[Senate Hearing 115-860]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-860
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSE
IN THE MILITARY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PERSONNEL
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 8, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-314 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman JACK REED, Rhode Island
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
TED CRUZ, Texas MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
BEN SASSE, Nebraska GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff
Director
Subcommittee on Personnel
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina, KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
Chairman CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
JONI ERNST, Iowa ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
March 8, 2018
Page
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in the Military................ 1
Perry, Adrian.................................................... 13
McKinley, Merci.................................................. 20
Vega, Iris, Domestic Violence Court Advocate, Doorways for Women 27
and Families.
Dodge, Dr. Kenneth A., Professor in the Sanford School of Public 31
Policy, Duke University.
Campbell, Dr. Jacquelyn C., RN, FAAN, Professor, Anna D. Wolf 33
Chair, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing.
Taft, Dr. Casey T., Professor of Psychiatry, Boston University 36
School of Medicine.
Barna, Stephanie, Senior Policy Advisor, Under Secretary of 38
Defense, Personnel and Readiness.
Questions for the Record......................................... 56
(iii)
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSE
IN THE MILITARY
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2018
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Personnel,
Committee on Armed Services
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:18 p.m. in
Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Thom
Tillis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Tillis, Ernst,
Gillibrand, McCaskill, and Warren.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOM TILLIS
Senator Tillis. The hearing will come to order.
The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel meets
this afternoon to receive testimony on domestic violence and
child abuse in the military.
On panel one, we will hear from witnesses about their
personal experiences of domestic violence and child abuse and
from a victim advocate: Ms. Adrian Perry, the mother of
military child abuse survivors; Ms. Merci McKinley, a medically
retired Army veteran who sustained injuries as a result of
intimate partner violence; and Ms. Iris Vega, Senior Court
Advocate, Doorways for Women and Families.
I will introduce the second panel when we transition to
their testimony.
In the United States, domestic violence, including intimate
partner violence and child abuse, are significant problems that
cause immense harm in our society. The most current data
published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
the CDC, show that 27 percent of women and 11 percent of men
have experienced either sexual violence, physical violence, or
stalking by an intimate partner. The CDC estimates that
domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid
work and 5.6 million hours of household productivity annually.
Additionally, the CDC reports that in 2012 State and local
child protective services received an estimated 3.4 million
referrals of children being abused or neglected and an
estimated 1,340 children died from maltreatment during that
year.
Clearly, as a Nation we must do more to address the many
factors, relationship, community, and societal, that may lead
to domestic violence and child abuse. We must also develop
evidence-based prevention strategies and implement
comprehensive support programs to help the victims.
Let me state, however, that domestic violence and child
abuse are not just problems in local communities around the
country. They are also a problem within the military services.
While the data shows that the military's domestic violence and
child abuse incidence rates are lower than comparable rates in
civilian communities, I am deeply disturbed that both intimate
partners and children die every year at the hands of military
servicemembers. DOD [Department of Defense] and the Services
must not rest until they totally eliminate violence and abuse
of intimate partners and children within their ranks. I will
assure everyone here today that this Subcommittee will provide
whatever additional resources DOD and the Services need to
strengthen its programs of prevention and victim support.
Finally, I want to thank Ms. Perry and Ms. McKinley
specifically for their testimonies today. I know it is not easy
to discuss the painful events of the past, events where either
you or a family member has suffered as victims of domestic
violence and child abuse. I thank you for your courage to speak
to us today to provide us with some important insight into your
experiences.
Senator Gillibrand?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really
grateful to you for holding this hearing, and I want to join
you in welcoming our witnesses who are here to speak with us
about two very difficult topics, intimate partner violence and
child abuse in the military.
To Adrian and Merci, thank you for being here to share with
us what I can only imagine were very painful experiences for
you. Your bravery is inspiring.
In 2005, 5-year-old Talia Williams was killed by her father
and stepmother. Her father was a soldier stationed in Hawaii.
This crime happened after months of abuse and after multiple
reports to military authorities that were never shared with the
civilian child protective services.
In the 12 years since Talia's death, it is clear that this
problem has not gone away. Just last year in the Department of
Defense's fiscal year 2016 report on child abuse and domestic
violence, they documented 13,916 reports of suspected incidents
of child abuse and neglect and 18 child abuse-related
fatalities. All of the deceased victims were under 5 years old.
Half of them were under 1 year old.
The Defense Department's report also documented 15,144
reported incidents of domestic abuse and 9 intimate partner
fatalities in fiscal year 2016 alone, and these are just the
reported incidents.
We still do not have an accurate estimate of the prevalence
of child abuse and intimate partner violence in the military
because there is no prevalence survey like the one we have for
servicemembers on sexual assault and harassment. We only have
the reported numbers, and that is not enough. Just as the
sexual assault prevalence survey helped shine a light on the
issue, we need to understand the scope of the problem so that
we can better do our job supporting servicemembers and their
families. Congress has already made some efforts to solve this
problem, but it really has not been enough.
Thanks to advocacy of the Hawaiian delegation, Talia's Law
was signed into law by President Obama in 2016. It required all
personnel who are in supervisory positions within the chain of
command to report suspected child abuse and neglect. This law
was a good first step, but we need to do much more to prevent
these crimes from happening in the first place. We need to help
stop the abuse before it begins and properly address it once it
happens.
To address intimate partner violence and child abuse, we
must start by addressing the unique stressors on our military
families. The challenges of deployment and reintegration,
isolation from support networks, and fears that reporting your
servicemembers for violence may result in the end of his or her
or career and potentially the loss of income and benefits for
the family put significant strains on those families. These
difficult factors make hard decisions about coming forward even
harder.
When it comes to intimate partner violence, we must not
only look at the psychological consequences of abuse but also
the long-term physical health risks it causes. Approximately 20
million women experience intimate partner violence-related
traumatic brain injury in this country every year. One study
found that 92 percent of women in domestic violence shelters in
New York State were hit in the head by their partner between 1
and 20 times, and 50 percent of intimate partner violence
survivors are strangled at some point in the course of their
relationship. Yet, survivors of intimate partner violence are
not routinely screened for strangulation or brain injury in
emergency rooms, and they often do not themselves realize that
they have lost consciousness.
In addition to the health concerns posed by these injuries,
lack of awareness of their cognitive and behavioral effects,
such as loss of memory, confusion, or agitation, can impact the
way a survivor is treated during an investigation. First
responders and law enforcement personnel who are unaware of
these consequences may misinterpret these behaviors as lack of
cooperation or a difficult personality and decline to move
forward with additional inquiry or intervention.
The Family Advocacy Program has grown and improved in the
last several years, and I know hard-working, dedicated
personnel who care deeply about the prevention of violence. The
implementation of a more structured criteria for evaluating
cases and increased, more sophisticated training and education
of response personnel is encouraging. However, I believe more
can be done and must be done for our military and their
families, especially the children who are most vulnerable.
For too long intimate partner violence and child abuse have
been characterized as family issues to be kept private. As a
result, the violence and trauma of abuse has lived in the
shadows. It is time we shine a light on these experiences.
I have also received written letters from three separate
individuals, Captain Levi Fuller, Ms. Jennifer Elmore, and Ms.
Celina Meadows, who would like to share their experiences, and
I would like to have these statements included in the record.
Senator Tillis. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Prepared letter by Captain Levi Fuller
purpose.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide my personal story
regarding how the Army handled my allegations of intimate partner
violence, and a brief overview of what policies I feel should be
changed in response.
background.
My name is Captain Levi Fuller. I am a captain on Active Duty with
the U.S. Army. My branch designation is 27A, Judge Advocate General's
(JAGs) Corps. I have been an officer in the JAG Corps for almost 4
years. As a Judge Advocate, I am also a licensed attorney eligible to
practice in all military trial and appellate courts, the State of
Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Prior to entering the JAG
Corps, I served in the Army National Guard as an Artilleryman (13B) and
Infantryman (11B) attaining the rank of sergeant.
Three years ago I was dating a co-worker who began exhibiting
abusive and sexually violent behaviors. My attempts to sever the
relationship resulted in my offender sexually harassing me at work, and
eventually stalking me. When I didn't reciprocate her feelings she
began screaming in my office in front of witnesses and my supervisors
during work hours. After work, my offender began coming to my home and
would ring my door bell or knock on my door, sometimes for hours. I
began retreating into my home and only leaving to go to work or places
where there would be witnesses. At work, I would retreat into my
office, closing the door until the day was over.
