemembers to receive  periodic training on their respective sexual assault prevention and  response programs, our nongeneralizable survey and interviews and  discussions with servicemembers and program officials revealed that not  all servicemembers are receiving the required training, and some  servicemembers who have received it nevertheless may not understand  how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option. To  date, neither DOD nor the Coast Guard has evaluated the effectiveness of  the training provided. Additionally, the military services are not  consistently meeting DOD’s requirements for presenting training in  specified formats to enable servicemembers to understand the nature of  sexual assaults. Some servicemembers told us that the training they  received was not engaging and, therefore, they did not pay attention;  others told us that servicemembers do not always take the training  seriously.
subsections: section_title: Not All Servicemembers Receive Required Training
paragraphs: Both DOD and the Coast Guard require that servicemembers receive  sexual assault prevention and response training annually; however, our  survey and discussions with servicemembers revealed that not all  servicemembers are receiving this training. In response to statutory  requirements, DOD has established requirements for servicemembers to  receive periodic sexual assault prevention and response training.  Specifically, DOD’s instruction requires servicemembers to receive sexual  assault prevention and response training both annually and prior to  deploying to locations outside of the United States. Although not  statutorily required to do so, the Coast Guard has developed its instruction  largely to reflect DOD’s policies, and also requires its members to receive  training annually. DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s annual training is required  to provide all servicemembers with information on their options for  reporting a sexual assault and sexual assault issues, such as the meaning  of consent, offender accountability, and victim care.
At the seven installations where we administered our survey in the United  States, our survey revealed that a majority, but not all, servicemembers are  receiving required annual training on their respective sexual assault  prevention and response programs. Specifically, as table 1 shows, the  percentage of servicemembers we surveyed at seven installations in the  United States who indicated they had received the required training in the  preceding 12 months ranged from 61 to 88 percent.
Our interviews and discussions with servicemembers and program  officials also revealed that not all servicemembers had received the  required annual training within the preceding 12 months. Such  servicemembers incur the risks of not knowing how to mitigate the  possibility of being sexually assaulted or how to seek assistance if needed,  or risk reporting the assault in a way that limits their option to seek  treatment while maintaining confidentiality. In some instances, we found  that these servicemembers were aware that the training was required  annually, but had not attended or received training within the preceding 12  months. For example, a junior officer at a Marine Corps installation told us  that he had last received the required training 2 years earlier while  stationed overseas, when the Marine Corps’ program was initially rolled  out. He said that he had not received any subsequent training because he  had likely “slipped through the cracks.” As another example, a junior  enlisted servicemember at an Army installation told us that he had not  received the required training within the preceding 12 months because he  was on temporary duty assignment when his unit conducted the training.  In other cases, we found that servicemembers were not familiar with the  programs or had never received the required training. Program officials at  the installations we visited told us that they face challenges in ensuring  that all servicemembers receive the required training. For example, a  SARC at an Army installation told us that while she informally tracks  information on whether units have received required annual sexual assault  prevention and response training, she has no way of knowing how many  servicemembers within a unit have received it. She noted that tracking  whether servicemembers have received required training is a unit-level  responsibility. Her goal, which she noted is arbitrary, is to ensure that at  least 80 percent of units have received this training.
According to DOD’s instruction, military commanders, supervisors, and  managers are responsible for the effective implementation of the services’  respective sexual assault prevention and response programs. However, we  found evidence that not all commanders had received the required training  or were familiar with the options for reporting a sexual assault. A senior  officer at an Air Force installation told us that he had never received  sexual assault prevention and response training, was not familiar with  DOD’s options for reporting a sexual assault, and would encourage his  servicemembers to address sexual assault matters by notifying their chain  of command. Similarly, a senior officer at an Army installation we visited  told us that he did not know about any other option for reporting a sexual  assault other than by notifying their chain of command. With their  commanders thus uninformed, servicemembers under their command  might not be fully aware of their options for reporting a sexual assault.
Also, at more than half of the installations we visited servicemembers and  program officials told us that they believe commanders and other senior  leaders do not always receive the required training, or if they do, do not  understand the programs. For example, victim advocates at a Navy  installation we visited told us that they do not believe many senior leaders  receive required sexual assault prevention and response training.  According to the victim advocates, leaders cannot support the program if  they do not understand it.
Servicemembers and program officials we spoke with also told us that  problems occur when commanders and other senior leaders have not  received the required training or are not familiar with the programs. For  example, the SARC at one installation we visited told us that it is  important that commanders receive the required training so that they  understand what they can and cannot do with regard to sexual assault  matters. According to the official, commanders who have not received  training and are not informed about the program sometimes take incorrect  actions, such as initiating their own investigations of allegations of sexual  assault made using the restricted reporting option.
In addition to its annual training requirement, DOD, though not the Coast  Guard, requires that servicemembers receive sexual assault prevention  and response training prior to deploying to locations outside of the United  States. However, our survey revealed that not all servicemembers are  receiving this training. Specifically, as table 2 shows, at the seven  installations where we administered our survey overseas, the percentage  of servicemembers who indicated they had received training prior to  deploying ranged from 52 to 90 percent, while the percentage of  servicemembers indicating they had not received training prior to  deploying ranged from 6 to 42 percent.
Our interviews with individual servicemembers also revealed that not all  servicemembers had received the required sexual assault prevention and  response training prior to deploying. The SARC at one installation we  visited told us that he believes many servicemembers are deploying  overseas without having received the required predeployment training  because too many servicemembers with whom he interacts are not  familiar with the program. In some instances, we found that  servicemembers may not be receiving the required training because DOD’s  predeployment training requirements are not always enforced. For  example, a general officer we met with in Iraq told us that as units are  preparing to deploy commanders may not emphasize all predeployment  training requirements, including those pertaining to sexual assault  prevention and response. As a result, according to the general officer,  servicemembers who have not received this training may not take sexual  assault matters seriously during deployment. Such servicemembers may  also not understand how to obtain assistance if a sexual assault were to  occur. Though servicemembers may not receive required sexual assault  prevention and response training prior to deploying, we found that some  steps are being taken to provide the training to servicemembers once they  arrive in a deployed location. For example, at the installations we visited  overseas we found that SARCs and victim advocates were actively  publicizing the program and providing training to servicemembers and  units upon their arrival.
section_title: Some Servicemembers Do Not Understand How to Use the Restricted Reporting Option
paragraphs: The majority of respondents to our survey indicated that they had received  required sexual assault prevention and response training and would know  how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option.  However, as table 3 shows, the percentage of servicemembers we  surveyed who indicated that they would not know or were not sure of how  to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option, despite  having received the training, ranged from 13 to 43 percent for the seven  installations where we administered our survey in the United States and  from 13 to 28 percent for the seven installations where we administered  our survey overseas.
Similarly, our interviews with servicemembers also revealed that some  servicemembers who had received the required training were confused or  unfamiliar with DOD’s options for reporting a sexual assault, as illustrated  by the following examples:    A junior enlisted servicemember at an Army installation told us that  although he had received sexual assault prevention and response training  as part of his annual training requirement, he did not believe that the Army  allowed a report of sexual assault to be made without a formal  investigation.
A junior officer at an Air Force installation told us that his predeployment  training covered sexual harassment and human trafficking but he was  uncertain whether the training covered sexual assault matters or DOD’s  reporting options.
A senior enlisted servicemember in Iraq told us that while she received  sexual assault prevention and response training prior to deploying, the  training focused on how females could protect themselves and did not  cover DOD’s reporting options.
section_title: The Military Services Do Not Consistently Meet Training Format Requirements
paragraphs: To help servicemembers understand the nature of sexual assaults, DOD’s  instruction requires that sexual assault prevention and response training  be scenario-based, using real-life situations to demonstrate the entire cycle  of reporting, response, and accountability procedures. DOD’s instruction  also requires that training for junior servicemembers include group  participation and interaction. However, our survey revealed that the  military services are not consistently meeting DOD’s requirements for the  format of the training. During the course of our review, we found that the  services are utilizing a variety of formats, including instructor-led or  computer- or web-based training, to provide servicemembers with  required sexual assault prevention and response training. However, as  table 4 shows, at 9 of the 14 locations where we administered our survey,  more than half of the servicemembers indicated that the training they  received did not include a participatory or scenario-based component.
The Coast Guard’s instruction does not specify any requirements for the  format of its sexual assault prevention and response training. However,  according to an official in the Coast Guard’s Office of Work Life, the Coast  Guard is in the process of reviewing its training requirements, including  those for the format of the training. Further, the Coast Guard is  considering establishing a requirement that sexual assault prevention and  response training be interactive.
section_title: Servicemembers’ Perceptions of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Training Varies
paragraphs: At the installations we visited, servicemembers’ perceptions of the  required training they received varied. For example, one junior enlisted  servicemember told us the training she received was very helpful and  covered everything she would want to know about sexual assault matters,  including the meaning of consent, the difference between sexual assault  and sexual harassment, what one should do if sexually assaulted, and the  differences between DOD’s restricted and unrestricted reporting options.  However, at about half the installations we visited, servicemembers and  program officials told us the training relied heavily on power point  briefings and some said that participants were not engaged. Victim  advocates, who along with SARCs provide the required training, told us at  one installation we visited that the training they provide to units does rely  heavily on power point briefings, the material is not engaging, and many  servicemembers do not pay attention during the training sessions. At more  than half the installations we visited, servicemembers and program  officials we spoke with told us that the training is not taken seriously and  some described it as a vehicle for units to “check the box” indicating that  they met the training requirement.
Servicemembers and program officials also told us that the training  provided to junior personnel is not always interactive. Several  servicemembers told us that junior servicemembers receive the same  training as senior enlisted members and officers. The Deputy Commander  at an Army installation we visited overseas described this training as  aimed at a very broad spectrum of servicemembers and ranks and not very  in-depth. Similarly, a senior enlisted servicemember at a Navy installation  told us that the training she has attended includes both junior and senior  servicemembers, which can be intimidating for junior servicemembers,  who are consequently less likely to speak up or ask questions. The SARC  at one installation we visited said that the training she provides units  encompasses about 800 personnel at a time, which can make it difficult to  allow for interaction or individual questions from any of the participants.
section_title: Several Factors May Hamper Servicemembers’ Access to Mental Health Care, Though DOD and the Coast Guard Screen for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
paragraphs: DOD and the Coast Guard both require that sexual assault victims be made  aware of the available mental health services. However, several factors,  including a DOD-reported shortage of mental health care providers,  difficulty in accessing mental health services overseas or in geographically  remote locations, and servicemembers’ perceptions of stigma associated  with seeking mental health care, affect servicemembers’ access to mental  health care, and we could find no indication that DOD or the Coast Guard  have performed an analysis to aid in addressing barriers to mental health  care specifically for victims of sexual assault. To their credit, both DOD  and the Coast Guard are taking steps to screen servicemembers for mental  health disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which mental  health providers in DOD with whom we spoke identified as one of the  most common mental health concerns following a sexual assault.
subsections: section_title: Access to Mental Health Services May Be Limited
paragraphs: Both DOD and the Coast Guard require that servicemembers who are  victims of sexual assault be made aware of mental health services, such as  counseling. DOD’s instruction requires SARCs to coordinate medical and  counseling services between military installations and deployed units for  victims of sexual assault and collaborate with local community crisis  counseling centers, as necessary, in order to augment or enhance DOD’s  program. Similarly, the Coast Guard’s instruction requires that a health  care professional ensure that any victim who reports a sexual assault be  informed of his or her psychiatric care or counseling options. At the  installations we visited, we found that program officials generally took  steps to ensure that servicemembers who are sexually assaulted are made  aware of their options for seeking mental health care and are able to  access it, if desired. However, at some of the installations we visited we  found instances in which program officials had not taken steps to ensure  that servicemembers were aware of their options for seeking mental  health care or otherwise had limited access to mental health care  following a sexual assault. For example, at one installation we found that  servicemembers had access only to the limited mental health services  provided on base, and that the SARC did not know whether any  memoranda of understanding were in place with local resources or  practitioners in the community to provide servicemembers with additional  options for accessing mental health care. With their SARC thus  uninformed, any servicemember assaulted at the installation could be  limited in his or her options for accessing mental health care if needed.
Though both DOD and the Coast Guard require that servicemembers who  are victims of sexual assault be made aware of mental health services,  neither knows how many servicemembers have sought or received mental  health services following a sexual assault because there is no requirement  to collect or track such information. According to knowledgeable officials  within DOD, doing so could be challenging because servicemembers may  seek treatment from civilian providers who are not required to report any  information to DOD. Both DOD and the Coast Guard collect limited  information on the number of sexual assault victims who are referred for  counseling. However, the information DOD collects is limited to the initial  referral for each restricted report of a sexual assault; it does not indicate  whether the victim actually received the counseling to which he or she  was referred. Similarly, the information the Coast Guard collects is limited  to only whether the victim was offered counseling. Officials at the  Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) told us VA collects data on the  cumulative number of veterans to whom it has provided mental health  care for conditions resulting from military sexual trauma—which includes  both sexual harassment and sexual assault—during their military career.  However, because DOD and VA collect different data, comparisons cannot  be made.
section_title: Shortages of Mental Health Providers Can Diminish Access to Mental Health Services
paragraphs: Although DOD and the Coast Guard require that servicemembers who are  victims of sexual assault be made aware of available mental health  services, a DOD-reported shortage of health care providers—specifically  mental health care providers—can hinder servicemembers’ access to  receiving such care. Such concerns are not new to DOD. For example, in  2007, the congressionally mandated DOD Task Force on Mental Health  reported that the military health system lacks the fiscal resources and fully  trained personnel needed to fulfill its mission to support psychological  health in peacetime or to fulfill the enhanced requirements imposed during  times of conflict. During the course of our review we found that concerns  over a shortage of mental health providers persist. For example, officials  at some of the installations we visited told us that one barrier to ensuring  that victims of sexual assault receive mental health care if they desire it is  the lack of adequate resources and staff at some installations. Similarly,  mental health officials with the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery  told us that the Navy does not have enough medical or mental health  professionals to staff all allotted positions. However, during the course of  our review we did find that the military services were taking steps to  address this challenge. For example, DOD has established a memorandum  of understanding with the Public Health Service to enable its uniformed  providers to work in military treatment facilities.
section_title: Accessing Mental Health Services Is More Difficult Overseas or in Geographically Remote Locations
paragraphs: Servicemembers deployed overseas or based at geographically remote  installations in the United States or overseas typically have more difficulty  in obtaining mental health services because of inherent challenges  associated with such locales. For example, servicemembers deployed to  small forward operating bases in Afghanistan or Iraq may have to travel or  be transported to other military installations in the region. Program  officials told us that this process typically involves the servicemember  notifying his or her commander, who is responsible for the use of  transportation assets, which may require that the servicemember disclose  the reason for seeking mental health care. However, disclosing that reason  could jeopardize the member’s ability to use the restricted reporting  option and keep the sexual assault incident confidential. Servicemembers  stationed in geographically remote locations may also have limited access  to mental health care. At one installation we visited in the United States,  officials told us that they had faced challenges hiring additional mental  health providers given the installation’s geographically remote location.  However, they noted that recent hires of psychologists had reduced  servicemembers’ waiting time for counseling appointments at the  installation from about 7 weeks to 2 days. Navy and Coast Guard members  told us that access to mental care on ships is limited and that  servicemembers must wait until they can be transported to another ship  with mental health assets, or until their ship arrives in port to access  mental health services. Servicemembers also told us that it can be difficult  to leave their ships in order to receive such care.
Some mental health care officials we spoke with overseas said that the  shortage of providers can make it even more difficult to seek mental  health care, for any reason, when deployed overseas or in geographically  remote locations in the United States or overseas. For example, at one  installation we visited in Southwest Asia we found that servicemembers  had access to only one mental health provider for only about 4 hours each  week. In February 2008, the Army reported that such concerns remained  largely unaddressed. Specifically, the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team  reported that in 2007, soldiers who were deployed in support of operations  in Afghanistan and Iraq were reporting more difficulty in accessing  behavioral health care than they had reported in 2006, and that behavioral  health personnel were reporting a shortage of assets and an increase in  burnout rates.
section_title: Perceptions of Stigma May Inhibit Servicemembers from Seeking Mental Health Services
paragraphs: Perceptions of stigma associated with seeking mental health care may also  discourage servicemembers from doing so following a sexual assault. In  2007, the congressionally mandated DOD Task Force on Mental Health  reported that stigma in the military associated with seeking mental health  services remains a pervasive and critical barrier to accessing needed  psychological care. Similarly, the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team  reported in 2008 that stigma continues to be a major issue in the  willingness of servicemembers to seek care. DOD officials told us that  servicemembers often do not seek mental health care for this reason or  because they believe doing so could negatively impact their careers, such  as by affecting their ability to obtain a security clearance.
DOD recently took steps that may encourage servicemembers who require  mental health care to seek professional help by successfully advocating a  revision to Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security  Positions. Under the revision, applicants no longer need to disclose  certain noncourt-ordered mental health care that they may have received  in the preceding 7 years that was (1) strictly marital, family, or grief  related, as long as it was not related to violence committed by the  servicemember; or (2) strictly related to adjustments from service in a  military combat environment. Further, in an April 2008 memorandum from  the Secretary of Defense, DOD noted that professional care for mental  health issues should not be perceived as jeopardizing an individual’s  security clearance. However, officials with DOD’s Sexual Assault  Prevention and Response Office told us that it is unclear whether these  steps will encourage servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault to  seek mental health care, or whether these revisions apply to  servicemembers who have been sexually assaulted and seek mental health  care.
section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Screen Servicemembers for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Resulting from Traumatic Events That May Include Sexual Assault
paragraphs: Mental health providers in DOD told us that post-traumatic stress disorder  is one of the most common mental health concerns following a sexual  assault. However, mental health officials told us that because the onset for  post-traumatic stress disorder varies—a victim may develop post- traumatic stress disorder immediately, or it can be delayed—victims of  sexual assault who seek care after the assault are treated for symptoms  such as depression and anxiety at the time of their visit. Similarly, Coast  Guard medical officials told us that the EAPC will ensure that a victim of  sexual assault meets with a health care provider, who may evaluate and  treat the patient for anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or  other conditions, and refer the patient to the appropriate mental health  specialist for acute and chronic care.
DOD screens for mental health concerns, including post-traumatic stress  disorder, as part of its system to assess the medical condition of  servicemembers before and after deploying to locations outside the United  States. The elements of DOD’s system include the use of a predeployment  health assessment, a postdeployment health assessment, and a  postdeployment health reassessment. During these assessments, a  servicemember completes a form that includes questions used to screen  for mental health concerns, including post-traumatic stress disorder, but  not specifically for sexual assault. As we previously reported, post- traumatic stress disorder can develop following exposure to combat,  natural disasters, terrorist incidents, serious accidents, or violent personal  assaults like rape.
Have you ever had any experience that was so frightening, horrible, or upsetting that, in the    have had any nightmares about it or thought about it when you did not want to?  tried hard not to think about it or went out of your way to avoid situations that remind  you of it?    were constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled?   felt numb or detached from others, activities or your surroundings?
A health care provider reviews the completed form and may refer the  servicemember for further evaluation if necessary. Further, within 30 days  of redeployment, servicemembers are required to meet with a trained  health care provider to discuss their responses to the postdeployment  health assessment and any mental health or psychosocial issues that may  be associated with the deployment. According to officials with DOD’s  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, a minimum of 4 weeks is  needed to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder, differentiating it from  acute stress.
In the Coast Guard, officials told us that EAPCs are responsible for  informing sexual assault victims of their psychiatric care or counseling  options. During such meetings, health care providers screen and treat  servicemembers for mental health disorders, including post-traumatic  stress disorder, and refer them to mental health specialists for additional  acute or chronic care as appropriate.
section_title: Survey Data Suggest That Occurrences of Sexual Assault May Exceed Rates Reported
paragraphs: We found, based on responses to our nongeneralizable survey and a 2006  DOD survey, the most recent available, that occurrences of sexual assault  may be exceeding the rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the  Coast Guard have only limited visibility over the incidence of these  occurrences. We recognize that the precise number of sexual assaults  involving servicemembers is not possible to determine, and that studies  suggest sexual assaults are generally underreported in the United States.  Nevertheless, our findings indicate that some servicemembers may choose  not to report sexual assault incidents for a variety of reasons including the  belief that nothing would be done or that reporting an incident would  negatively impact their careers.
In fiscal year 2007, DOD received 2,688 reports of alleged sexual assault  made with either the restricted or unrestricted reporting option involving  servicemembers as either the alleged offenders or victims. The Coast  Guard, which did not offer the restricted reporting option during fiscal  year 2007, received 72 reports of alleged sexual assault made using the  unrestricted reporting option during this same time period. For additional  information on reported sexual assault incidents in DOD and the Coast  Guard for fiscal year 2007, see appendix V.
At the 14 installations where we administered our survey, 103  servicemembers indicated that they had been sexually assaulted within the  preceding 12 months, as shown in table 5. Of these, the number of  servicemembers who indicated that they had been sexually assaulted  within the preceding 12 months ranged from 3 to 11 per installation. Due  to the transient nature of servicemembers, the alleged sexual assaults may  not have occurred at the locations where we administered our survey.
Of the 103 servicemembers who responded to our survey indicating that  they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months, 52  indicated that they did not report the sexual assault incident. The number  who indicated they did not report the sexual assault ranged from 1 to 6  servicemembers per installation. Table 6 provides information on the  number of respondents to our survey who reported experiencing a sexual  assault within the preceding 12 months.
Servicemembers also told us that they were aware of alleged sexual  assault incidents involving other servicemembers that were not reported  to program officials. DOD’s fiscal year 2007 annual report and a Coast  Guard program official with whom we spoke further support the view that  servicemembers are not reporting all sexual assault incidents, as does the  Defense Manpower Data Center’s 2006 Gender Relations Survey of Active  Duty Members administered between June and September 2006. Issued  in March 2008, the Defense Manpower Data Center survey found that of  the estimated 6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men in DOD who  experienced unwanted sexual contact during the prior 12 months, the  majority (an estimated 79 percent of women and 78 percent of men) chose  not to report it. The Defense Manpower Data Center did not include data  for the Coast Guard in its report. However, at our request, the Defense  Manpower Data Center provided information on the Coast Guard that  shows that an estimated 3 percent of female and 1 percent of male  respondents reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact during the  prior 12 months. According to a Defense Manpower Data Center official,  additional information about respondents in the Coast Guard who chose  not to report experiences about unwanted sexual contact is not available  because the number of Coast Guard members who indicated they  experienced unwanted sexual contact is very low and unreliable due to  high margins of error.
Earlier surveys conducted by some of the military services also indicated  that servicemembers may not have been reporting all incidents of sexual  assault. The Navy conducted a survey of its members in 2005 to assess,  among other things, the likelihood that servicemembers would report a  sexual assault incident to Navy authorities, and while the majority of both  enlisted members and officers responding indicated they would report a  sexual assault if they were the victim, as many as an estimated 10 percent  of enlisted sailors and 10 percent of officers responded that they were  unlikely to do so. Similarly, a voluntary nonprobability survey conducted  by the Naval Inspector General in 2004 through early 2005 determined that  57 percent of victims who were sexually assaulted at some point in their  Navy career did not report the incident. Further, the Army noted as part  of DOD’s fiscal year 2007 annual report that recent Army survey data,  which are not generalizable, indicate that as many as 70 percent of female  soldiers who said they had experienced a sexual assault within the  previous 12 months had not reported the incident.
While the survey results suggest a disparity between the actual number of  sexual assault incidents and the number of those reported, this is largely  an expected result of anonymous surveys. Whereas formal reports,  whether restricted or unrestricted, involve some level of personal  identification and therefore a certain amount of risk on the part of the  victim, the risks and incentives for servicemembers making anonymous  reports are very different. Hence, anonymous survey results tend to  produce higher numbers of reported incidents. Another factor obscuring  the visibility that DOD and Coast Guard officials can have over the  incidence of sexual assault is the fact that many of the individuals to  whom the assaults may be reported, including clergy and civilian victim  care organizations, civilian friends, or family, are not required to disclose  these incidents. As a result, while DOD and the Coast Guard strive to  capture an accurate picture of the incidence of sexual assault, their ability  is necessarily limited.
Our survey data revealed a number of reasons why servicemembers who  experienced a sexual assault during the preceding 12 months did not  report the incident. Commonly cited reasons by survey respondents at the  installations we visited included: (1) the belief that nothing would be done;  (2) fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule by peers; and (3) the belief  that their peers would gossip about the incident. Survey respondents also  commented that they would not report a sexual assault because of  concern about being disciplined for collateral misconduct, such as  drinking when not permitted to do so; not knowing to whom to make a  report; concern that a restricted report would not remain confidential; the  belief that an incident was not serious enough to report; or concern that  reporting an incident would negatively impact their career or unit morale.  The following are some examples of comments from survey respondents:    A senior enlisted female commented that “many individuals do not come  forward in the military out of fear of punishment because they have done  something (i.e., drinking) that they could also get in trouble for.”
A senior enlisted female commented that “most females are afraid to say  anything to anyone in their chain of command because that person will go  back and tell everyone in this command and it will get around to the whole  entire unit as well as Brigade.”
A junior enlisted male commented that “some servicemembers might feel  like there is no point in telling anyone, especially if that person is higher  rank than you because they might believe the higher ranking person would  be believed over the lower ranking person.”
A senior enlisted male commented that “peer pressure and embarrassment  is a huge factor in why sexual assault is not always reported.”
A male servicemember commented that he did not believe a sexual assault  incident he experienced was “serious or offensive enough” to warrant  reporting.
A junior enlisted male commented that “just because a member of the  service might have all the resources they need to report an assault without  fear of reprisal doesn’t mean that all of them . I believe many are  afraid  public, making the victim seem . . . loose  with their sexual actions.”
Several servicemembers observed that reporting a sexual assault is  perceived as something that can ruin a reputation. One junior enlisted  female commented that “there are a lot of females who feel that an issue  like sexual assault can ruin their reputation with other male soldiers or  their unit.”
The 2006 Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members identified  similar reasons why servicemembers did not report unwanted sexual  contact, including concern that reporting an incident could result in denial  of promotions and professional and social retaliation. However,  servicemembers also reported favorable results after reporting unwanted  sexual contact to military authorities, including being offered counseling  and advocacy services, medical and forensic services, legal services, and  action being taken against alleged offenders. Respondents to our survey  indicated they were supportive of the restricted reporting option as well.  For example:    A junior enlisted female observed that in her opinion servicemembers will  be more likely to report an incident anonymously, commenting “I’m glad  the  options are there.”
A female senior officer commented that “giving the victim a choice of  making a  or  report is a positive change and  allows that person the level of privacy they require.”