In May 2015, during a period when my co-worker and I were dating
off and on, she sexually assaulted me. My offender pulled my pants down
and tried to perform fellatio on me. When I stopped her, she became
more aggressive and the harder I pushed back the harder she tried to
force me to have sex with her. She pulled my pants down around my
knees, pulled her pants off, and climbed on top of me while I asked her
to stop and tried to push her off in a way that didn't hurt her. When
she reached down and grabbed my penis to insert it into her vagina, I
slapped her and stopped my sexual assault.
Nine months later, I was given a reprimand for assaulting my
offender and for lying about being sexually assaulted which is
permanently filed in my Official Military File. That reprimand will
prevent me from being promoted, and will be the basis for my
resignation from the Army this fall.
the processes: facts and failures.
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID)
My case was investigated by the supervisory special agent for all
special victim's crimes for an Army division. In that position, she
oversaw all sex crimes on her installation and had access to all of the
sexual assault training available. Despite this, there were several
missteps in the investigation. Initially, I only reported that I was a
victim of sexual harassment and stalking. The investigator never made
contact with me to ask me for an interview. When I amended my complaint
later to include an incident of sexual assault, she almost immediately
accused me of fabricating my allegations, and made it clear that she
did not plan on investigating my sexual assault allegations.
Five days after I made my sexual assault allegation, the agent
contacted my special victim's counsel (SVC) to tell them that I would
be investigated for assault for the act of defending myself against my
offender. Normally the decision to treat a victim as a suspect for
false allegations is a well-thought out process that's carefully
weighed against the evidence in coordination with experienced
prosecutors. The CID agent did it in less than a week.
During other interviews, the agent made statements to witnesses
indicating she didn't believe men could be victims of sexual assault.
To two witnesses she said, ``I didn't know a male could be sexually
assaulted by a female,'' and to another, ``Oh, I thought we had
something on [me],'' while telling another witness she was trying to
protect the credibility of my offender. She wrote in the margins of my
statement to CID, ``These people couldn't have witnessed this event.''
Over the course of her investigation, the agent accused me of eight
separate offenses stemming from my allegations; including assault,
dereliction of duty, misprision of a serious offense, obstruction of
justice, false swearing, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The first
and only time that I ever met the CID agent investigating my sexual
assault allegations was when she was reading me my rights. Yet, the
Army CID Inspector General investigated and recommended no action on
the basis that the CID Agent did not commit any misconduct in the way
she handled my case.
The Army Judge Advocate General's Corps
The Judge Advocate overseeing my case concurred that I had
fabricated my sexual assault allegations. The Special Victim's
Prosecutor (SVP) for the installation was not actively working on cases
when my case was being investigated. Instead of requesting another
Special Victim's Prosecutor, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) gave my
case to the Chief of Justice (COJ) to review.
In the Army, the Chief of Justice essentially serves in the same
capacity as a District Attorney in the civilian sector and oversees all
criminal actions for an installation consisting of approximately 30,000
soldiers. However, the COJ that reviewed my case had never stepped
inside of a court-room or tried a case in criminal, civil, or
otherwise. He had been a licensed attorney for 5 years, but only had 2
years of practice experience. He was selected as the Chief of Justice
for a division in order for him to attain experience with military
justice.
The agent, COJ, and the Staff Judge Advocate, refused to provide my
SVC with any victim updates or even speak to us about the investigation
or my case. The SJA told another JAG that my SVC had not been helpful
by asking for victim updates and had burned many bridges by threatening
to call the Inspector General (IG) unless the agent provided them. The
Special Agent in Charge (SAC), the agent's supervisor, told my SVC that
if he went to IG, the SAC would ruin his career.
I told CID that I slapped my offender because she was straddling
me, hysterical, and attempting to insert my penis into her vagina, and
a month later I told the Colorado Springs Police Department that I
slapped her because when she grabbed my penis, it hurt me. The COJ
opined that this was a ``significant inconsistency that negated the
veracity of [my] allegations.'' To this day, the Colorado Springs
police officer is the only person who's ever asked if it hurt when she
grabbed my penis.
The COJ later told the Department of Defense Inspector General that
the reason he didn't believe my allegations was because
``counterintuitive behavior does not explain why he would continue to
contact his offender after the alleged sexual assault.'' If they had
asked me, I would have told them how hard I tried to pretend like
nothing happened because I was afraid of what making a sexual assault
allegation would do to my reputation, career, and my office.
Seven months after I made my allegations, I was informed that my
sexual assault allegations were [found] unfounded and that I would be
punished for assaulting my offender and fabricating allegations. The
COJ and SJA stated that if I resigned my commission immediately and
left the Army they would not recommend a reprimand. When I refused, I
was given a reprimand and they recommended to my commander that I be
eliminated from service.
All of my other allegations were ignored or unfounded. The COJ did
not provide opines for multiple other uncontroverted instances of
sexual harassment, or on the multiple violations of the military
protective order issued against my offender.
The COJ concluded that my offender didn't commit assault for
another instance where she sat on my lap and touched me after I asked
her to leave, after he applied the wrong legal standard for assault. He
opined that I had committed conduct unbecoming of an officer because he
believed I only informed CID of my offender's other victims to
discredit her. To my knowledge, the COJ never reached out to the Trial
Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) or anyone else for guidance.
Because the COJ chose to punish me administratively, the only
opportunity I was given to present evidence on my behalf was to submit
a binder with statements of support. I provided statements from over 20
people who specialize in special victim's cases all stating
unequivocally that I was a victim of sexual assault. It didn't matter.
My commanding general told investigators that even though he went
through my packet he deferred to the advice of the less experienced
Judge Advocates.
The COJ is currently part of the team that travels to explain the
Military Justice Act of 2016 to Judge Advocates across the globe.
My Offender's Chain of Command
My offender's Chain of Command actively prevented me from being
protected from my offender. A military protective order (MPO) was put
in place on 6 August to protect me from my offender. I was not provided
a copy of it until 11 days later. Although the MPO stated my offender
had to be at least 500 feet away from me, I was ordered to go to
physical training (PT) with her every morning, and her office was moved
to another room on the same floor of the same single hallway building.
My offender would use the opportunity to stand right outside of my
office multiple times during the day.
After I learned of the MPO, my Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (DSJA)
told me on multiple occasions that he wanted to amend it to allow my
offender to continue to work in the same building and do PT with me.
The MPO was not enforced at all the entire month of August. It took my
commander and SVC contacting my SJA directly to remove my offender from
my building.
After she was removed, my offender began running around my brigade
building during times where she was supposed to be at work. When I
reported her to her commander for violating the MPO, my supervisor was
admonished by our DSJA because I ``took it outside of the JAG Chain''.
Two days later she was in the same location, so I reported it to my
DSJA who refused to report it to her commander.
After 2 months of the MPO not being enforced, I tried to file for a
civilian restraining order. My offender's company commander was the
only person who testified on her behalf. She told the judge that she
did not feel I was in any danger and the judge dismissed my case. In
retaliation, my offender left human feces on my door step and wrapped
toilet paper around my porch banister.
After more MPO violations, my brigade commander decided to
intervene and he called a meeting with the Family Advocacy Program
(FAP) and my offender's commander because FAP concluded that my case
had a high potential for lethality based on my offender's conduct and
how it was being handled. During that meeting, my offender's command
stated that they felt FAP was ``overstepping their clinical role.''
My offender's commander offered to meet with me to alleviate any of
my concerns. During that meeting, I told him that I felt the only way
to stop the violations was to punish my offender. He stated he didn't
believe there had been any violations of the MPO, and threatened to
tell my command (to include the division commander) that I was
disrespectful to him. After 5 minutes of him yelling at me, the FAP
representative in the room canceled the meeting and escorted him from
the building.
policy recommendations.