A male senior officer observed that as awareness of SARCs increases,  there has been a corresponding increase in reporting, commenting that he  believes “word is getting out and reports are beginning to filter in, troops  seem to be gaining confidence to report incidents.”
section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Have Established Some Mechanisms for Overseeing Reports of Sexual Assault, but Lack an Oversight Framework, and DOD Lacks Key Information from the Services
paragraphs: While DOD and the Coast Guard have established some mechanisms for  overseeing reports of sexual assaults involving servicemembers, they lack  an oversight framework, and DOD lacks key information from the services  needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the department’s sexual assault  prevention and response program. Also, DOD and the Coast Guard lack an  oversight framework because they have not established a comprehensive  plan that includes such things as clear objectives, milestones, performance  measures, and criteria for measuring progress, nor have they established  evaluative performance measures with clearly defined data elements with  which to analyze sexual assault incident data. DOD and the military  services provide information on reports of alleged sexual assaults annually  to Congress in accordance with statutory requirements, but the  effectiveness of these reports for informing Congress about incidents of  sexual assault in the military services is limited by DOD’s lack of a  consistent methodology for reporting incidents, and the means of  presentation for some of the data is misleading. Further, DOD lacks access  to data needed to conduct comprehensive cross-service analyses over  time. Finally, the congressionally directed Defense Task Force on Sexual  Assault in the Military Services has yet to begin its review, although DOD  considers its work to be an important oversight element. Without an  oversight framework, as well as more complete data, decision makers in  DOD, the Coast Guard, and Congress lack information they need to  evaluate and oversee the programs.
subsections: section_title: DOD and the Military Services Have Established Some Oversight Mechanisms
paragraphs: DOD’s instruction establishes oversight mechanisms for the department’s  sexual assault prevention and response program and assigns oversight  responsibility to DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office  (within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Plans).  DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is responsible for:    developing programs, policies, and training standards for the prevention,  reporting, response, and program accountability of sexual assaults  involving servicemembers;    developing strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives;    collecting and maintaining sexual assault data;    establishing institutional evaluation, quality improvement, and oversight  mechanisms to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the department’s  program;    assisting with identifying and managing trends; and    preparing the department’s annual report to congress.
To help oversee implementation of its sexual assault prevention and  response program, in 2006 DOD established a Sexual Assault Advisory  Council comprised of representatives from DOD’s Sexual Assault  Prevention and Response Office, the military services, and the Coast  Guard. The Sexual Assault Advisory Council’s responsibilities include  advising the Secretary of Defense on the department’s sexual assault  prevention and response policies, coordinating and reviewing the  department’s policies and program, and monitoring progress. During the  course of our review, the Sexual Assault Advisory Council began to  develop preliminary baseline performance measures and evaluation  criteria for assessing program implementation. However, DOD has not yet  established time frames for completing and implementing these measures.  DOD is also working with the military services to develop standards to  assess program implementation and response during site visits planned for  2008.
While the military services have developed mechanisms to collect data,  efforts to systematically review and assess implementation of their  programs are limited and vary by military service. The following are  examples of what we found:    The Army, in response to recommendations made by its Inspector General,  has developed a plan that includes specific actions to be taken and time  frames for completion to improve its program. In addition, the Army has  developed and implemented a Sexual Assault Data Management System to  track reported incidents and associated demographic information about  victims and alleged offenders.
The Navy is reviewing sexual assault incident reports received from Navy  installations, and program officials told us they proactively contact  installations that have not reported any sexual assault incidents during the  reporting period. Further, each installation’s Fleet and Family Support  Center conducts accreditation visits every 3 years to provide quality  assurance and identify and resolve potential problems. For example, they  have found that some servicemembers may not be aware of the reporting  options and, in the past, some commands had not supported the program.  While the Navy has not yet developed a database to track sexual assault  incident data, program officials told us they plan to do so before the end of  fiscal year 2008.
Commanders in the Marine Corps use commanders’ protocols for  responding to allegations of sexual assault to ensure they are  accomplishing the intent of the program without overlooking any aspects.  Further, the Marine Corps uses its Automated Inspection Reporting  System to assess management and administration of the program at the  installation level.
Program officials in the Air Force told us they rely on SARCs to  proactively provide feedback about the program through their chain of  command and during monthly teleconferences. While Air Force officials  acknowledge that they have not conducted either official or formal  institutional reviews or assessments of the Air Force’s program, they have  asked the Air Force’s Inspector General to review its first responder  training and other aspects of the program to ensure compliance with  DOD’s policy. The Air Force collects and maintains information about  reported sexual assault incidents using multiple databases.
section_title: DOD Does Not Have an Oversight Framework in Place to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Its Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program
paragraphs: Though DOD has established some oversight mechanisms, it has not  established an oversight framework, which is necessary to ensure the  effective implementation of its sexual assault prevention and response  program. Our prior work has demonstrated the importance of outcome- oriented performance measures to successful program oversight and  shown that having an effective plan for implementing initiatives and  measuring progress can help decision makers determine whether  initiatives are achieving their desired results. DOD has not established an  oversight framework because it has not established a comprehensive plan  that includes such things as clear objectives, milestones, performance  measures, and criteria for measuring progress, nor has it established  evaluative performance measures with clearly defined data elements with  which to analyze sexual assault incident data. Because DOD’s sexual  assault prevention and response program lacks an oversight framework,  its program, as currently implemented, does not provide decision makers  with the information they need to evaluate the effectiveness of the  program, determine the extent to which the program is helping to prevent  sexual assault from occurring, or ensure that servicemembers who are  victims of sexual assault receive the care they need.
As discussed above, DOD’s directive assigns oversight responsibility to  DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. However, this  office has yet to establish metrics to facilitate program evaluation and  assess effectiveness. For example, it has not developed specific metrics to:    determine the frequency with which victims were precluded from making  a confidential report using the restricted reporting option or reasons that  precluded them from doing so; or  track information on whether units have received required annual sexual  assault prevention and response training, including how many  servicemembers within a unit have received the training.
Additionally, DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office has  yet to establish performance goals—for example, a goal specifying the  percentage of servicemembers within a unit who should receive required  training. In the absence of such measures, Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response Office officials told us that they currently determine the  effectiveness of DOD’s program based on how well the military services  are complying with program implementation requirements identified by  DOD. While they acknowledged that to date their focus has been on  program implementation as opposed to program evaluation, these officials  noted that the Sexual Assault Advisory Council is in the initial stages of  developing performance measures and evaluation criteria to assess  program performance and identify conditions needing attention. Presently,  DOD is working with the military services to develop guidelines to permit,  among other uses, consistent assessment of program implementation  during site visits conducted by DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response Office as well as by the military services at other times.  However, time frames for developing and implementing these measures  have not yet been established, and without such a plan and evaluative  measures, the program does not provide decision makers with the  information they need to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the  military services’ efforts.
Without an oversight framework to guide program implementation, DOD  risks that the military services will not collect all of the information  needed to provide insight into the effectiveness of their programs. For  example, officials have recognized that they will need additional data on  sexual assault incidents both for purposes of oversight and to respond  effectively to congressional inquiries as the program matures. However,  the military services have encountered challenges in providing requested  data because the request came after the start of the collection period. For  example, with the exception of the Army, none of the military services was  able to provide data as part of the fiscal year 2007 annual report to  Congress on sexual assaults involving civilian victims, such as contractors  and government employees. Without an oversight framework that includes  clearly defined data collection elements, DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention  and Response Office risks not being able to respond effectively to  congressional requests or to oversee the program appropriately.
section_title: The Coast Guard Lacks an Oversight Framework and Congress Has No Visibility of Sexual Assault Incidents Involving Coast Guard Members
paragraphs: Oversight by the Coast Guard headquarters of its sexual assault prevention  and response program is limited to the collection and maintenance of  incident data and, like DOD, the Coast Guard has not established an  oversight framework to guide implementation of its program. Although the  Coast Guard recently revised its instruction to incorporate a restricted  reporting option and to generally mirror DOD’s sexual assault prevention  and response program, according to Coast Guard officials their focus to  date has been on program implementation as opposed to program  evaluation. Like DOD, the Coast Guard has not developed an oversight  framework that includes clear objectives, milestones, performance  measures, and criteria for measuring progress, nor has the Coast Guard  developed performance measures to assess its program. Coast Guard  program officials told us that they plan to conduct reviews of their  program for compliance and quality in the future and will continue to  review reported incident data, and they plan to leverage any metrics  developed by DOD to assess their program. Further, the Coast Guard  Investigative Service has begun to conduct limited trend analysis on  reported incidents, including the extent to which alcohol or drugs were  involved in alleged sexual assaults. However, like DOD, the Coast Guard is  not able to fully evaluate the results achieved by its efforts, and it is  unclear whether its program is achieving its goals.
While there is no statutory reporting requirement for the Coast Guard, the  Coast Guard voluntarily participates in DOD’s annual reporting  requirement by submitting data to DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response Office. The Coast Guard Investigative Service collects data on  unrestricted reports as part of its investigative responsibilities and shares  these data with the Coast Guard Office of Work Life, which collects data  on alleged assaults received using the restricted reporting option. The  Coast Guard shares aggregate reported data with DOD’s Sexual Assault  Prevention and Response Office. However, DOD does not include these  data in its annual report and the Coast Guard does not provide these  incident data to Congress because neither is required to do so. As a result,  Congress does not have visibility over the extent to which sexual assaults  involving Coast Guard members occur.
section_title: DOD Data Reported to Congress Could Be Misinterpreted
paragraphs: DOD’s annual reports to Congress may not effectively characterize  incidents of sexual assault in the military services because the department  has not clearly articulated a consistent methodology for reporting  incidents, and because the means of presentation for some of the data  does not facilitate comparison. DOD’s annual reports to Congress include  data on the total number of restricted and unrestricted reported incidents  of sexual assault; however, meaningful comparisons of the data cannot be  made because the respective offices that provide the data to DOD measure  incidents of sexual assault differently. For example, in the military  services, SARCs, who focus on victim care, report data on the number of  sexual assault incidents alleged using the restricted reporting option based  on the number of victims involved. In contrast, the criminal investigative  organizations, which report data on the number of sexual assault incidents  alleged using the unrestricted reporting option, report data on a per  “incident” basis, which may include multiple victims or alleged offenders.  Thus, the lack of a common means of presentation for reporting purposes  has prevented users of the reports from making meaningful comparisons  or drawing conclusions from the reported numbers.
Further, while we identified some improvements in the fiscal year 2007  report in the way DOD discusses some data, DOD’s annual report lacks  certain data that we believe would facilitate congressional oversight or  understanding of victims’ use of the reporting options. For example, while  DOD’s annual report provides Congress with the aggregate numbers of  investigations during the prior year for which commanders did not take  action against alleged offenders, those aggregated numbers do not  distinguish between cases in which evidence was found to be insufficient  to substantiate an alleged assault versus the number of times a victim  recanted an accusation or an alleged offender died. Also, though DOD’s  annual report documents the number of reports that were initially brought  using the restricted reporting option and later changed to unrestricted,  DOD’s annual report includes these same figures in both categories—that  is, the total number of restricted reports and the total number of  unrestricted reports. An official in DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response Office told us that because the military services do not provide  detailed case data to DOD, the department is not able to remove these  reports from the total number of restricted reports when providing  information in its annual report. However, we believe that double listing  the figures is confusing.
Also, while DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office has  collected and reported incident data since calendar year 2004, the  department lacks a baseline for conducting trend analysis over time  because of changes in the way data are reported. Comparisons among data  reported during calendar years 2005 and 2006 are difficult to make  because the restricted reporting option was not available during the  entirety of calendar year 2005. Significantly, direct comparisons cannot be  made between fiscal year 2007 and prior years because of inconsistencies  in the reporting periods. For example, changes to sections of the UCMJ  dealing with sexual assault that took effect on October 1, 2007, led DOD to  change the period of data collection from calendar year to fiscal year.  Consequently, incident data reported in DOD’s calendar year 2006 annual  report to Congress overlap with data reported in its fiscal year 2007 annual  report for the months of October, November, and December 2006.  However, because the military services provide incident data to DOD that  are aggregated for each service, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response  Office officials told us they cannot adjust the calendar year data to a fiscal  year basis to facilitate trend analysis. Officials noted that each military  service would need to manually adjust previously reported calendar year  data to a fiscal year basis, and such an undertaking would be time  intensive. Moreover, a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office  official told us that these changes, which led DOD to revise the standard  definition of sexual assault, will also prevent comparisons between fiscal  year 2007 data and data in future years, except in general terms.  Consequently, the way in which sexual assault incident data are collected  and reported will change in the fiscal year 2008 annual report to Congress  and, until investigations of sexual assault incidents reported prior to fiscal  year 2008 are completed, both DOD’s original and revised standard  definitions of sexual assault will be in use. Finally, DOD has not conducted  its own analysis of the information contained in the military services’  annual reports or provided its assessment of their programs prior to  forwarding these reports to Congress, in part because it is not explicitly  required to include this type of assessment in its annual report. Without a  firm baseline and consistent data collection, DOD will not be able to  conduct trend analysis over time that provides insight into incident data  collected, except in the most general terms.
section_title: DOD Lacks Access to Data to Conduct Comprehensive Cross- Service Analysis Over Time
paragraphs: DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is not able to  conduct comprehensive cross-service trend analysis of sexual assault  incidents because it does not have access to installation- or case-level data  that would facilitate such analyses. DOD officials told us that the military  services do not provide installation- or case-level incident data beyond  those that are aggregated at the military-service level. These data are  generally limited to information needed to meet statutory requirements for  inclusion in the annual report to Congress. Service officials told us they do  not want to provide installation- or case-level data to DOD because they  are concerned that (1) data may be misinterpreted, (2) even nonidentifying  data about the victim may erode victim confidentiality, and (3)  servicemembers may not report sexual assaults if case-level data are  shared beyond the service-level. However, without access to such  information, DOD does not have the means to identify those factors, and  thus to fully execute its oversight role, including assessing trends over  time. For example, without case-level data, DOD cannot determine the  frequency with which sexual assaults are reported in each of the  geographic combatant commands. Since 2004, DOD has required the Joint  Staff to provide periodic information on sexual assaults reported in the  U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility because of the significant  impact sexual assault has on mission readiness. However, DOD does not  know the rate of reported sexual assault incidents in U.S. Central  Command’s area of responsibility as compared with the rate in other  geographic combatant commands, because the department does not  require the Joint Staff to provide such information.
Furthermore, installation- and case-level data may be useful to identify  installations that over periods of time continue to have high rates of  reported alleged sexual assault incidents as a percentage of the total  population. For example, in analyzing the services’ installation-level data  we identified, for one of the military services, three installations with  higher reporting rates for sexual assaults than other installations.  Continuation of such trends at these installations over time could indicate  best practices, such as supportive command climates, that encourage  victims to report sexual assaults. Conversely, such trends may identify  installations or units where additional training and resources to prevent  sexual assaults may be needed. Such information, if available, could better  inform decisions by officials in DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response Office to select installations within each service to visit for  program assessments and identify factors to consider when making  programmatic corrections.
section_title: Congressionally Directed Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services Has Not Yet Begun Its Review
paragraphs: To provide further oversight of DOD’s sexual assault prevention and  response program, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 2005 required the Defense Task Force on Sexual  Assault in the Military Services to conduct an examination of matters  relating to sexual assault in cases in which members of the Armed Forces  are either victims or offenders. As part of its examination, the law directs  the task force to assess, among other things, DOD’s reporting procedures,  collection, tracking, and use of data on sexual assaults by senior military  and civilian leaders, as well as DOD’s oversight of its sexual assault  prevention and response program. The law does not require an assessment  of the Coast Guard’s program. Senior officials within the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness have stated that  they plan to use the task force’s findings to evaluate the effectiveness of  DOD’s sexual assault prevention and response program. However, as of  July 2008 this task force has yet to begun its review.
Senior task force staff members we spoke with attributed the delays to  challenges in appointing the task force members and member turnover. As  of July 2008, however, they told us that all 12 task force members had been  appointed, and that their goal was to hold their first open meeting, and  thus begin their evaluation, in August 2008. They also told us that they  estimate that by the end of fiscal year 2008 DOD will have expended about  $15 million since 2005 to fund the task forces’ operations. According to  senior task force staff members, much of this funding has gone towards  the task forces’ operational expenses, including salaries for the civilian  staff members, contracts, travel, and rent. The law directs that the task  force submit its report to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of  the Army, Navy, and Air Force no later than 1 year after beginning its  examination. If such a goal were met, the task force’s evaluation could be  complete by August 2009. However, as of the time of our review, it was  uncertain whether the task force will be able to meet this goal.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD and the Coast Guard have taken positive steps to prevent, respond  to, and resolve reported incidents of sexual assault. However, a number of  challenges—such as limited guidance for implementing DOD’s policies in  certain environments, some commanders’ support and limited resources  for the programs, training that is not consistently effective, and limited  access to mental health services—could undermine the effectiveness of  some of their efforts. Left unchecked, these challenges could undermine  DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s efforts by eroding servicemembers’  confidence in the programs or decreasing the likelihood that sexual  assault victims will turn to the programs for help when needed. Also,  although DOD and the Coast Guard have established some oversight  mechanisms, without an oversight framework with specific goals,  measures, and milestones for assessing results, DOD and the Coast Guard  are limited in their ability to measure the success of their efforts. Further,  without information on the incidence of sexual assault in the Coast Guard,  Congress’ visibility over the extent to which sexual assaults involving  Coast Guard members occur is limited. Finally, without a firm baseline  and consistent data collection, DOD will not be able to conduct trend  analysis over time that enables it to determine where its program is  working and where it is not, and therefore may have difficulty judging the  overall successes, challenges, and lessons learned from its program. As a  result, congressional decision makers may not have the visibility they need  of the incidence of sexual assault reports involving servicemembers.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To improve oversight of sexual assault incidents involving  servicemembers in the Coast Guard, Congress may wish to consider  requiring the Coast Guard to submit to Congress sexual assault incident  and program data annually that are methodologically comparable to those  required of DOD.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following nine  actions:    To improve implementation of the sexual assault prevention and response  program in DOD, direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to:   Review and evaluate the department’s policies for the prevention and  response of sexual assault to ensure that adequate guidance is provided  to effectively implement the program in deployed environments and  joint environments.
Evaluate the military services’ processes for staffing and designating  key installation-level program positions, such as SARCs, at installations  in the United States and overseas, to ensure that these individuals have  the ability and resources to fully carry out their responsibilities.
Review and evaluate sexual assault prevention and response training to  ensure the military services are meeting training requirements and to  enhance the effectiveness of the training.
Systematically evaluate and develop an action plan to address any  factors that may prevent or discourage servicemembers from accessing  mental health services following a sexual assault.
To ensure that the sexual assault prevention and response program has  the strong support of military commanders and other senior leaders  necessary for implementation, direct the service secretaries to emphasize  to all levels of command their responsibility for supporting the program,  and review the extent to which commanders support the program and  resources are available to raise servicemembers’ awareness of sexual  assault matters.
To enhance oversight of the sexual assault prevention and response  program in DOD, direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to:    Require the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to develop  an oversight framework to guide continued program implementation  and evaluate program effectiveness. At a minimum, such a framework  should contain long-term goals, objectives, and milestones;  performance goals; strategies to be used to accomplish goals; and  criteria for measuring progress.  Improve the usefulness of the department’s annual report as an  oversight tool both internally and for congressional decision makers by  establishing baseline data to permit analysis of data over time, and  reporting data so as to distinguish cases in which (1) evidence was  insufficient to substantiate an alleged assault, (2) a victim recanted, or  (3) the allegations of sexual assault were unfounded.
To enhance oversight of the military services’ sexual assault prevention  and response programs, direct the service secretaries to provide  installation-level incident data to the Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response Office annually or as requested to facilitate analysis of sexual  assault-related data and better target resources over time.
To help facilitate the assessment and evaluation of DOD’s sexual assault  prevention and response program, direct the Defense Task Force on  Sexual Assault in the Military Services to begin its examination  immediately, now that all members of the task force have been appointed,  and to develop a detailed plan with milestones to guide its work.
We recommend that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, in order to  improve implementation and enhance oversight of the Coast Guard’s  sexual assault prevention and response program, take the following two  actions:    Evaluate its processes for staffing key installation-level program  positions, such as the EAPC, to ensure that these individuals have the  ability and resources to fully carry out their responsibilities.
Develop an oversight framework to guide continued program  implementation and evaluate program effectiveness. At a minimum,  such a framework should contain long-term goals, objectives, and  milestones; performance goals; strategies to be used to accomplish  goals; and criteria for measuring progress.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, both DOD and the Coast  Guard concurred with all of our recommendations. DOD’s comments are  reprinted in appendix II, and the Coast Guard’s comments are reprinted in  appendix III. The Coast Guard also provided technical comments which  we incorporated where appropriate.
In concurring with our first recommendation, that the department should  review and evaluate its policies for the prevention of and response to  sexual assault to ensure that adequate guidance is provided to effectively  implement the program in deployed and joint environments, DOD asserted  that it had originally brought this issue to our attention. We disagree with  DOD’s characterization of this issue. As noted in our report, program  officials with whom we met overseas informed us of their concerns that  DOD’s guidance does not address some important issues—such as how to  implement the program when operating in a deployed environment. In  some instances, the military services also informed us of their concerns  over the adequacy of DOD’s guidance. However, officials with DOD’s  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office did not express any such  concerns to us during the course of our review, nor did they indicate that  they were taking any actions to address them. Nonetheless, DOD in its  written comments cited several positive actions it is taking take to meet  the intent of our recommendation, such as its use of Policy Assistance  Team visits to ensure that all challenges have been identified.
In concurring with our recommendations aimed at improving  implementation of the department’s sexual assault prevention and  response program—including that DOD should (1) evaluate the military  services’ processes for staffing key installation-level program positions, (2)  review and evaluate sexual assault prevention and response training; and  (3) systematically evaluate and develop an action plan to address any  factors that may prevent or discourage servicemembers from accessing  mental health services following a sexual assault—DOD commented that  several efforts are currently underway or are planned to address these  issues. For example, DOD stated that the department is currently utilizing  Policy Assistance Team site visits to evaluate the effectiveness of SARCs  as implemented by each of the military services, and to elicit feedback  from servicemembers about training content, frequency, media, and  effectiveness. We commend DOD for taking immediate steps in response  to our recommendations, such as including a review of the military  services’ implementation of the SARC position and training as part of its  Policy Assistance Team site visits. As DOD noted in its comments,  additional efforts to address our recommendations are planned. We  believe it is important for the department to continue to emphasize taking  positive actions with regard to our recommendations.
In its concurrence with our recommendation that the department should  emphasize to all levels of command their responsibility for supporting the  program and should review the extent to which support and resources are  available to raise servicemembers’ awareness of sexual assault matters,  DOD noted that a letter from the Secretary of Defense is currently in draft  for dissemination to the service secretaries emphasizing commander  involvement and support for the program. DOD further noted that it will  examine whether there is a need to update commanders’ training to  enhance their understanding and support of the program. However, DOD  offered no specific information with regard to the steps it will take to  review the extent to which commanders support the program and  resources are available to raise servicemembers’ awareness of sexual  assault matters. We continue to believe that conducting such an  assessment is critical to understanding the extent to which commanders  actually support the program.
In its concurrence with our recommendations for enhancing oversight of  the department’s sexual assault prevention and response program— including that DOD should (1) develop an oversight framework to guide  continued program implementation and evaluate program effectiveness,  and (2) establish baseline data to facilitate analysis of data over time— DOD noted that it had established its sexual assault prevention and  response program very rapidly to meet an emergent need, but that now  that the program is established it must transition to a mature program with  long-term goals, objectives, milestones, and criteria for measuring  progress. We commend the department for committing to develop an  oversight framework for its program.
In its concurrence with our recommendation that DOD should direct the  military services to provide installation-level incident data to the Sexual  Assault Prevention and Response Office annually or as requested, DOD  noted that U.S. Central Command, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force  all have expressed concerns regarding the reporting of this installation- level data. However, DOD also acknowledged—as we note in our report— that access to installation-level data by DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention  and Response Office is critical for oversight and visibility over alleged  sexual assault incidents and stated it is drafting a letter for the Secretary  of Defense’s signature ordering the military services to provide  installation-level data to DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response  Office.
Finally, in its concurrence with our recommendation that the department  should direct the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military  Services to begin its examination immediately and to develop a detailed  plan with milestones to guide its work, DOD noted that the task force’s  first meeting was held during mid-August 2008. Further, DOD provided  additional information on the steps the task force plans to take to assess  DOD’s program as part of its evaluation, including conducting site visits  and meeting with servicemembers and first responders. However, DOD  provided no information regarding the milestones that will guide the task  force’s work. We continue to assert the importance of this key element of  the plan the task force needs.
The Coast Guard also concurred with our recommendations aimed at  improving implementation and enhancing oversight of its sexual assault  prevention and response program—including that the Coast Guard should  (1) evaluate its process for staffing key installation-level program positions  and (2) develop an oversight framework to guide continued program  implementation and evaluate program effectiveness. We commend the  Coast Guard for its planned initiatives, including ensuring that program  experts have the resources to fully conduct their duties and  responsibilities, working with DOD to align its goals, strategies, and  measurements for consistency and improved reporting, and seeking to  coordinate an integrated approach and programmatic view to improve its  program. However, we note that as part of these efforts it is important that  the Coast Guard’s efforts include an oversight framework with long-term  goals, objectives, milestones, and criteria for measuring progress.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional members  and staff; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy,  and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the  Commandant of the Coast Guard. We will also make copies available to  others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge  on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) and  the Coast Guard have developed and implemented policies and programs  to prevent, respond to, and resolve sexual assault incidents involving  servicemembers, we reviewed legislative requirements and obtained and  analyzed DOD’s, the military services’, and the Coast Guard’s guidance and  requirements for the prevention, response, and resolution of sexual  assault. We also interviewed officials in DOD, the Army, the Air Force, the  Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Department of Homeland Security and  the Coast Guard to obtain a comprehensive understanding of their efforts  to implement programs to prevent and respond to reported incidents of  sexual assault. We also obtained and analyzed DOD’s annual reports to  Congress for calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006, and fiscal year 2007 and  compared the statutory requirements for DOD’s annual report to Congress  to the data included in the annual reports. In addition, we visited 15  military installations in the United States and overseas where we met with  program officials and responders to discuss their experiences preventing  and responding to incidents of sexual assault and the challenges they face  implementing sexual assault prevention and response programs. The  locations we visited were selected based on a number of factors, including  units’ mission, availability of personnel given training or mission  requirements, and recent deployment histories. We focused our overseas  efforts on military installations located in the U.S. Central Command’s area  of responsibility because of past congressional concerns about the  prevalence of sexual assaults in deployed locations and combat zones. At  the installations we visited, we met with Sexual Assault Response  Coordinators and victim advocates in DOD; Employee Assistance Program  Coordinators in the Coast Guard; and judge advocates, medical and mental  health personnel, criminal investigative personnel, law enforcement  personnel, and chaplains in DOD and the Coast Guard. We also met with  military commanders, including company and field grade officers, and  senior enlisted servicemembers to discuss the steps they have taken to  establish a command climate that discourages sexual assault from  occurring, as well as their personal experiences responding to and  resolving reported incidents of alleged sexual assault in their units. We  also obtained servicemembers’ perspectives on issues regarding command  support, training, and access to medical and mental health services by  administering a nonprobability survey to selected servicemembers and  conducting one-on-one structured interviews with servicemembers at 14  of the 15 installations we visited. To understand how commanders dispose  of sexual assault cases, we reviewed the Uniform Code of Military Justice  and Manual for Courts-Martial and reviewed data reported by DOD for  fiscal year 2007. To obtain an understanding of the processes used to treat  mental health disorders, we met with knowledgeable officials from DOD,  the military services, the Coast Guard, and the Department of Veterans  Affairs.