Greater Quality Control for Army CID. For military law enforcement
investigations, I recommend an Article III law enforcement organization
(LEO) tasked with providing quality control for how military LEO's
conduct investigations, or at a minimum a non-military task force to
review any sexual assault allegation that is unfounded by CID. The CID
IG recommended no action against the CID agent for my case on the basis
that she did not commit any misconduct. While that point can be
contended, committing a crime or violating a regulation should not be
the standard by which investigator's actions are judged. If CID is
incapable of investigating the judgement decisions made by their
agents, then outside organizations need to be tasked.
Greater Quality Control for Army Judge Advocates. For the Judge
Advocate General's Corps, there should be a requirement that you cannot
supervise an area of law without a skill identifier or some sort of
designator indicating proficiency or at least experience in that field.
In the 4 years I have been in the JAG Corps, I know of at least three
times there has been a Chief of Justice without any military justice
experience and last year it happened in 2 of the 4 divisions in III
Corps. It is unfathomable that the Army Chief of Staff can say the Army
is doing its best to prosecute sex crimes, when military justice for
multiple divisions is being handled by attorneys with no trial
experience.
More Legal Oversight. When I went to the Department of Defense
Inspector General's Office with my complaint, I was told that they
would not be able to do anything regarding my criminal investigation
because they couldn't review criminal allegations. In my investigative
packet there is a statement from my accused stating that she sexually
assaulted me, and another statement from a witness that she admitted to
it. Despite these damning statements, there is no one at all that I can
present this evidence to. There is no process for legal review for
contested allegations in the U.S. Army.
Less Training, More Accountability. There was not a single person
involved in my case who had not received several hours of training on
how to react to a sexual assault offense. The only way to get results
out of the military is through accountability. Army personnel will
ignore training unless there is the risk of punishment for failure to
adhere to basic standards. Until someone is relieved there will not be
any change moving forward.
More Authority for Treating Clinicians. The FAP in the Army is made
up of competent professionals who are all experienced with domestic
violence. In my case, FAP told a commander that I was at a high risk
and he told them he did not care. The FAP is commander-driven and if
there are no repercussions for when a commander wants to ignore it then
it's not worth having around.
Greater Investigative Oversight. Everything contained in this
memorandum has been investigated by the Department of Defense. None of
it has been refuted and the DOD IG has concluded that everything above
is acceptable. It is clear that the military will never be able to fix
the problem of intimate partner violence or sexual assault without a
substantial overhaul of the DOD IG.
the aftermath.
The only reason I'm still here today is because of my wife. Between
the time I enlisted in 2004, to when I was sexually assaulted in 2015,
all I wanted was to be an Army officer. When I was told I was being
punished for doing the right thing, I went home and thought about
putting a gun barrel in my mouth and pulling the trigger. The pain of
having to hide from someone for almost a year, only to be betrayed by
an organization I had served more than a decade was the worst pain I've
ever felt.
If you're reading this, I hope you never have to go through what
I've gone through. I spent an entire year of my life hiding in my home,
afraid to leave because I couldn't stop someone from touching me. Years
later, I still have nightmares about my offender coming into my office
and touching me, and there not being anything I could do about it. I've
gone to treatment to deal with the memories of it all and it just makes
me angrier. I've lost faith in the Army and the people around me.
I wish I were in your shoes right now. I would find a case like
mine (and I guarantee there are several) and I would go to the
commanders and I would fire all of them. Then I would go to the next
service, and do it all over again. I would go to agents who treated
victims the way I was treated and fire them. I would go to JAGs in
charge of military justice who weren't doing their jobs and I would
fire them. I would get rid of everyone who didn't take this problem
seriously until the only people left were the ones that did.
Prepared letter by Ms. Jennifer Elmore
Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Gillibrand and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for your leadership in conducting the hearing
on domestic violence and child abuse in the military, as well as
ongoing dialogue to address this critical matter. While unable to offer
my testimony at the hearing held on March 8, 2018, I was personally in
attendance and impacted by the testimony's that were presented. It is
my desire to have this written statement included in the official
record on the matter.
understanding the committee objectives
It is my understanding that the goals of this Subcommittee are: 1)
to initiate ongoing dialogue that seeks to assess the issue of intimate
partner and child abuse in the military services, while understanding
that real change can only come from committed follow through; 2)
develop concrete methods to determine the scope, scale and key
contributors to the epidemic; and 3) implement plans for comprehensive
prevention and support for survivors.
That you are interested in learning from victims, as well as
professionals with expertise in the resulting trauma, causes of abuse,
the effectiveness of programs meant to serve victims, and creative
ideas to gather meaningful data, is encouraging. The task at hand is
complex and challenging, but it is most certainly one that our Nation
and our military Services must address. I am grateful that this
Subcommittee has chosen to begin the process.
my story
Born to a barely wed and newly graduated West Point cadet in 1971,
my mother once wrote that my father's ``belittling'' of me began the
``moment that I drew my first breath.'' It wasn't too many years later,
at the age of 3, that my father led me to the dark abandoned basement
of my grandmother's apartment in upstate New York, sat me on a washing
machine and masturbated, while touching me. Year after year, until I
turned 18, the level of physical, emotional, and sexual violence
escalated, as did his rank. Nighttime visits to my bedroom and,
multiple acts of rape were, for me, normal. As he would describe later,
``The only thing that I could have done worse would have been to murder
you.''
Among the vivid memories of abuse that haunt me are:
vicious beatings that, on occasion, involved beds being
lifted and dropped on my body as punishment for my room not ``passing
inspection'';
physical ``punishments'' that were so severe that my
mother pleaded with him to stop before he killed me;
countless sexual violations;
withholding of food, then providing it as a precursor to
his sexual assaults;
tying my hands behind my back, covering them in hot sauce
and seating me on the floor next to his chair for hours, to teach me
not to put my hands in my mouth;
cruel degradation, humiliation, and isolation daily.
My first night of rest came well into my freshman year in college,
when I could finally begin to believe that he was no longer able to
sneak into my room or have easy access to me on a regular basis. I may
have escaped to a safe bed, but the terror and memories remained. I
held close the lessons I had learned and know that to remain silent was
to survive. Here are some of those lessons:
With the terror that my father embedded in me through
years of ``training,'' I knew there would be punishment of some kind
for speaking out. Even if I could find the courage to speak, what would
I say? Who would have been able to hear, hold, and then act in response
to the level of darkness I would describe? Who would even believe a
child's word against that of a military leader?
Many nights, as I heard him approaching my room, I would
tell myself that ``If my Mother only knew what he was doing, she would
leave him, or she would kill him.'' But I had already learned that
speaking would devastate my mother and destroy my family. He had long
since ``trained'' me to believe I was responsible for his actions,
holding his secret, and thereby the fate of my family. Learning later
that my mother was well-aware of what was taking place and, at some
level, made the decision to sacrifice her daughter for the sake of
position, power and prestige, only reinforced the futility of speaking.
Constant isolation is a product of the frequent changes
in tour of duty and relocations. By the time I left for college, I had
lived in 11 different locations across the country and the world. There
was never enough time to establish meaningful friendships or
connections that might have been a means of rescue. In addition, my
parents purposed fully kept me separated from friends, school mates and
even other parents. I couldn't trust anyone in my parent's sphere of
influence and never had a chance to establish the kind of trust
necessary to feel safe sharing what was happening to me with anyone
outside their sphere. Finally, having begun my ``training'' by the time
I was three, my father ensured that no one would have the opportunity
to see changes in my behavior that would have offered some indication
of what was occurring inside our home.
Frequently I witnessed my father's alcoholism and his
violence against my mother and brother. On occasion, these events were
brought to the attention of others who were in the position to act.
Instead, these events were hidden, ignored, and denied. Given that my
secret was much bigger and darker, I watched and understood clearly
that I was utterly alone, no help would come, to speak out was an
exercise in futility, and my situation was hopeless.
A few years ago, in a letter to me, my mother wrote that
one of her greatest sources of pride was how her children had
maintained the ``honor'' of the family and not broken silence about
what had taken place in our home. She and my father are fiercely
protective of the reputation that comes from his illustrious military
career.
That career began at the United States Military Academy, where
he graduated in 1971 and returned for subsequent tours as an
instructor. He attended the Army Command and General Staff College, the
National War College, and rose through the ranks for 32 years,
ultimately attaining the rank of Major General. Immediately preceding
his retirement in 2005, he served as the Director of Force Development,
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff at the Pentagon. For his service,
he has received the Decorated Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service
medal, Army Commendation medal and others. He has spoken at the
funerals of fallen servicemembers on numerous occasions, is held out as
a military hero and an example of the best the Army has to offer. What
victim has a voice loud enough to be heard above the ``hero's'' voice
and the strength necessary to use it?
speaking now
Why speak now? Since coming forward in 2015, many have asked that
very question, ``Why?'' or ``Why now?'' For those who do not understand
the impact of abuse as I've experienced it, I suppose I can appreciate
the nature of the question. Convincing others of the credibility of my
life experience is not helpful. I live it, know the truth, and
survived. Mere survival, however is not the purpose of my life, there
is more.
There are some very personal reasons why I stand and speak, now.
First and most simply, I can. It took me 43 years to realize that I
have the strength to stand up for the young girl who suffered; the
young girl that no one else saw, no one risked helping or believed was
worth rescuing. It has not been an easy path to be able to stand, but I
am here now and well-equipped.
Second is the legacy that I will one day leave to my own young
daughters. I am fierce in my desire to not hand them a legacy of lies
and dark secrets. I want them to know that when integrity, truth and
unseating evil are at stake, the battle is worth fighting and no price
too great. I want them to know this is especially true when the battle
may impact others who, for whatever reason, are not able to fight for
themselves.
Finally, by speaking on my own behalf, I wish to reclaim that which
was savagely ripped from me; my dignity, my truth, my identity free of
shame. My father made the conscious choice to steal these things for
his own pleasure and gain. By first-hand experience, I can also say
that pursuing justice comes at nearly as great a cost as the abuse
itself. It in many ways reinforces the violence, distorts truth, cares
little for a victim's dignity and thrives on a shame-based approach to
degrading the victim in order that the perpetrator be defended. Daring
to hope for justice is as terrifying as the hope that the footsteps
will not stop at your bedroom door. For too many, the cost is too high.
My deepest desire is that a sea change be upon us and that our
commitment to prevent, see, care for victims, and prosecute the
perpetrators of violence against children and intimate partners within
the military Services is engaged with the same fervor with which this
great Nation takes on the most serious threats to its citizens.
creating change
A climate of trust must be created for any real change to occur and
the programs put into place to succeed. I suggest the following ideas
and steps as a means of fostering that trust:
Understanding that Intimate Partner and Child Abuse are
Blind to Class, Rank, Race, Sex, Religion, and Social Status. The abuse
I suffered occurred at every rank, beginning when my father was a 2nd
lieutenant. My father retired as a Major general. Abuse is happening
across all ranks of the military Services and should be addressed
without bias. The statistics that attempt to capture the prevalence of
abuse stem from reported cases only. What we can be certain of is that
these statistics represent silence of victims. When combined with the
implied or express authority provided by power and rank, victims are
functionally discouraged from reporting their abuse. Therefore,
providing a means for victims to speak and trust they won't be re-
abused by the process is critical.
Assessing the Risk Factors that Make the Military
Services Fertile Ground for Abuse of Intimate Partners and Children.
There is a need to acknowledge the enhanced risk environment associated
with our military Services, identify the risk factors, and develop
methods to diminish the impact of those risk factors. Among the key
risk factors are: 1) isolation of military life; 2) protectionism
within ranks; 3) lack of specialized resources and training in matters
related to abuse; 4) lack of an independent investigative and legal
process that recognizes the unique characteristics of a case involving
abuse.
Education Regarding the Trauma Resulting from Intimate
Partner and Child Abuse. It seems easiest to be horrified by and want
to act in those cases of abuse that result in the death of a child or
intimate partner. Certainly, those cases are devastating and should
turn the stomachs of any who hear of them. However, the cases of abuse
in which the victim does not die are just as costly and important,
often leaving the victim with a lifetime of devastating challenges.
Broad education of Family Advocacy Program members, investigators,
Special Victim Counsel, prosecutors, caregivers, and commanders
regarding the trauma of sustained abuse would help foster the trust
that is critical for a victim to feel safe speaking about their
experience.
Willingness to See, Hear, Hold the Truth and Act.
Children are this Nation's most valuable resource and yet our children
are being sacrificed by a system that cares first about the protection
of perpetrators and their rights. It is a system that refuses to see
the dark realities for the victims. A system that, even when the
darkness is seen, seems unwilling to protect the rights of victims as
energetically as it does perpetrators. Our Nation and its military
fight to end human rights violations across the globe. I submit that
there are human rights violations happening right under our noses,
within the military Services, that we seem to be afraid to acknowledge
and address.
conclusion
The closing statements made at last week's hearing by the Honorable
Senator Tillis indicated that the full resources and capabilities of
this Subcommittee would be brought to bear in addressing the many
facets of this matter, such that there would eventually be ``fewer and
fewer victims, until there are none.'' I thank you and join you in the
quest for change.
Prepared letter by Ms. Celina Meadows
Thank you for allowing me to contribute to your very important
discussion here today. Let me introduce myself. I'm a patriot; I love
the United States of America. I'm from a military family and I have
deep respect for the U.S. Armed Forces. I am the proud mother of three
beautiful children. My name is Celina Meadows, and I am the now-
estranged wife of an Active Duty 7th Group Special Forces Weapon
Sergeant in the U.S. Army. (For the purpose of this letter, I'll refer
to him as ``John.'') To be honest, this is a new thing for me. Just a
few months ago I would have kept my name confidential for fear of
endangering my children. Now I believe I'm better off with a large
network of people who know my name and would notice if I suddenly fell
out of sight.
My children and I suffered terrible physical, verbal, emotional,
and financial abuse at John's hands over the course of several years.
When we moved to John's Florida Army base, it was clear that everything
in the region revolved around his unit, 7GSF.
During the 7 years preceding his military service, I was the
household's sole breadwinner. I'd paid the bills, I paid for food and
family expenses. I paid for the gear John needed to prepare for his
military career. I sacrificed my own good credit to pay down his
sizeable debt, a necessary step for him to obtain and keep the
requisite level of security clearance to be Special Forces.
Upon John's entrance into the military, he established new ground
rules. I was not to contact HIM because he needed to focus on keeping
his 18X contract; he would not allow the children OR me to ``mess this
up'' for him. Information would be provided on a need-to-know basis. He
would deposit HIS earnings into a single account at his discretion. I
remember just being grateful I had separation pay from my last job,
since John clearly had forgotten my previous substantial contributions.
In an unsettlingly small period of time, he managed to remove me from
all our financial accounts, our car insurance, our car, and he took the
debit and credit cards with him. He left a PayPal card which he
reluctantly and very sporadically funded. While his absence was a
relief, he left us isolated, penniless, and without transportation. I
home schooled the children and was a stay-at-home mom for the duration
of his deployment, exactly as he instructed.
After 6 months of his 1st and only deployment, John returned. He'd
been angry before, and now he was even angrier. He showed off a fist
full of negative counsels he had received, and he seemed almost proud.
The reasons for the counsels? Laughing during firefights. Cursing out
the team captain. Publicly berating his team sergeant.
He also brought back a collection of personal items he had stolen
from dead bodies. I learned this from my children and confronted him
immediately.
``Why did our daughter just tell me she was playing with a walkie-
talkie Daddy took off a dead body?''
``Not like they need it anymore,'' he answered, mildly irritated at
the ridiculous question.
``Why? Why would you take things off dead bodies? Why would you
bring them home? Why would you let your children play with them? Why
would you TELL your children they were playing with dead people's
things?''
He stared at me, baffled, and proceeded to explain that the kids
should know ``what Dad does,'' and that I was only preparing them for
Fancy World. Then he launched into his anything-can-happen-at-any-time
doomsday lecture.
I followed established procedures after I met with a 7th Group
Special Forces Family Life Counselor. I was directed to the Eglin AFB
[Air Force Base] Domestic Abuse Victims Advocates (DAVA) for a ``safe
plan out.'' Once going to DAVA, they reported the abuse to John's
command. Ultimately I escaped with our children from Florida with the
assistance of the Air Force.
The argument could be made that the Army recruited my husband to
the elite forces BECAUSE he exhibited characteristics of a sociopath.