To determine the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard have visibility  over reports of sexual assault involving servicemembers, we obtained and  analyzed data for reported sexual assaults in both DOD and the Coast  Guard for fiscal year 2007. To assess the reliability of the reported sexual  assault data, we discussed these data with officials in DOD and the Coast  Guard as well as with officials in the military services to gain an  understanding of the processes and databases used to collect and record  incident data, and to understand existing data quality control procedures  and known limitations of the data. In comparing sexual assault data we  received directly from DOD installation(s) with installation-level data we  received from the services, we found some discrepancies that officials  were not able to explain. Even with these discrepancies, we found these  data were sufficiently reliable to present an overall description of reported  incidents of sexual assault. While we also reviewed DOD’s annual reports  to Congress for calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006, changes in the way  DOD collects and reports incident data preclude direct comparisons and  analysis across calendar and fiscal years. To understand why  servicemembers may not report sexual assault incidents, we obtained  servicemembers’ perspectives on issues regarding sexual assault  prevention and response programs in the military services and the Coast  Guard through our survey and one-on-one structured interviews of  servicemembers at 14 of the 15 installations we visited. We also reviewed  the results of surveys conducted by DOD and the military services since  2004. In reviewing the survey documentation provided by the Defense  Manpower Data Center and the Army and the Navy, we found these data  were sufficiently reliable and we present these survey results to illustrate  that multiple survey research sources indicate that there may be  underreporting by those who experience sexual assaults.
To determine the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard exercise  oversight over reports of sexual assault involving servicemembers, we  interviewed key officials with DOD’s and the military services’ respective  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response offices and the Coast Guard’s  Office of Work Life to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the  processes, procedures, and controls used for monitoring and overseeing  the programs. We also interviewed representatives of the Defense Task  Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, which is statutorily  required to undertake an examination of sexual assault matters in the  Armed Forces, to discuss the task force’s progress. We reviewed various  pertinent documents, including meeting minutes for DOD’s Sexual Assault  Advisory Council, federal internal control standards, and prior GAO  reports on the use of performance measures to evaluate programmatic  efforts. We also reviewed reports issued by the services’ inspector  generals and examined DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s responses to  recommendations from prior related studies. In addition, we analyzed  installation-level data for reported sexual assaults in both DOD and the  Coast Guard for fiscal year 2007.
To obtain servicemembers’ perspectives on issues regarding sexual assault  prevention and response programs in DOD and the Coast Guard, we  administered a total of 3,750 confidential surveys to a nonprobability  sample of randomly selected servicemembers and conducted more than  150 one-on-one, structured interviews with randomly selected  servicemembers at 14 of the 15 locations we visited. In the United States,  the locations we visited included Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Fort  Bliss, Texas; Fort Drum, New York; Integrated Support Command  Portsmouth, Virginia; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Marine Corps Base  Quantico, Virginia; and Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. Overseas, the  locations we visited included Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar; Balad Air Base,  Iraq; Camp Arifjan, Kuwait; Camp As Saliyah, Qatar; Camp Ramadi, Iraq;  Camp Stryker, Iraq; Logistics Support Area Anaconda, Iraq; and Naval  Support Activity, Bahrain. We did not administer our survey or conduct  one-on-one structured interviews at Camp As Saliyah at the request of the  Army because many of the servicemembers stationed there are on rest and  relaxation tours during their overseas deployment. Of the 3,750  confidential surveys we administered, 711 surveys were administered in  Iraq; 852 in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain collectively; and 2,187 at locations  across the United States. We considered conducting surveys of  servicemembers using probability samples that would allow generalizing  the results to all servicemembers at each installation we visited. However,  because of the difficulties in identifying accurate and complete lists of  servicemembers present at an installation as of a specific date from which  to draw samples, particularly for installations outside the United States,  and the administrative burden it would have placed on the installation  commands, we did not pursue this. Instead, we conducted nonprobability  surveys with randomly selected servicemembers to reflect all ranks and  both men and women at 14 of the 15 installations we visited. Table 7  provides information on the number of servicemembers we surveyed at  each location.
To select the participants for our surveys and one-on-one structured  interviews, we requested that the locations we visited provide us with a  list of available personnel. To the extent possible, we requested that this  list not include personnel who were deployed, on temporary duty status,  or otherwise not available to attend our survey sessions at the time of our  visit. From the lists provided we randomly selected participants based on  gender and rank. Participants were categorized according to the following  ranks: junior enlisted (encompassing the ranks of E1-E4); mid-enlisted  (encompassing the ranks of E5-E6); senior enlisted (encompassing the  ranks of E7-E9); warrant officers and company grade officers  (encompassing the ranks of W1-W5 and O1-O3); and field grade officers  (encompassing the ranks of O4-O6).
To ensure maximum participation by selected servicemembers, we  provided the locations we visited with lists of primary and alternate  selections for both the survey sessions and one-on-one structured  interviews. Because of the sensitivity of the information we were seeking,  we took several steps to help assure a confidential environment during our  survey sessions. First, we did not document the names of participants in  any of our sessions. Further, we surveyed participants separately based on  rank and gender; for instance, junior enlisted men were surveyed  separately, as were junior enlisted women. We used this same approach  for mid- and senior enlisted servicemembers; warrant and company grade  officers; and field grade officers. Finally, we had male GAO analysts survey  male servicemembers and female GAO analysts survey female  servicemembers. Similarly, in an attempt to encourage an open discussion  during our one-on-one structured interviews, but still protect the  confidentiality of the servicemembers, we did not document their names.  Because we did not select survey and interview participants using a  statistically representative sampling method, our survey results and the  comments provided during our interview sessions are nongeneralizable  and therefore cannot be projected across DOD, a service, or any single  installation we visited. However, the survey results and comments provide  insight into the command climate and implementation of sexual assault  prevention and response program at each location at the time of our visit.
To develop our survey questions, we reviewed several DOD surveys and  studies of issues such as command climate and sexual harassment and  sexual assault in the military. We also reviewed the military services’ and  the Coast Guard’s policies and training materials for programs to prevent  and respond to incidents of sexual assault. Because the scope of our  review included focusing on military installations in the United States and  the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, we developed two survey  questionnaires—the first focusing on the perspective of a servicemember  stationed in the United States (see app. VI) and the second on that of a  servicemember deployed outside the United States (see app. VII). We  worked with social science survey specialists to develop our survey  questionnaires. Because these were not sample surveys, there are no  sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any  survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors.  For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in the  sources of information that are available to respondents, or how the data  are entered into a database can introduce unwanted variability into the  survey results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaires, the  data collection, and data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors.  For example, prior to administering the survey, we pretested the content  and format of the questionnaire with servicemembers at Marine Corps  Base Quantico, Virginia and Fort Meade, Maryland to determine whether  (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3)  respondents were able to provide the information we were seeking, and  (4) the questions were unbiased. We made changes to the content and  format of our final questionnaires based on the results of our pretesting.
We administered our surveys and conducted our one-on-one structured  interviews at the locations we visited between September 2007 and March  2008. Because our surveys and questions asked participants to consider  the frequency with which some things, such as training, have occurred  over the past 12 months, participants’ responses may cover the period  between September 2006 and March 2008.
We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review:    Defense Manpower Data Center, Arlington, Virginia    Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, Alexandria,    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness    Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Plans, Washington,  D.C.    Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Office,  Washington, D.C.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Falls    Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and  Traumatic Brain Injury, Rosslyn, Virginia    U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida  Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff    J-1, Manpower and Personnel, Washington, D.C.    J-4, Logistics, Washington, D.C.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve  Affairs, Washington, D.C.
Office of the Chief of Chaplains, Crystal City, Virginia    Office of the Chief of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 Personnel    Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Office, Rosslyn,    Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Judge Advocate General, Rosslyn, Virginia    Office of the Provost Marshall General, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Surgeon General, Fort Sam Houston, Texas    Army Central Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia    Army Combat Readiness Center, Fort Rucker, Virginia    Army Criminal Investigation Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia    Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command, Alexandria,    Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia    Army Medical Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas    Army Research Institute, Arlington, Virginia    Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia    Army Military Police School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri    Camp Arifjan, Kuwait    Camp As Saliyah, Qatar    Camp Stryker, Iraq    Fort Bliss, Texas    Fort Drum, New York    Fort Meade, Maryland    Logistics Support Area Anaconda, Iraq  Department of the Air Force    Office of the Chief of Chaplains, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Inspector General, Arlington, Virginia    Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D.C.    Office of Special Investigations, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland    Office of the Surgeon General, Falls Church, Virginia    Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Office, Washington,  D.C.
Air Education and Training Command, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas    Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar    Balad Air Base, Iraq    Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas    Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Washington, D.C.    Bureau of Naval Personnel, Millington, Tennessee    Commander, Navy Installation Command, Washington, D.C.
Fleet and Family Support Program, Counseling, Advocacy, and  Prevention Program, Washington, D.C.
Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington, D.C.    Naval Education Training Command, Pensacola, Florida    Center for Personal and Professional Development, Virginia Beach,    Navy Medical Manpower Personnel Training and Education Command,    Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Manpower and Reserve  Affairs, Washington, D.C.
Office of the Naval Inspector General, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D.C.    Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia    Naval Support Activity, Bahrain    Criminal Investigative Division, Arlington, Virginia    Manpower and Reserve Affairs    Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Quantico, Virginia    Office of the Chaplains, Arlington, Virginia    Office of the Judge Advocate Division, Arlington, Virginia    Camp Lejeune, North Carolina    Camp Ramadi, Iraq    Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia    Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Washington, D.C.
Coast Guard Investigative Service, Arlington, Virginia    Health and Safety Directorate, Office of Work Life, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Chaplain of the Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.    Office of Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.    Office of the Coast Guard Headquarters Chaplain, Washington, D.C.    Office of Military Justice, Washington, D.C.    Fifth District, Sector Hampton Roads  Integrated Support Command Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Virginia    Yorktown Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia    Patrol Forces Southwest Asia, Naval Support Activity, Bahrain    Veteran’s Health Administration    National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, White River    Women Veteran’s Health Division, Washington, D.C.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2007 through August 2008  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Coast Guard
section_title: Appendix IV: Disposition of Sexual Assaults in DOD and the Coast Guard
paragraphs: In both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Coast Guard,  commanders are responsible for discipline of misconduct, including  sexual assault, and they have a variety of judicial and administrative  options at their disposal. Commanders’ options are specified in the  Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual for Courts- Martial and include:    Trial by courts-martial, the most severe disposition option, which can lead  to many different punishments including death, prison time, forfeiture of  pay and allowances, reduction in rank, and punitive separation from  military service.
Nonjudicial punishment, pursuant to Article 15 of the UCMJ, which allows  for a number of punishments such as reducing a members’ grade,  forfeiture of pay, adding extra duty, and imposing restrictions on freedom.    Administrative actions, which are corrective measures that may result in a  variety of actions such as issuing a reprimand, admonition, counseling,  extra military instruction, or the administrative withholding of privileges.  Other actions include rehabilitation and reassignment, administrative  reduction for inefficiency, bar to reenlistment, and administrative  separation.
Commanders may also elect to take no action if evidence of an offense is  not sufficient.
In determining punishment, commanders may elect to utilize many  administrative options in conjunction with courts-martial convictions or  nonjudicial punishments. The use of such actions can have significant  negative career and employment repercussions for the accused, both  within the military and in the civilian community.
The Manual for Courts-Martial provides a list of factors that commanders  should consider when determining how to dispose of a criminal offense.  These factors include:  the character and military service of the accused,  the nature of and circumstances surrounding the offense and the extent of  harm caused,  the appropriateness of the authorized punishment to the particular  accused or offense,    possible improper motives of the accuser,  reluctance of the victim or others to testify,    cooperation of the accused in the apprehension or conviction of others,  the availability and likelihood of prosecution by another jurisdiction and  the existence of jurisdiction over the accused and the offender, and  the availability and admissibility of evidence.
Ordinarily, the immediate commander of an individual accused or  suspected of committing an offense is responsible for determining how to  dispose of the offense. However, the immediate commander who lacks  sufficient authority to take action may forward the matter to a superior  commander for disposition. A decision by a lower-level commander does  not prevent a different disposition by a superior commander. Further,  commanders’ decisions are typically made after consulting with the  supporting legal office (e.g., judge advocate).
subsections: section_title: Disposition of Investigations of Sexual Assault within DOD
paragraphs: DOD collects and reports data in its annual report to Congress on the  disposition of reported sexual assault incidents in the military.  Investigations of sexual assaults and the outcomes of these cases may  cross reporting periods, and commanders may not always have  jurisdiction to take actions against some alleged offenders. DOD reported  that there were 1,955 completed investigations of reported sexual assault  cases in fiscal year 2007 resulting from all unrestricted reports of alleged  sexual assault incidents made during or prior to fiscal year 2007. These  1,955 completed investigations involved 2,212 alleged offenders including  servicemembers who fall under a military commander’s legal authority and  nonservicemembers, such as civilians or foreign nationals, who may not  be subject to military law. Some cases had multiple alleged offenders,  victims, or both. Of the 2,212 alleged offenders resulting from all  investigations completed in fiscal year 2007, commanders had sufficient  evidence of a crime to support taking actions against 600 (27 percent) of  these alleged offenders. Action against 572 alleged offenders was still  pending as of September 30, 2007; once these dispositions are completed,  commanders will have taken action against a total of 1,172 alleged  offenders (53 percent). As shown in table 8, as of September 30, 2007,  slightly more than half of these alleged offenders received command  actions consisting of courts-martial, nonjudicial punishment, or other  administrative actions or discharges. Judge advocates told us that  commanders almost always dispose of rapes through courts-martial.
As shown in table 9, commanders did not take direct action against 1,040  alleged offenders for a variety of reasons. For example, some of these  alleged offenders were not subject to military law, other alleged offenders  could not be identified, and in some instances the alleged sexual assault  was unsubstantiated, unfounded, or there was insufficient evidence that  an offense occurred.