They then went on to exploit his lack of empathy, accelerating his
transformation into a weapon. So he is now an Army-trained assassin and
an expert in weaponry, interrogation techniques, and survival skills.
He is cruel, volatile, and frequently noncompliant. The Army knew that
he had a wife and small children, and must have known he was capable of
domestic violence. Yet when I reported abuse, the Army stood behind
their man. They should have protected my children and me from the
monster they helped polish.
After our initial escape, my kids and I were forced to be put in a
certain level of hiding for more than a year. We resided at three
Arizona DV [domestic violence] shelters. My objective was to find us a
safe place to live, but whichever direction I headed, obstacles piled
up in my way. The programs created to protect and address the needs of
domestic violence victims are, unfortunately, grossly inadequate; when
you shift the focus to military families, it seems even worse. Nobody
wants to believe a soldier who risks his life to protect his country is
going home at night to beat his wife and kids. Naturally, people are a
little reluctant to rush to judgment when it comes to soldiers. The
public seems more willing to excuse, ignore, or quietly accept the
behavior, and the results can be catastrophic. My husband ``allegedly''
(current Phoenix police case) found a way to access information about
my location at an Arizona DV shelter, after he was sent to training per
his command from his base in Florida to stalk the children and me.
Other shelter residents reported seeing him at the shelter, and we were
immediately relocated to a different DV shelter. How many people were
endangered as a result of that inexplicable breach?
My husband's abuse was despicable, but he has not yet been punished
for it. I have worried at times that from the Army's perspective, I
have been a bigger liability than he is. I gave 7GSF the chance to make
a difference in my domestic abuse crisis. I went to them, hoping they
would listen to me, shoulder some responsibility for my husband's
behavior (the blurring line between his performance as a soldier and
his increasingly dark interactions with my children and me), hold a
mirror up to him and show him how unbecoming a soldier his behavior
truly had become. Had his unit done this, the military's reputation
would have remained unblemished in my mind. Given the unit's elite
status, I expected nothing less.
I went full disclosure thinking John's command would understand
exactly who and what he is. Not only as a mother protecting her
children, but as a citizen protecting others and an Armed Forces
supporter trying to avoid the tarnished reputation of the Army. This
man used multiple different abuses on our household. This almost cost
my son & myself our lives. Our dog wasn't so lucky and died at the
hands of domestic violence. In addition to this he engaged in a lot of
questionable activities that pose public safety concerns. Abuse should
never be ignored! Especially on the caliber of threat John blatantly
presents.
FACT: Domestic abuse is now part of the culture of 7GSF. Domestic
abuse has become the norm, not the exception. Nobody talks about it or
questions it, so by default it becomes permissible, and then
comfortable. When something like domestic abuse becomes comfortable in
the culture, it is very, very difficult to change without enormous
resistance. In the meantime, the number of military families ensnared
in this very unhealthy cycle continues to grow.
We expect military families to support those who serve. This is a
much greater burden in families where servicemembers go through special
training meant to transform soldiers into sophisticated military
weapons. Their training diminishes personal attributes like remorse,
conscience, and empathy, with a logical net result. The better these
soldiers become as weapons, the less able they are to access what makes
them human beings. We must recognize the cause and the inevitable
effect: domestic abuse.
I am writing today to ask for your help to exact MEANINGFUL CHANGE.
I believe domestic abuse in military families can become part of
the community's culture, becoming so common that it is excused,
ignored, or accepted. 7GSF's culture was quiet acceptance of domestic
abuse that inherently isolated and excluded abuse victims. We MUST
enact legislation that shines a spotlight on this ugliness.
Here are my suggestions:
1. Establish clear and specific procedures for reporting abuse
and/or transitioning out of abusive situations without interference by
military personnel (command, unit members). Provide victims referrals
(legal, community, housing, transportation, etc.) to facilitate their
safe exit. Communicate these procedures clearly and frequently to
military families.
2. The management and investigation of domestic abuse allegations
should shift from command to military advocates, who should have
greater accountability for the safety of abuse victims. Increase
training so military advocates detect domestic abuse situations sooner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMAND MILITARY ADVOCATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationships with abuser is not Educated in abuse psychology,
likely to align with the best intervention, and treatment
interests of abuse victims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May be perceived as intimidating Perceived as less intimidating,
and not approachable by victims more approachable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observations and input are a very Equipped to prescribe treatments
important part of determining (stress exercises, preventative
whether a case is domestic abuse care), encourage abuse awareness,
provide support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Schedule mandatory, regular physical well checks for all
members of military families. Take command out of this loop, thus
enabling medical staff to record and track family members' health and
well-being and detect early signs of domestic abuse.
4. Tighten privacy standards on medical records to encourage open
discourse with victims of domestic abuse. Medical staff training should
include early detection of domestic abuse.
a. Require family members to schedule a private initial visit
with medical staff. During this visit, establish a safe word or PIN to
authorize the release of medical records to a third party. If a soldier
then requests the release of a family member's records (one way of
maintaining control over victims) without the safe word or PIN, medical
staff could reasonably assume follow-up may be necessary and contact
the appropriate military advocate.
5. Establish frequent contact between military families and
support services. If a soldier displays unhealthy or unfavorable
behavior on duty, require military advocates to check in on families
and perform stress management evaluations.
6. Proposed policy: When a soldier has an open order of protection
against him or her, it is mandatory that the soldier's whereabouts be
accounted for. Notify all complainant(s) promptly about post
reassignments or other location changes that might put the
complainant(s) in danger. Make command accountable for noncompliance.
I believe it is time to make the safety of military families a
priority, especially now when we expect so much from them and they are
so vulnerable. Thank you for your time, and thank you in advance for
enacting legislation that pulls the issue of domestic violence in
military families to center stage.
Senator Gillibrand. I hope that today's hearing is the
beginning of a productive dialogue that can do just that, shine
a light on these issues. I hope we all listen to the survivors
of these crimes, listen to the advocates who work on these
cases day in and day out, and listen to the experts to truly
gain a better understanding of these cases and what we could do
to improve our prevention and response. I hope that some day we
are all here again talking about how far we have come in
celebrating that there are no more cases like Talia's.
Senator Tillis. Do any other senators wish to make a
comment before the testimony?
Senator McCaskill. If I could briefly?
Senator Tillis. Senator McCaskill?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. I have to catch a plane, and I want to
apologize to everyone who will testify today because I will not
be able to stay for all of it.
But I think this is such an important topic for us to
tackle because if you really understand domestic violence, you
realize that the unique characteristics of military service and
their impact on the family could, in fact, be a dangerous Petri
dish for domestic violence flourishing.
By that I say that one of the biggest challenges we have
with domestic violence--I will never forget when I began the
domestic violence unit in Kansas City when I was the elected
prosecutor in the 1990s, and I had a fight on my hands with the
police department and even with my assistant prosecutors. They
said, you know, Claire, we cannot prosecute this crime because
there was not a witness because the victims always decide they
are not going to go forward. And I said, well, we better shut
down the homicide unit then because we manage to prosecute
homicides when the victim does not speak. So we need to build a
case, and if we build a case, then victims will begin to trust
us that we can move forward and find justice and protection for
them. But if we just keep doing this circular reasoning--
Why I mentioned the military as particularly a challenge,
there is isolation for families within the military,
particularly as people are transferred with some regularity. It
is not as if many military families have the opportunity to set
down roots and have the kind of support system that is so
necessary to protect the victims of domestic violence. If there
is not a support system in the community, then more domestic
violence incidents will end up as homicide incidents.
So I am anxious to be part of this. I appreciate you all
having this hearing. I do think we need to look at the support
system right now in the military for people who have been
victimized by domestic violence and are trying to find a way
forward because if it is hard to figure out your personal life
going forward when your partner has a civilian job, imagine how
difficult it is if your partner is a member of the military and
you are dependent in so many other ways.
So I do think it is terrific, and I will follow up and read
all of your testimony. And I will look forward to working with
my colleagues, Senator Ernst, Senator Tillis, and Senator
Gillibrand, as we try to find better solutions and support for
addressing this problem within the Department of Defense. Thank
you all very much.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. We will now
begin with the testimony, and Ms. Perry, we will start with
you.
STATEMENT OF ADRIAN PERRY
Ms. Perry. I would like to thank each and every one of you
for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you today and
share my family's story, as well as offer my perspective on the
prevention, detection, investigation, and treatment of
childhood abuse and sexual assault within the military.
My name is Adrian Perry and I am the spouse of an Active
Duty United States Marine. My husband, Rick Perry, is a Major
in the United States Marine Corps serving as an executive
officer and is currently deployed. This is my husband's fifth
deployment we have gone through together as a family. I have
always been so proud of my husband's service to our country,
and I have always been so proud to hold the title of a United
States Marine spouse. This life has brought us so many amazing
opportunities. We have lived in Quantico, Virginia; Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina; Oahu, Hawaii; and Okinawa, Japan. Our
children have been given the gift of world travel, and through
that, we have been able to make precious and priceless memories
as a family. The patriotism that resides in the heart of each
member of our family is immeasurable.
Unfortunately, my love for the military was forever tainted
by the acts of a colonel, a colonel named Daniel Hunter Wilson.
Wilson was one of my husband's previous bosses in Okinawa. From
Okinawa, Wilson was sent to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina to be
the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force G-3 operations officer.
Shortly after Wilson arrived at Lejeune, our family was moved
to Lejeune as well. Wilson was one of the very first people to
reach out to us and offer us support when we arrived at our new
duty station.
Within a matter of a couple of weeks of visiting the
Wilsons' house, my 6-year-old daughter confided in me that
Wilson sexually abused her during that time. This disclosure
occurred in the Wilsons' home.
Upon finding out this horrible, heinous act had been
committed upon our child, my husband and I drove to our house
where we immediately called the military police (MPs). We had
the MPs at our home in a matter of minutes, as well as Naval
Criminal Investigative Service, also known as NCIS. This was
the start of the investigation. When NCIS came to our home, we
disclosed to them what our daughter had told me.
The next morning we received a call from an NCIS agent
asking if we could be at the Onslow County Child Advocacy
Center for a forensics interview. This is a child advocacy
center that is off base and is civilian-run.
A couple of NCIS agents met us at the center. While the
civilian forensics interviewers spoke to my daughters, NCIS was
in a separate room monitoring the interview via a live feed. My
daughters' interviews were conducted with no input or follow-up
from NCIS. The agent himself later stated that he left the
decisions regarding the interview solely up to the forensics
interviewer. A couple of days after we reported what happened
to our daughter, NCIS called us to set up a forensics exam.
There was a huge challenge finding an expert in the town of
Jacksonville, North Carolina who could do a forensics exam on a
6-year-old child. There were no pediatric forensic exam
specialists available in our area to do our daughter's exam.
The specialist the child advocacy center utilizes was not
available. We were sent 2 hours away to Greenville, North
Carolina to the Teddy Bear Clinic for her exam.
As parents, our hearts were shattered. Many days I felt as
though I could barely breathe. Just when I did not think things
could get any worse, one of our other daughters shared with us
that Wilson had done something to her as well. She too was 6.
It was her twin sister.
We notified investigators as soon as this was brought to
our attention. As the investigation began, it started to seem
as though every bit of information and the evidence obtained by
NCIS was information and evidence my husband and I were giving
to them. NCIS obtained my cell phone, as well as my husband's
cell phone, and did a complete data dump from both of our
phones. We gave them our Facebook passwords so they could scour
through any and all information we might possibly have that
could assist with the investigation.
I assumed NCIS would be doing the exact same thing with
Wilson's devices. However, I was very wrong on that. Wilson's
cell phone and computer were never seized to this day. I
continuously asked about the possible seizure of Wilson's
personal electronic devices. The responses I would get varied
on the issue. A few times I received responses that made me
think they were in planning mode to seize his personal devices,
and other times they gave me responses that made it seem as
though legally they could not seize his personal devices
without causing negative ramifications for our case.
I understand that I am not a trained investigator. However,
my common sense told me and still tells me that investigation
101 would have led to the seizure of his personal devices given
the charges and allegations against Wilson.
I come from a line of law enforcement professionals, both
police and FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], and each and
every one of them were appalled and shocked that Wilson's
personal computer and personal cell phone were never seized.
Despite the near exclusive reliance on me and my husband
for the facts, no one from NCIS ever sat down with us to create
a timeline or verify facts and dates. My husband and I on
several occasions questioned why no one was speaking to us to
pull together the facts. We questioned how they would be
capable of formulating a solid case without speaking to us. As
a matter of fact, my husband and I began to feel that this case
was too big for NCIS alone. The tentacles were deep and it
required a widespread net to be cast as far as investigative
work is concerned. We are talking about a ``full bird'' marine
colonel, one rank shy of being a general, with over 35 years of
service who has been stationed, deployed, or temporary Active
Duty in multiple countries and multiple States across the
United States of America.
We asked on numerous occasions for a meeting with the
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, also referred to as the SAUSA,
in order to discuss possibly bringing in the FBI to collaborate
on this case with NCIS. The SAUSA would not meet with us
whatsoever.
In one of the many attempts to give NCIS information, my
husband and I shared with NCIS that prior to coming to Camp
Lejeune, Wilson had been abruptly removed within a matter of
days from a temporary command he was given where he was in
charge of a 6-month exercise between the United States Marines
and the Australian Defense Force in Darwin, Australia. We
suggested NCIS look into why he was removed from his position.
It came out during the investigation that Wilson had made a
sexually inappropriate comment to the wife of a United States
contractor in Australia. He had sent overly friendly text
messages to a female Australian Defense Force major. He drank
alcohol excessively. He shared risque photos of one of his
captain's wives to the Australian Defense Force commander. He
snuck on to a secure government computer belonging to a female
Australian Defense Force contractor and sent out an
inappropriate email to the Australian Defense Force commander.
This misconduct, most of which was sexual in nature, showed
prior similar behavior. Based upon my perception, I do not feel
Wilson's prior misconduct was adequately investigated. These
allegations led to questions of possible prior sexual
misconduct while Wilson was stationed in Okinawa. However, NCIS
was nonresponsive to investigating Okinawa concerns. Overall,
it appeared as though there really was no attempt to delve into
Wilson's past to discover prior misconduct, despite the fact
that he was charged with a child sex crime.
Even after uncovering that Wilson had been alleged to have
behaved in such a sexually inappropriate way in Australia, to
include nearly nude photos of one of his captain's wives on his
Facebook messenger, NCIS still did not seize Wilson's personal
devices. I cannot wrap my brain around the failure of NCIS to
act swiftly to obtain evidence from Wilson via his personal
devices. This failure has me questioning heavily how lower
ranking servicemembers in situations like ours are treated and
how their cases are handled.
Nearly 5 months--5 months--into the investigative process,
our case was assigned to three powerhouse attorneys who did an
unbelievable job in seeing to it that justice was somewhat
served for our daughter. Our case eventually went to a general
court martial where Wilson was found guilty for sexual assault
of a child, conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman for
all charges against him in Australia, and unauthorized absence.
Wilson was sentenced to 5-\1/2\ years in the military brig.
During our trial, I was not given the opportunity to give a
victim impact statement on behalf of my 6-year-old daughter. I
was reminded of the pain I felt due to my voice being
restricted at sentencing when I saw the gymnasts who were
victims of Larry Nassar giving their victim impact statements.
We were not given that opportunity to be heard. Part of being
able to heal from something as traumatic as this is to be able
to speak to those who have harmed you. Those gymnasts were
given such a gift by having their voices heard. It was a gift
we did not receive.
In our trial, not only were our voices restricted, but the
judge directly addressed the jury and read aloud all of
Wilson's military accomplishments, stating for the jury to
consider his prior military service to our country when they
went to sentence him. I will never forget that moment. It was
like a slap in my face as a mother. Hearing his awards,
accomplishments, deployments, and leadership accolades be read
aloud as if they erased what was done to my daughter crushed
me. I sat there speechless, absolutely dumfounded and in shock
as to what my ears were hearing. Then I sat and watched his
defense attorney get up and hand a huge album over to the jury
that was filled with photos of Wilson as a child, all the way
up through his adulthood and military career. Where was my
daughter's photo album for them to look through as they
considered his fate?
My personal experience through the investigation process
has led me to the following conclusions.