Although DOD does not track information about indirect actions  commanders may take against offenders who are not subject to military  law, judge advocates at installations we visited overseas told us that  commanders could bar a foreign national or contractor who commits a  crime from the installation, but were otherwise limited in actions they  could take against alleged offenders who are not subject to the UCMJ.  They told us that generally, commanders must rely on foreign  governments to prosecute foreign nationals who commit crimes. Officials  also stated that because there is no formal system to track individuals  barred from installations, it is not possible to ensure that foreign nationals  barred from one base are barred from all bases in a geographic region.  Commanders also have limited avenues to address misconduct or crimes  committed by contractors.
section_title: Disposition of Investigations of Sexual Assault within the Coast Guard
paragraphs: During fiscal year 2007, the Coast Guard Investigative Service completed  investigations for 62 of the 72 sexual assault incidents reported during  fiscal year 2007. For these 62 completed investigations, the Coast Guard  identified 67 alleged offenders including servicemembers who are under a  military commander’s legal authority as well as nonservicemembers who  may not be subject to military law. Of the 67 alleged offenders,  commanders had sufficient evidence of a crime to support taking action  against 19 alleged offenders (see table 10).
Actions against 23 alleged offenders were still pending as of April 30, 2008.  Commanders did not take action against 25 alleged offenders because  evidence was unsubstantiated, unfounded, insufficient, the victim  recanted, or the alleged offender died; the alleged offender was not  identified; or the alleged offender was a nonservicemember who was not  subject to the UCMJ.
section_title: Appendix V: DOD and Coast Guard Data on Reported Sexual Assault Incidents for Fiscal Year 2007
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) is required by law to collect and report  data on sexual assault incidents involving servicemembers in active duty  status to Congress annually. The Coast Guard collects similar data, but  does not report these data to Congress because it is not statutorily  required to do so. Servicemembers on active duty in DOD may report an  alleged sexual assault using either the unrestricted or restricted reporting  options. As previously discussed, an unrestricted report of an alleged  sexual assault incident is provided to the chain of command or law  enforcement for investigation. The military criminal investigative  organizations within each military service and the Coast Guard are  responsible for investigating crimes, including sexual assaults in which  servicemembers are either alleged offender(s) or victim(s) and for  documenting case data including information on alleged offenders and  victims and the disposition of cases. A restricted report is a confidential  report of an alleged sexual assault that can be made without initiating an  investigation or notifying the chain of command. Within DOD, a restricted  report may be made to either a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator  (SARC) or a victim advocate at an installation; within the Coast Guard, a  restricted report may be made to the Employee Assistance Program  Coordinator (EAPC) or victim support person; and within both DOD and  the Coast Guard a restricted report may also be made to medical  personnel. When a restricted report is made, a commander is usually  notified by the SARC or EAPC that an assault has occurred; however, the  commander should not be informed of the victim’s identity or any other  information that could lead to identification, such as gender or rank. The  SARC in DOD or the EAPC in the Coast Guard generally collects limited  data about the alleged victim and the alleged incident because the purpose  of the restricted reporting option is to provide assistance to victims rather  than collect incident-related statistics. In DOD, SARCs provide these data  to their service-level Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office,  whereas in the Coast Guard the EAPC provides similar data to the Office  of Work Life. Regardless of the reporting option used, victims in both DOD  and the Coast Guard can receive medical care, advocacy, and counseling  services. At any time, an alleged victim may choose to change from a  restricted report to an unrestricted report and participate in an  investigation.
subsections: section_title: Unrestricted Reports Made during Fiscal Year 2007 in DOD
paragraphs: Of the 2,688 reports of sexual assault incidents that DOD received during  fiscal year 2007, 2,085 were made using the unrestricted reporting option.  However, a number of these reports were not substantiated as of  September 30, 2007, when DOD compiled data for inclusion in its fiscal  year 2007 annual report to Congress. According to DOD officials, a case  may not be substantiated for a number of reasons. For example, a victim  may recant an accusation, thus preventing an investigation from  proceeding; evidence may be found insufficient to substantiate the alleged  assault; or the alleged offender may have died. As of September 30, 2007,  DOD reported that about 36 percent (741) of investigations of alleged  sexual assault were ongoing. According to DOD’s fiscal year 2007 annual  report, in 72 percent (1,511) of the 2,085 unrestricted reports of alleged  sexual assault, the alleged victims were servicemembers; in the remaining  28 percent (574) of unrestricted reports the alleged victims were  nonservicemembers, such as civilians or foreign nationals. About 60  percent of these reports involved an alleged rape and about one-third  involved alleged indecent assaults. DOD also reported that about 9 percent  (133) of all sexual assaults reported during fiscal year 2007 using the  unrestricted reporting option were made by males who were either  servicemembers or nonservicemembers. Table 11 shows the number of  servicemembers and victims by gender who reported a sexual assault  incident during fiscal year 2007 using the unrestricted reporting option.
Table 12 shows the number of investigations of reports of alleged sexual  assault made during fiscal year 2007 by type of alleged offense and  whether the victim was a servicemember or nonservicemember. Because  reported data are incident-based and a single sexual assault may involve  more than one subject or victim, the numbers of investigations and reports  in table 12 do not necessarily reflect the number of actual alleged victims  or offenders.
According to DOD’s fiscal year 2007 annual report, these 2,085 reports  involved 2,243 alleged victims, of whom 1,620 were servicemembers and  623 were nonservicemembers. The 2,085 unrestricted reports involved  1,908 alleged offenders who were servicemembers and 92 who were  nonservicemembers. The identities of 305 alleged offenders were  unknown.
DOD reported that about 8 percent of victims for all investigations  completed during fiscal year 2007 were males. Table 13 shows the number  of completed investigations by type of sexual assault and gender of victim.
section_title: Restricted Reports Made during Fiscal Year 2007 in DOD
paragraphs: During fiscal year 2007, DOD reported that servicemembers initially made  705 reports of alleged sexual assault using the restricted reporting option.  However, in 102 of these instances, victims chose to change from a  restricted to unrestricted report. According to DOD, about 69 percent  (489) of the 705 restricted reports involved an alleged rape and almost 18  percent (125) involved alleged indecent assaults. Table 14 shows the  number of alleged reports of sexual assault made using the restricted  reporting option by type of alleged offense during fiscal year 2007.
According to a DOD official, because the military services do not provide  case-level data to DOD, the department is not able to determine the type of  offense for the 102 restricted reports that were changed to unrestricted  reports. DOD reported that male servicemembers made almost 7 percent  (41) of the 705 initial reports of sexual assaults using the restricted  reporting option during fiscal year 2007. Because no investigation is  conducted when a victim reports a sexual assault using the restricted  reporting option, the numbers of reports in table 14 reflect the number of  actual alleged victims.
section_title: Sexual Assault Incidents in the Coast Guard
paragraphs: Since January 2004, the Coast Guard has voluntarily collected data on  sexual assaults involving its members as either the alleged offender or  victim, although it is not subject to the same statutory requirements as  DOD for collecting these data or reporting such information to Congress.  The Coast Guard, which did not offer a restricted reporting option until  December 2007, documented 72 total reports of alleged sexual assaults  involving Coast Guard members during fiscal year 2007. As shown in table  15, the majority of these reports were for alleged rape and the majority of  alleged victims were Coast Guard members. However, not all of these  reported alleged sexual assaults have been substantiated because  investigations may have been ongoing, evidence was found to be  insufficient to substantiate the allegation, or victims may have recanted  accusations. For example, the Coast Guard reported 10 investigations of  alleged sexual assaults were ongoing as of April 2008.
Because data are incident-based and a single assault may involve more  than one alleged offender or victim, the number of reports in table 15 does  not necessarily reflect the number of actual alleged offenders or victims.  The Coast Guard Investigative Service determined that 78 alleged  offenders and 78 alleged victims were involved in the 72 incidents reported  during fiscal year 2007. The majority of alleged offenders and victims were  Coast Guard members, as shown in table 16.
The Coast Guard identified 67 victims in the completed investigations, 51  of whom were servicemembers in the Coast Guard or another military  service and 16 of whom were not servicemembers. All but one victim in  the completed investigations were female. Table 17 shows the number of  completed investigations by type of sexual assault and gender of the  victim.
section_title: Appendix VI: Survey Administered at Installations in the United States
paragraphs: Thi surve part of  review the U.S. Govermet Accounabilit Office (GAO)—an ag of the  Cngress—i cocting of xuaassault revetio and respnsro the milit ervice.  The pue of thi surve to rovide insht ito the effectivess of ech ervice’ xuaassault  olicie, trng, rocedre, and respnse capabilitie. Fidings will used i reort and  tetimony to Cngress.
Providingformtio thi surve volun anannymous. All repon are trictly  confidential, and no individual repon will be reported. Please do ot write name o  thitionnaire. We apprecite king the time to comlete thi imortansurve.
We ecoag to answer ech qtio as comletel as ssle. Before choong an answer,  lease red the fll qtio anll respnse choicerefll. There re o riht or wrong answer.  Rather,  hold answer ech qtio the way tht reflect ernal oions and  experiece. The surve hold tke approimtel-30 minute to comlete.
Thi urvey a about both exual harassment and exual assault. When reading the  quetion, pleae note whether we are referring to experience with exual harassment or  exual assault.
A a reminder, DOD define exual harassment a follow: Sexual harassment -  form of xual dicriminatio tht ivolve unwelcome xuadvance,  req for xual fvor,  and other verbal or ysicl coct of  xuanare whe  submissio to such coct ide either explicitl or imlicitl  term or coditio of  ern’s  jo, pay, or creer, or submissio to or rejectio of such coct by  er used as  bas for  creer or emlomet deciions ffecting ther, or such coct has the pue or effect of  unreasnabterfering with andividua’s work erformance or crete antimidting, hotile,  or offensive workingviromet (DODD 130.2) 1. At your current location, do you think your direct upervior (military or civilian)  create a climate that dicourage exual harassment from occurring?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... 2. If exual harassment hould occur at your current location, do you think your direct  upervior (military or civilian) would address it?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure...................
Unit—Command or oertionaunit to which  re assgned.
Deployed location—Stioed  loctio other than r home tio.
Temporary Duty (TDY)/Temporary Additional Duty (TAD)—Trvel i which ernnel  rem under the direct cotrol of their paret organiztions (e.., meetings, coferece,  tteance chool or coe of instrctio).
Home tation—The ermant loctio of ctive d unit anRerve Comunit.  Thi loctioay e either inside or oide the Ctil Uited Ste. 3. In your opinion, i exual harassment a problem in the following?
M unit .........................................................
Deloed loctions.....................................
Whe TDY or TAD......................................
Home tio.............................................. 4. How much do your concern about exual harassment incident in the military                 impact your intention to remain in the military once your commitment i met?
A ret del.............
Somewht ...............
Not ll..................
A a reminder DOD define exual assault a follow: Sexual assault - itetionaxual coct, chcterized by use of force, ysicl thret or  abuse of authorit or whe the victim doe ot or cannot const. It icldeape, consnsuaodom (orl or ana), ideceassault (unanted, inapprorite coct or fodling), or  ttem to commit thect. Sxuaassault can occr withot regard to der or spusal  reltionshi or age of victim.  “Cns” ll ot e deemed or constred to mean the filre by  the victim to offer ysicl reance. Cnst i ot ive whe  er us force, thret of  force, coercio, or whe the victim i aslee, iapacitted or unconscious. (DODD 649.01) 5. At your current location, do you think your direct upervior (military or civilian)  create a climate that dicourage exual assault from occurring?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... . If exual assault hould occur at your current location, do you think your direct  upervior (military or civilian) would address it?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... 7. At your current location, how likely would you be to report a exual assault of another  ervicemember?
Etremel likel.................................................
Ver likel...........................................................
Modertel likel...............................................
Somewht likel.................................................
Not ll likel................................................... 8. Would you report a peronal experience of exual assault to the following authoritie,  individual, or organization at your current location?
Officer i r ch of command...................................
Sff commissioed officer (NCO) i ch of command ..............................................................
Nocommissioed officer (NCO) i r   ch of command .............................................................
Aother ervicememer ...................................................
Direct supervior (milit or civilian) ...........................
DOD civilian .......................................................................
Civilian cotrctor.............................................................
Civilian assault cri ceter/hotlie/ hellie .............
Uit/uniform victim dvocte (VA) .................................
Civilian victim dvocte....................................................
Sxuaassault respnse coordinator (SARC)................
Inslltio medicernnel.........................................
Civilian hospiternnel...............................................
Milit criminal ivetigative organiztions   (e.., OSI, CID, NCIS, CGIS)..............................................
Milit olice   (e.., Provot Mll, Master of Arm) .........................
Civilianw eforcemet...................................................
Cap...............................................................................
Militer..................................................................
Fmil memer, fried.......................................................
Other (leasspecif)........................................................ 9. How afe do you feel at your current location from being exually assaulted in the  following place?
At work/o...............................
I barrck/living anleeng  renslltio roun..........
Onslltio roun, i other  reas..................................................
Off inslltio roun.................. 10.  In your opinion, i exual assault a problem in the following?
M unit .........................................................
Deloed loctions.....................................
Whe TDY or TAD......................................
Home tio.............................................. 11.  How much do your concern about exual assault incident in the military impact your  intention to remain in the military once your commitment i met?
A ret del.............
Somewht ...............
Not ll.................. 12.  Do you agree or diagree with the tatement: “Tolerance for exual harassment create  a perception that exual assault may be acceptable.”
Strong agree ....................................................
Aree ...................................................................
Neither agree or disagree ...............................
Disagree ..............................................................
Strong disagree ...............................................