Number one, reports and concerns brought to the people in
positions of legal power are not always welcomed or taken as
seriously as they should be. In our case, we requested meetings
on multiple occasions in order to address concerns we had for
our own personal safety. We were often met with absolute
refusal to be heard, or when granted a meeting, we had to fight
tooth and nail to be heard. For example, we had to fight to
have a protective order enforced properly against Wilson. He
was being allowed to drive by our home multiple times a day to
get to and from work. I should not have to fight to keep my
children, my husband, and myself safe.
What would the outcome have been for a young lance corporal
in the same situation?
Wilson was not detained for what he did to our daughter
until 5 months--5 months--after we reported what happened. For
5 months, we had to live with Wilson roaming free wherever he
pleased on base, living about a half a mile from our house.
That was traumatizing to say the least. We had to restructure
our way of life in order to live on base with Wilson due to a
state of constant fear for our safety.
The only reason he was finally detained was because an
adult female came forward alleging that Wilson had sexually
assaulted her as well.
Number two, rank matters. I am very concerned how other
survivors are being treated who may not have the same resources
or the ability to advocate for their case like my husband and I
did. To be quite honest, they should not have to fight to be
heard, believed, and taken seriously. I want to make something
very clear here. Rank matters in how these cases are treated,
and that is unfortunate. I believe wholeheartedly had my
husband and I stayed silent and let the system as it is right
now do its job, justice would never have been somewhat served
for our daughter.
Number three, there is a serious failure to provide
adequate resources for survivors of sexual assault. There is
the failure to provide mental health care. The only resource we
were given in regards to mental health care was from that of
Onslow County Child Advocacy Center. I was handed a sheet of
paper with three names on it of counselors who specialized in
child trauma therapy. Two of those were on base and one was off
base. I did not feel comfortable with going on base for any
help after what we had suffered at the hands of someone in the
military. That left us with one option for emotional help.
One, it is not okay that a victim of child sexual abuse is
not being afforded more options for mental health than a mere
sheet of paper with three names on it. Keep in mind that the
little help that was offered was not from the military. It was
from Onslow County. Our civilian victims legal counsel who
worked pro bono on our case stepped in and worked tirelessly to
find us a therapist that could see our entire family. Let that
resonate. Our civilian legal counsel that we ourselves sought
out had to fill in the gap for the military and get us the help
we truly needed. Where was the military when we needed them?
What did the survivors who do not have the resources we had do?
What is happening to them?
The military needs to adequately provide mental health care
resources for survivors of all types of abuse. It is my humble
opinion after our experience and after speaking with many
survivors that the military is falling incredibly short in this
arena. Providing mental health care should be on the forefront,
a must-do for the military in order for survivors to be able to
begin to heal and have the support and help they need and
deserve in order to get through this type of trauma and the
trauma that comes with having to prepare for and go to trial.
There is also the failure to provide sexual assault
forensics experts and specialists. After reporting what
happened to our daughter, a couple days later NCIS requested we
take our daughter to have a forensics exam. We had to drive
over 2 hours away to have our daughter be seen by a pediatric
forensics exam specialists because there were not any available
to see her in or around Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. My
daughter and every other survivor of sexual assault should be
afforded a prompt, readily available forensics exam. It is
unacceptable to me that we had to drive for 2 daunting hours to
take our child to do something no parent should ever have to
take their child to do because the resources required were
nowhere to be found within our vicinity.
Number four, there is a lack of properly trained
investigators. In our case, NCIS failed to seize Wilson's
personal cell phone and his personal computer. I question why
there was such refusal to seize his devices. They also failed
to thoroughly delve into Wilson's past in order to connect and
look into prior similar behavior.
Another concern is that NCIS did not seem to be properly
trained in regards to how child forensic interviews should be
carried out and handled. This is evident by the lack of a
follow-up interview with my children.
NCIS was not quick to respond to obtaining any evidence
whatsoever from the accused. The sole means of evidence
collection should not be from the victim. Their failure to
promptly obtain evidence resulted in very little evidence being
collected from Wilson. Although there were two personal hard
drives found belonging to Wilson right before the trial began,
they were not discovered in enough time prior to trial to be
used in any way for trial or charge purposes. NCIS had plenty
of time to put forth a solid investigation, but it came across
as though our case was not a priority.
Wilson went to trial with over 20 charges against him. It
is my belief that had NCIS conducted a more thorough and solid
investigation, more of these charges would have stuck. A
finding of not guilty is not a finding of innocence.
NCIS was apparently not trained in such a way that provided
a proactive role in our case. The investigators working sexual
assault cases need to be trained more thoroughly. Their lack of
knowledge in how to properly handle and investigate these
sensitive cases is failing survivors and making the possibility
of justice nearly impossible. We deserve so much better.
Number five, there is inadequate sexual assault prevention
follow-through from commanders. Yes, there is plenty of
training being given to these commanders, but where is the
follow-through? This was evident in the lack of response to the
concerns and red flags that were raised in regards to Wilson's
prior misconduct in Australia that was sexual in nature. Had
Wilson's command properly addressed the many reports of
misconduct from Australia, Wilson would never have been able to
take our child's innocence from her. Commanders need to know
how to identify red flags, take them seriously, and respond
accordingly. It took an Australian commander to point out to
American Marine commanders that the Marine Corps had a serious
problem on their hands with Wilson. How did our own military
miss this?
Catching and acting on those red flags is the vital step
that is missing in our military when it comes to prevention.
These predators are not being caught until it is too late and
another human being's life is torn apart. The cost of failing
to prevent these predators is too high to just turn a blind
eye. In our case, the cost was that of my 6-year-old daughter's
innocence. I will never be able to fix that or get her
innocence back for her. The evil that was done to her is an
evil only God can redeem, but it is an evil that the Marine
Corps could have prevented. I cannot stress enough the need for
military leadership to identify red flag behavior, and not only
do they need to identify this behavior, but act on it promptly.
Finally, trained legal professionals should be spearheading
these cases. Our team of attorneys, Lieutenant Colonel John
Stevens, Captain Sam Adams, and Captain Cory Wheelert, were
nothing short of a powerhouse team. Each one of them brought
something powerful and important to the table. If it were not
for these men coming on board nearly 5 months after we reported
what happened to our daughter, we would never have had any hope
of seeing justice somewhat served. They were phenomenal. When
they stepped in, it was as if order had finally come. The
importance of the legal professionals cannot be overlooked and
needs to be embraced and supported.
There also needs to be a focus on ensuring that survivors
of all types of abuse are afforded victims legal counsel. I do
not know what we would have done without our military VLC,
Major Nathan Cox, and our civilian team of VLCs from Arnold and
Porter. They were our voice. And without them, we would never
have been heard.
In closing, I would like to thank you all again for your
time. I want everyone to understand that I love our military,
and I love the United States Marine Corps. Yes, what happened
to our daughter shook our world up and it changed so much in
our lives. What Wilson did to our daughters changed them
permanently. This devastation done to our daughters crippled my
husband and I to our core. I personally grew very angry, but
what I realized is that my anger was and is righteous. Part of
that anger and hurt stems from the fact that the very
institution that my husband and I have remained loyal to for
over 18 years and continue to remain loyal to despite what we
have suffered has still yet to offer a simple apology for what
was done to our daughters.
I knew I had to take the hurt and the pain and anger and
the evil done to our family and do good. I am here today to do
good for our military and our Marine Corps. I am here in hopes
that my voice will be heard on behalf of all survivors of abuse
so that the principles and values of what the Marine Corps and
our entire United States military were founded on can be
salvaged.
It is extremely unsettling to me that the first question I
am asked when people find out that I am advocating on this
matter is, how has this affected your husband's career? It is a
serious problem when advocating for what is right and good in
regards to child sexual abuse is looked at as a threat to
positive progression in the career of a servicemember.
If our military continues to turn a blind eye to the dark
culture breeding in our military's ranks, the military will be
the victim of their own demise. This culture has to be
attacked. The enemy is not always fought abroad. In this case,
it is staring us right in the face in our very own ranks. Our
country is the great force that it is because we have fought
for and accepted change over time throughout the history of our
Nation. This very same concept applies for our military and how
cases of abuse are handled. We can no longer accept the current
handling of these cases. Times are changing, and the military
should be the first to not only adapt but act, setting the tone
for all institutions on how these cases should be handled. We
are known for our powerful Armed Forces. And the fact that this
is happening in our own ranks is a sign of weakness to rest of
the world. It is a mission the United States military is
failing at currently.