13.  Have you attended training that addressed exual assault issue at any time during the  pat 12 month?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Don’t kow ............. 14.  Wa the exual assault-related training you received during the pat 12 month in the  following format?
Pretio by annstrctor, such as SARC ................................
Writteteri rovided withoretio.........................
Video ...................................................................................................
Computer-based, iclding we-based or iteret trng.........
Prticipator trng (cenario-based trng, kit) ................. 15.  Would you know how to do the following at your current location?
Rort  xuaassault usng the retricted (cofidetil) reortingtio....................................................................................
Rort  xuaassault usng the unretricted reortingtio....................................................................................
Avoid ituations tht miht icrease the   rik of xuaassault ...........................................................................
O medicl cre following  xuaassault ..............................
O counseling or mel helth cre   following  xuaassault ...................................................................
Cct xuaassault respnse coordinator (SARC) ...........
Cct r victim dvocte (VA)....................................................
O dditional rerce or iformtio    the reas above ...............................................................................
We undertand that thi a very difficult ubject.  We would like to reiterate that all  repon are confidential, and no individual’ information i identifiable.  .  How much of a problem are the following ituation at your current location?
Sxuatorie or joke tht were  offensive to .......................................
Other referring to eole of der insulting or offensive term..
Uwelcome ttem to drto  diussio of xual mtter  (e.., ttem to diuss or commet  o  life).......................................
Offensive remrk abappance, od, or xuactivitie..
Gere or odanguage of   xuanare tht embarrassed or  offeded ............................................
Bri or ome kid of rewrd for  specil tretmet to engage i xuaehvior ....................................................
Thre of retlitio or revenge for  ot eing xuall cooertive (such  as by metiong an upcoming review  or evuatio)...........................................
Toching ay tht mde  feel  uncomfortable, such as ttem to  troke, fodle, or kiss ......................
Imlictions of etter assgnme or  etter tretmet if  were xuall  cooertive...............................................
Bd tretmet for refusng to hve  ............................................................. 17.  If you were exually assaulted and could obtain medical and/or mental health care while  (a) remaining anonymou and (b) being certain that there would not be an  invetigation, would you report the incident?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... 18.  Were you exually assaulted during the pat 12 month while in the military?
Ye...........................
No............................. Skip to 30 on page 14 19.  In which of the following location did the incident occur?
At home inslltionside the Uited Ste..................
At home inslltioide the Uited Ste................
At  deloed loctio.........................................................
While TDY or TAD ............................................................... 20.  Did you report the incident in any of the following way to any authoritie, individual,  or organization?
I used retricted (cofidetil) reorting....................................
I used unretricted reorting........................................................
I reorted it, but I’ot sure whether I used retricted  (cofidetil) or unretricted reorting.......................................
I did ot reort the icidet..........................................................
Skip to 22 on page 12 21.  To which authoritie, individual, or organization did you report the incident?
Officer i r ch of command...................................
Sff commissioed officer (NCO) i ch of command ..............................................................
Nocommissioed officer (NCO) i r   ch of command .............................................................
Aother ervicememer ...................................................
Direct supervior (milit or civilian) ...........................
DOD civilian .......................................................................
Civilian cotrctor.............................................................
Civilian assault cri ceter/hotlie/hellie ..............
Uit/uniform victim dvocte (VA) .................................
Civilian victim dvocte....................................................
Sxuaassault respnse coordinator (SARC)................
Inslltio medicernnel.........................................
Civilian hospiternnel...............................................
Milit criminal ivetigative organiztions   (e.., OSI, CID, NCIS, CGIS)..............................................
Milit olice   (e.., Provot Mll, Master of Arm) .........................
Civilianw eforcemet...................................................
Cap...............................................................................
Militer..................................................................
Fmil memer, fried.......................................................
Other (leasspecif)........................................................
PleaSkip to Quetion 23 on page 12 after completing Quetion 21  22. For which of the following reaon() did you not report the incident?
Fered otrcim, hassmet, or ridicle by eer........................
I thought I wold e labeled  troublemker ...................................
I thought othing wold e doe .......................................................
Embarrassmet or me ..................................................................
Threteed with ome form of retlitio or revenge.....................
Not threteed with retlitio or revenge, but fered ome  form of retlitio or revenge.............................................................
Pressured by omeoe i  itio of authorit.............................
Fered I wold punhed for ifrctions/violtions ...................
I did ot waneole ssng abt the assault...........................
I did ot want to ffect m unit ..........................................................
I thought eole wold ot elieve me .............................................
Not re of reorting rocedre....................................................
Fer of assault eing reted............................................................
Did ot want to et offeder i trouble.............................................
I thought mxperiece was commo.............................................
I h revious gative experiece reorting ancidet...........
Other (leasspecif)......................................................................... 23.  Did you receive medical care a a reult of the incident?
I received medicl cre..................................................................
I did ot receive medicl cre ecausre was ot ilable....................................................................
I did ot eek medicl cre ........................................................... 24. Where did you receive medical care for the incident?
Milit tretmet fcilit (MTF)................................................
Civilian hospitl .............................................................................
Other (leasspecif)................................................................... 25. How atified or dissatified were you with the quality of medical care you received?
Ver satified...................................................................................
Satified ...........................................................................................
Neither satified or dissatified..................................................
Dissatified......................................................................................
Ver dissatified.............................................................................. . Why were you atified or dissatified with the quality of medical care you received?  27.   Did you receive couneling or mental health care a a reult of the incident?
I received counseling or mel helth cre................................
I did ot received counseling or mel helth cre   ecausassance was ot ilable ..........................................
I did ot eek counseling or mel helth cre......................... 28. How atified or dissatified were you with the quality of couneling or mental health  care you received?
Ver satified...................................................................................
Satified ...........................................................................................
Neither satified or dissatified..................................................
Dissatified......................................................................................
Ver dissatified.............................................................................. 29. Why were you atified or dissatified with the quality of mental health care or  couneling you received?  30. Have you erved away from your home tation at any time during the pat 12 month?
Ye...........................
No ............................  Skip to 41 on page 18  31. Which of the following location() did you erve in during the pat 12 month?
Afanan .......................................................................................
Alban...............................................................................................
Bhr...................................................................................
Bosn.....................................................................................
Djiti...................................................................................
Ir ........................................................................................
Jordan.....................................................................................
Koovo....................................................................................
Kit ....................................................................................
Kgyan..............................................................................
Oman......................................................................................
Pkian..................................................................................
Philipp..............................................................................
Q.......................................................................................
Saudi Arab............................................................................
Syri.......................................................................................
Tjikian................................................................................
Uited Arab Emirte..............................................................
Uzekian..............................................................................
Yeme..................................................................................... (Araban S North of 10 deree orth     ltitde and wet of 68 dereeast longitde,    Glf of Ade, Glf of Oman, Peran Glf, or Red S.........  (Adritic S or Ioan S North of the 39th Pllel) ..........
Aother loctio ot lited above   (leasspecif)............................................................................... 32. Of the location you indicated above, where did you erve the longet amount of time?   33.  From which intallation did you deploy?  34.  Did you receive pre-deployment training that addressed exual assault?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure...................
Unit—Command or oertionaunit to which  re assgned.
Home tation—The ermant loctio of ctive d unit anRerve Comunit.  Thi loctioay e either inside or oide the Ctil Uited Ste.
Deployed—Stioed  loctio other than r home tio.
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE  LOCATION YOU INDICATED IN QUESTION 32. 35. Do you think exual harassment incident are taken more or less eriouly when at  home tation or when deployed?
More erious whe t home tio   .........................................
Equall erious whe t home tio as whe deloed........
Less erious whe t home tio............................................. . Do you think exual assault incident are taken more or less eriouly at home tation  or when deployed?
More erious whe t home tio   .........................................
Equall erious whe t home tio as whe deloed .......
Less erious whe t home tio............................................. 37. Do you think ervicemember in your unit would be more or less likely to report a  exual assault of another ervicemember when at home tation or when deployed?
More likel t home tio................................................................
Equall likel t home tio as whe deloed............................
Less likel t home tio.................................................................
Not sure................................................................................................. 38.  How afe did you feel from being exually assaulted at the following time and  location while you were deployed?
At work/o...........
I barrck/living  anleeng renslltio roun.....
Onslltio  roun, i other  reas ..............................
Off inslltio  roun........................  39.  Do you believe the rik for a exual assault to occur i less or greater when at home  tation ver when deployed?
The rik i less whe t home tio............................................
The rik i the same t home tio as    whe deloed.................................................................................  Skip to 41 on page 18 The rik i reter t home tio................................................. 40. Why do you believe the rik of a exual assault occurring differ when at home tation  ver when deployed?
Temporary Duty (TDY)/Temporary Additional Duty (TAD)—Trvel i which ernnel  rem under the direct cotrol of their paret organiztions (e.., meetings, coferece,  tteance chool or coe of instrctio). 41. Have you been TDY or TAD at any time during the pat 12 month?
Ye......................................................................................................
No .......................................................................................................  Skip to 44 on page 19  42. Do you believe the rik for a exual assault to occur i less or greater when at home  tation ver when TDY or TAD?
The rik i less whe t home inslltio....................................
The rik i the same t home inslltio as    whe TDY or TAD ...........................................................................  Skip to 44 on page 19 The rik i reter t home inslltio  ........................................ 43. Why do you believe the rik of a exual assault differ when at home tation ver  when TDY or TAD? Pleae explain.  44. What i your current pay grade?
E1 to E4.................................................................................................
E to E9.................................................................................................
W1 to W...............................................................................................
O1 to O3 ................................................................................................
O4 to O6 ................................................................................................ 45. What i your branch of ervice?
Arm....................................................................................................
N.....................................................................................................
MriCorps ......................................................................................
Air Force .............................................................................................
Cast Guard ........................................................................................ . What i your component?
Active d.........................................................................................
Rerve ..............................................................................................
Ntional Guard.................................................................................. 47. What i your age range?  18 to 24 ................................................................................................  to 30 ................................................................................................ 31 to 3................................................................................................ 36 to 40 ................................................................................................ 41 to 4................................................................................................ and over.......................................................................................... 48. What i your gender?
Mle....................................................................................................
Femle ............................................................................................... 49. With repect to the military ervice’ exual assault prevention and repone program,  what message would you have u (GAO) take back to Congress?
section_title: Appendix VII: Survey Administered at Installations Overseas
paragraphs: The U.S. Govermet Accounabilit Office (GAO), an ag of the Cngress, i cocting thi  surve as part of  review o xuaassault revetio and respnsro the milit  ervice. The pue of thi surve to rovide insht ito the effectivess of ech ervice’s  xuaassault olicie, trng, rocedre, and respnse capabilitie. Fidings will used i  reort and tetimony to Cngress.
Providingformtio thi surve volun anannymous. All repon are trictly  confidential, and no individual repon will be reported. Please do ot write name o  thitionnaire. We apprecite king the time to comlete thi imortansurve.
We ecoag to answer ech qtio as comletel as ssle. Before choong an answer,  lease red the fll qtio anll respnse choicerefll. There re o riht or wrong answer.  Rather,  hold answer ech qtio the way tht reflect ernal oions and  experiece. The surve hold tke approimtel-30 minute to comlete.
Thi urvey a about both exual harassment and exual assault. When reading the  quetion, pleae note whether we are referring to experience with exual harassment or  exual assault.
A a reminder, DOD define exual harassment a follow: Sexual harassment -  form of xual dicriminatio tht ivolve unwelcome xuadvance,  req for xual fvor,  and other verbal or ysicl coct of  xuanare whe  submissio to such coct ide either explicitl or imlicitl  term or coditio of  ern’s  jo, pay, or creer, or submissio to or rejectio of such coct by  er used as  bas for  creer or emlomet deciions ffecting ther, or such coct has the pue or effect of  unreasnabterfering with andividua’s work erformance or crete antimidting, hotile,  or offensive workingviromet (DODD 130.2) 1. At your current location, do you think your direct upervior (military or civilian)  create a climate that dicourage exual harassment from occurring?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... 2. If exual harassment hould occur at your current location, do you think your direct  upervior (military or civilian) would address it?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure...................
Unit—Command or oertionaunit to which  re assgned.
Deployed location—Stioed  loctio other than r home tio.
Temporary Duty (TDY)/Temporary Additional Duty (TAD)—Trvel i which ernnel  rem under the direct cotrol of their paret organiztions (e.., meetings, coferece,  tteance chool or coe of instrctio).
Home tation—The ermant loctio of ctive d unit anRerve Comunit.  Thi loctioay e either inside or oide the Ctil Uited Ste. 3. In your opinion, i exual harassment a problem in the following?
M unit .........................................................
Deloed loctions.....................................
Whe TDY or TAD......................................
Home tio.............................................. 4. How much do your concern about exual harassment incident in the military                 impact your intention to remain in the military once your commitment i met?
A ret del.............
Somewht ...............
Not ll..................
A a reminder DOD define exual assault a follow: Sexual assault - itetionaxual coct, chcterized by use of force, ysicl thret or  abuse of authorit or whe the victim doe ot or cannot const. It icldeape, consnsuaodom (orl or ana), ideceassault (unanted, inapprorite coct or fodling), or  ttem to commit thect. Sxuaassault can occr withot regard to der or spusal  reltionshi or age of victim.  “Cns” ll ot e deemed or constred to mean the filre by  the victim to offer ysicl reance. Cnst i ot ive whe  er us force, thret of  force, coercio, or whe the victim i aslee, iapacitted or unconscious. (DODD 649.01) 5. At your current location, do you think your direct upervior (military or civilian)  create a climate that dicourage exual assault from occurring?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... . If exual assault hould occur at your current location, do you think your direct  upervior (military or civilian) would address it?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... 7. At your current location, how likely would you be to report a exual assault of another  ervicemember?
Etremel likel.................................................
Ver likel...........................................................
Modertel likel...............................................
Somewht likel.................................................
Not ll likel................................................... 8. Would you report a peronal experience of exual assault to the following authoritie,  individual, or organization at your current location?
Officer i r ch of command...................................
Sff commissioed officer (NCO) i ch of command ..............................................................
Nocommissioed officer (NCO) i r   ch of command .............................................................
Aother ervicememer ...................................................
Direct supervior (milit or civilian) ...........................
DOD civilian .......................................................................
Civilian cotrctor.............................................................
Civilian assault cri ceter/hotlie/ hellie .............
Uit/uniform victim dvocte (VA) .................................
Civilian victim dvocte....................................................
Sxuaassault respnse coordinator (SARC)................
Inslltio medicernnel.........................................
Civilian hospiternnel...............................................
Milit criminal ivetigative organiztions   (e.., OSI, CID, NCIS, CGIS)..............................................
Milit olice   (e.., Provot Mll, Master of Arm) .........................
Civilianw eforcemet...................................................
Cap...............................................................................
Militer..................................................................
Fmil memer, fried.......................................................
Other (leasspecif)........................................................ 9. How afe do you feel at your current location from being exually assaulted in the  following place?
At work/o...............................
I barrck/living anleeng  renslltio roun..........
Onslltio roun, i other  reas..................................................
Off inslltio roun.................. 10.  In your opinion, i exual assault a problem in the following?
M unit .........................................................
Deloed loctions.....................................
Whe TDY or TAD......................................
Home tio.............................................. 11.  How much do your concern about exual assault incident in the military impact your  intention to remain in the military once your commitment i met?
A ret del.............
Somewht ...............
Not ll.................. 12.  Do you agree or diagree with the tatement: “Tolerance for exual harassment create  a perception that exual assault may be acceptable.”
Strong agree ....................................................
Aree ...................................................................
Neither agree or disagree ...............................
Disagree ..............................................................
Strong disagree ...............................................
13. Did you receive pre-deployment training that addressed exual assault prior to  deploying to your current location?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... 14.  Wa the training you received that addressed exual assault prior to deploying in the  following format?
Pretio by annstrctor, such as SARC ................................
Writteteri rovided withoretio.........................
Video ...................................................................................................
Computer-based, iclding we-based or iteret trng.........
Prticipator trng (cenario-based trng, kit) ................. 15. Have you attended training that addressed exual assault issue ince you arrived at  your current location?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Don’t kow ............. .  Wa the exual assault-related training you received at your current location in the  following format?
Pretio by annstrctor, such as SARC ................................
Writteteri rovided withoretio.........................
Video ...................................................................................................
Computer-based, iclding we-based or iteret trng.........
Prticipator trng (cenario-based trng, kit) ................. 17. Would you know how to do the following at your current location?
Rort  xuaassault usng the retricted (cofidetil) reortingtio....................................................................................
Rort  xuaassault usng the unretricted reortingtio....................................................................................
Avoid ituations tht miht icrease the   rik of xuaassault ...........................................................................
O medicl cre following  xuaassault ..............................
O counseling or mel helth cre   following  xuaassault ...................................................................
Cct xuaassault respnse coordinator (SARC) ...........
Cct r victim dvocte (VA)....................................................
O dditional rerce or iformtio    the reas above ...............................................................................
We undertand that thi a very difficult ubject.  We would like to reiterate that all  repon are confidential, and no individual’ information i identifiable.  18. How much of a problem are the following ituation at your current location?
Sxuatorie or joke tht were  offensive to .......................................
Other referring to eole of der insulting or offensive term..
Uwelcome ttem to drto  diussio of xual mtter  (e.., ttem to diuss or commet  o  life).......................................
Offensive remrk abappance, od, or xuactivitie..
Gere or odanguage of   xuanare tht embarrassed or  offeded ............................................
Bri or ome kid of rewrd for  specil tretmet to engage i xuaehvior ....................................................
Thre of retlitio or revenge for  ot eing xuall cooertive (such  as by metiong an upcoming review  or evuatio)...........................................
Toching ay tht mde  feel  uncomfortable, such as ttem to  troke, fodle, or kiss ......................
Imlictions of etter assgnme or  etter tretmet if  were xuall  cooertive...............................................
Bd tretmet for refusng to hve  ............................................................. 19. If you were exually assaulted and could obtain medical and/or mental health care while  (a) remaining anonymou and (b) being certain that there would not be an invetigation,  would you report the incident?
Ye...........................
No.............................
Not sure................... 20. Were you exually assaulted during the pat 12 month while in the military?
Ye...........................
No............................. Skip to 32 on page 14 21. In which of the following location did the incident occur?
At home inslltionside the Uited Ste..................
At home inslltioide the Uited Ste................
At  deloed loctio.........................................................
While TDY or TAD ............................................................... 22. Did you report the incident in any of the following way to any authoritie, individual,  or organization?
I used retricted (cofidetil) reorting....................................
I used unretricted reorting........................................................
I reorted it, but I’ot sure whether I used retricted  (cofidetil) or unretricted reorting.......................................
I did ot reort the icidet..........................................................
Skip to 24 on page 12 23. To which authoritie, individual, or organization did you report the incident?
Officer i r ch of command...................................
Sff commissioed officer (NCO) i r   ch of command ..............................................................
Nocommissioed officer (NCO) i ch of command .............................................................
Aother ervicememer ...................................................
Direct supervior (milit or civilian) ...........................
DOD civilian .......................................................................
Civilian cotrctor.............................................................
Civilian assault cri ceter/hotlie/hellie ..............
Uit/uniform victim dvocte (VA) .................................
Civilian victim dvocte....................................................
Sxuaassault respnse coordinator (SARC)................
Inslltio medicernnel.........................................
Civilian hospiternnel...............................................
Milit criminal ivetigative organiztions   (e.., OSI, CID, NCIS, CGIS)..............................................
Milit olice   (e.., Provot Mll, Master of Arm) .........................
Civilianw eforcemet...................................................
Cap...............................................................................
Militer..................................................................
Fmil memer, fried.......................................................
Other (leasspecif)........................................................
PleaSkip to Quetion 25 on page 12 after completing Quetion 23  24. For which of the following reaon() did you not report the incident?
Fered otrcim, hassmet, or ridicle by eer........................
I thought I wold e labeled  troublemker ...................................
I thought othing wold e doe .......................................................
Embarrassmet or me ..................................................................
Threteed with ome form of retlitio or revenge.....................
Not threteed with retlitio or revenge, but fered ome  form of retlitio or revenge.............................................................
Pressured by omeoe i  itio of authorit.............................
Fered I wold punhed for ifrctions/violtions ...................
I did ot waneole ssng abt the assault...........................
I did ot want to ffect m unit ..........................................................
I thought eole wold ot elieve me .............................................
Not re of reorting rocedre....................................................
Fer of assault eing reted............................................................
Did ot want to et offeder i trouble.............................................
I thought mxperiece was commo.............................................
I h revious gative experiece reorting ancidet...........
Other (leasspecif)......................................................................... 25.  Did you receive medical care a a reult of the incident?
I received medicl cre..................................................................
I did ot receive medicl cre ecausre was ot ilable....................................................................
I did ot eek medicl cre ........................................................... . Where did you receive medical care for the incident?
Milit tretmet fcilit (MTF)................................................
Civilian hospitl .............................................................................
Other (leasspecif)................................................................... 27. How atified or dissatified were you with the quality of medical care you received?
Ver satified...................................................................................
Satified ...........................................................................................
Neither satified or dissatified..................................................
Dissatified......................................................................................
Ver dissatified.............................................................................. 28. Why were you atified or dissatified with the quality of medical care you received?  29.   Did you receive couneling or mental health care a a reult of the incident?
I received counseling or mel helth cre................................
I did ot received counseling or mel helth cre   ecausassance was ot ilable ..........................................
I did ot eek counseling or mel helth cre......................... 30. How atified or dissatified were you with the quality of couneling or mental health  care you received?
Ver satified...................................................................................
Satified ...........................................................................................
Neither satified or dissatified..................................................
Dissatified......................................................................................
Ver dissatified.............................................................................. 31. Why were you atified or dissatified with the quality of mental health care or  couneling you received?
Home tation—The ermant loctio of ctive d unit anRerve Comunit.  Thi loctioay e either inside or oide the Ctil Uited Ste. 32. Have you erved at your home tation at any time during the pat 12 month?
Ye...........................
No ............................  Skip to 40 on page 17  33. What i your home tation?
Unit—Command or oertionaunit to which  re assgned.
Home tation—The ermant loctio of ctive d unit anRerve Comunit.  Thi loctioay e either inside or oide the Ctil Uited Ste.
Deployed—Stioed  loctio other than r home tio.
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE  LOCATION YOU INDICATED IN QUESTION 33. 34. Do you think exual harassment incident are taken more or less eriouly at your  current location or when at home tation?
More erious t crret loctio    ..............................................
Equall erious t crret loctio as whe t home tio..
Less eriousrret loctio....................................................... 35. Do you think exual assault incident are taken more or less eriouly at your current  location or when at home tation?
More erious t crret loctio    ..............................................
Equall erious t crret loctio as whe t home tio..
Less eriousrret loctio....................................................... . Do you think ervicemember in your unit would be more or less likely to report a  exual assault of another ervicemember at your current location or when at home  tation?
More likel t crret loctio...........................................................
Equall likel t crret loctio as whe t home tio...........
Less likel t crret loctio............................................................
Not sure................................................................................................. 37.  How afe did you feel from being exually assaulted at the following time and  location when at home tation?
At work/o...........
I barrck/living  anleeng renslltio roun.....
Onslltio  roun, i other  reas ..............................
Off inslltio  roun........................  38.  Do you believe the rik for a exual assault to occur i less or greater at your current  location ver when at home tation?
The rik i less t crret loctio.................................................
The rik i the same t crret loctio    as whe t home tio.................................................................  Skip to 40 on page 17 The rik i reter t crret loctio........................................... 39. Why do you believe the rik of a exual assault occurring differ when at home tation  ver when deployed?
Unit—Command or oertionaunit to which  re assgned.   40. Not including your home tation, have you erved at another location at any time during  the pat 12 month?
Ye...........................
No ............................  Skip to 49 on page 20  41. Excluding your current location, which of the following location() did you erve in  during the pat 12 month?
Afanan .......................................................................................
Alban...............................................................................................
Bhr...................................................................................
Bosn.....................................................................................
Djiti...................................................................................
Ir ........................................................................................
Jordan.....................................................................................
Koovo....................................................................................
Kit ....................................................................................
Kgyan..............................................................................
Oman......................................................................................
Pkian..................................................................................
Philipp..............................................................................
Q.......................................................................................
Saudi Arab............................................................................
Syri.......................................................................................
Tjikian................................................................................
Uited Arab Emirte..............................................................
Uzekian..............................................................................
Yeme..................................................................................... (Araban S North of 10 deree orth     ltitde and wet of 68 dereeast longitde,    Glf of Ade, Glf of Oman, Peran Glf, or Red S.........  (Adritic S or Ioan S North of the 39th Pllel) .......... 42. Of the location you indicated above, where did you erve the longet amount of time?
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE  LOCATION YOU INDICATED IN QUESTION 42. 43. Do you think exual harassment incident are taken more or less eriouly at your  current location or the other location?
More erious t crret loctio    ..............................................
Equall erious t crret loctio as the other loctio........
Less eriousrret loctio....................................................... 44. Do you think exual assault incident are taken more or less eriouly at your current  location or the other location?
More erious t crret loctio    ..............................................
Equall erious t crret loctio as the other loctio........
Less erious t crret loctio.................................................. 45. Do you think ervicemember in your unit would be more or less likely to report a  exual assault of another ervicemember at your current location or the other  location?
More likel t crret loctio...........................................................
Equall likel t crret loctio as the other loctio..................
Less likel t crret loctio............................................................
Not sure................................................................................................. .  How afe did you feel from being exually assaulted at the following time and  location at the other location?
At work/o...........
I barrck/living  anleeng renslltio roun.....
Onslltio  roun, i other  reas ..............................
Off inslltio  roun........................  47.  Do you believe the rik for a exual assault to occur i less or greater at your current  location ver the other location?
The rik i less t crret loctio.................................................
The rik i the same t crret loctio as   as the other loctio.......................................................................  Skip to 49 on page 20 The rik i reter t crret loctio........................................... 48. Why do you believe the rik of a exual assault occurring differ at your current  location ver the other location?   49.  What i your current pay grade?
E1 to E4.................................................................................................
E to E9.................................................................................................
W1 to W...............................................................................................
O1 to O3 ................................................................................................
O4 to O6 ................................................................................................ 50. What i your branch of ervice?
Arm....................................................................................................
N.....................................................................................................
MriCorps ......................................................................................
Air Force .............................................................................................
Cast Guard ........................................................................................ 51. What i your component?
Active d.........................................................................................
Rerve ..............................................................................................
Ntional Guard.................................................................................. 52.  What i your age range?  18 to 24 ................................................................................................  to 30 ................................................................................................ 31 to 3................................................................................................ 36 to 40 ................................................................................................ 41 to 4................................................................................................ and over.......................................................................................... 53. What i your gender?
Mle....................................................................................................
Femle ............................................................................................... 54. With repect to the military ervice’ exual assault prevention and repone program,  what message would you have u (GAO) take back to Congress?
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Marilyn K. Wasleski (Assistant  Director), Krislin Bolling, Joanna Chan, Pawnee A. Davis, Konstantin  Dubrovsky, K. Nicole Harms, Wesley A. Johnson, Ronald La Due Lake,  Stephen V. Marchesani, Ayeke P. Messam, Amanda K. Miller, and Cheryl A.  Weissman made significant contributions to the report. In addition, Sara G.  Cradic, Kim Mayo, Sharon Reid, and Norris Smith III provided assistance  during site visits.