The military should be the institution that is setting the
precedent in what right looks like in regards to how these
cases are investigated and treated. It is time for military
leadership to become part of the solution. As a mother, I will
not stop fighting for justice for my daughters and for those
who cannot fight for themselves.
Thank you so much for your time.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Ms. Perry.
Ms. McKinley?
STATEMENT OF MERCI McKINLEY
Ms. McKinley. Senators, thank you for having me today. My
name is Staff Sergeant, retired, Merci L. McKinley from the
United States Army, and I am a survivor of intimate partner
violence in the military.
I am here today to be on the front line to share my
experiences and recommendations in an effort to improve the
military's approach towards domestic violence as a whole. I am
going to disclose the following: the type of abuse I
experienced, my interaction with the Killeen Police Department,
the type of medical care I received, my process with the Family
Advocacy Program, experiences with other survivors prior to
separation from service and after separation from service, the
process I took to even receive the justice rendered that I now
question, and the overall recommendations based upon the
aforementioned.
While stationed at Fort Hood, Texas from September 2014 to
January 2015, I was involved in an intimate relationship with a
military member of equal rank. During the course of this
relationship, I was both strangled and beaten. I was strangled
in such a manner that I had to take muscle relaxers long after
just to be able to talk, eat, and swallow.
The measures I was using to conceal the extent of my
injuries was not working. After 3 days of attempting ice packs,
I elected to be seen at the troop medical clinic in which I was
prescribed muscle relaxers.
In January 2015, I was physically assaulted which resulted
in significant bruising in my torso, legs, back, arms, and
additional damage sustained to my prosthetic knee. At the time,
I was being medically retired for failure to progress in a
certain amount of time following a left total knee replacement
and other treatments to address the wear and tear that
deployment in military assignments had placed upon my body.
During the assault, the servicemember repeatedly struck,
kicked, and stomped in the area where I had my implant, which
caused it to become loosened. In June of that year, I had to
undergo surgery to repair the additional damage.
Immediately following the assault, I reported it to the
Killeen Police Department where I was greeted by both a male
and female police officer. The male police officer took my
statement while the female police officer's responsibility was
to photograph and document my injuries. While I was attempting
to explain the cuts on the inside of my lip, the female officer
replied, oh, it is not that bad. From this statement alone, I
deduced that she was not taking me seriously. At the
conclusion, I was given the card of the male police officer on
duty who advised me that usually the full extent of one's
injuries do not surface until the following morning.
The next morning I noticed I was sore, had significant
bruising in certain areas of my body, my breathing was labored,
and I was limping. Rather than report to early accountability
formation in that condition, I went to Carl R. Darnall Hospital
emergency room to be seen. I explained what happened to the
attending physician who completed my exam and ordered x-rays to
ensure I did not have internal injuries or bleeding. The
attending physician asked if I was sexually assaulted as well,
which I denied. I was prescribed additional pain medications. I
was released, but neither medical personnel from either the
troop medical clinic nor the Carl R. Darnall Hospital emergency
room elected to notify the military police.
I confided in a female noncommissioned officer within my
unit who recommended that I go to Family Advocacy to seek
additional care and counseling. Under her recommendation, I
went to Family Advocacy on Fort Hood, Texas and completed an
initial intake. During my intake, the representative asked if I
wanted to complete a restricted or unrestricted report, and
they completed a matrix. Based upon my response to the matrix,
the representative excused herself to go speak with the
director.
Due to the severity score received from the matrix, I was
advised that a restricted report was not an option, as my
overall safety was at stake. I was also informed that I was
perhaps de-sensitized and in denial that I could not see the
escalation of abuse nor how it affected my overall safety. I
was provided a packet that included information on how to file
a pro se protective order, my responsibility to complete the
enrollment in Family Advocacy Program, and a safety plan.
The next day I contacted the district clerk's office of
Bell County, Texas to inquire about what all was needed for the
pro se protective order. I was told I would need copies of
medical evidence and anything else that would support my
request for an order of protection. I had to go to the Carl R.
Darnall Hospital correspondent's office to obtain copies of
every time I was medically seen for the abuse. This took some
time because I had to wait for clearance from my supervisors to
grant me permission to take care of what was required. I also
had to wait until the hospital correspondent's office retrieved
the copies of my exams from my medical records. Depending on
what is required to be retrieved from your medical records, it
can be an immediate response, a 72-hour turnaround, or as long
as a month.
Once I had what was required, I went to the district
clerk's office to file my pro se protective order request in
person. I had to wait the majority of the day for it to be
accepted, approved, signed by a judge, and given a court date.
From there, I had to take all of the approved documentation
myself, the temporary protective order, and court date to the
Killeen constable office so they could, in return, serve the
accused. Before the accused could be served, the Killeen
constable office had to coordinate with the Fort Hood provost
marshal office to serve the papers on a military installation,
as the accused was trying to avoid being served off post. I
cannot definitively say the time frame this process took, but
it was neither immediate nor within a 1-day time period.
I was accepted by Lone Star Legal Aid to assist with my
upcoming court hearing in reference to my protective order.
The day of the first court date, the judge delayed the
hearing to provide the accused ample time to seek legal
counsel, as well as fulfill his financial obligations to the
court.
Between that period of waiting for the next court date of
February 18th, 2015, the accused had contacted my legal aid to
try to get the protective order amended to suit his needs. My
legal aid called me and said directly, ``Ma'am, I think he is
just trying to save his career and convince me to oblige of his
request.'' I was not clear as to her stance and whose side she
was on directly. So I fired her.
In an effort not to be without legal representation by the
next court date, I tried to find an attorney within the local
vicinity. It took me going through a total of 10 attorneys to
find one who did not attempt to throw me out of their office
and accept a payment plan based upon their fees.
Needless to say, my 2-year protective order was granted on
February 18, 2015. The presiding judge, who was a retired
colonel from the JAG Corps, distinctly asked me if I knew the
difference between a civil court and a criminal court. She also
asked why weren't any charges filed. I responded with the
detective assigned was hard to reach, and I was also informed
that they were backed up with other cases and that was the
explanation that I received as to why no charges were filed.
She was flabbergasted in a sense, but advised my attorney to
make sure I obtained a copy of the court transcript and
proceedings to provide to the Killeen Police Department and the
military. She ordered the accused to reimburse my attorney
fees, pay the court, and adhere to the 2-year protective order.
The victim advocate from Family Advocacy Program who
accompanied me to court assisted with obtaining the written
military protective order once the civilian protective order
was granted.
My attorney informed me that I was the first case in which
the judge ordered the accused to reimburse the attorney fees
and had given a direct order to provide the court transcript to
the local and military authorities.
I met with my attorney once more who said directly--and I
guess this was just his opportunity to try to properly advise
me. He said, ``I am going to advise you as if you were my own
daughter standing before me.'' He said, ``Do you honestly think
the Killeen Police Department is concerned about a few cuts and
bruises here and there? If you want justice in any form, you
need to knock on the doors of 3rd Corps, which is Fort Hood,
Texas and the general over Fort Hood, Texas. I have seen too
many cases like this, and the military needs to do something.''
Under his advisement and insistence from the judge, I
followed and commenced the process. I paid for the court
transcript, and I contacted the 3rd Corps commander's secretary
asking to be placed on his calendar. Furthermore, I met with
the supervisor of the detective to express my concerns with the
lack of investigating. I spent the majority of the time
thereafter pleading with both parties to transfer jurisdiction
to the military.
The military took jurisdiction. Criminal Investigation
Division performed their investigation, and the Family Advocacy
Program case review committee convened. Both the Family
Advocacy Program case and the Criminal Investigation Division
came back rather quickly with the result found. Charges were
conferred for a court martial. However, the accused was
administratively separated in lieu of the court martial, and I
now question the full extent of whatever consequences the
accused actually received.
Prior to this, the prosecuting attorney kept advising me
that she represented the chain of command and the chain of
command's best interests. This was to make it abundantly clear
that she was not my attorney. However, due to the rapport I am
assuming she and I developed, she had expressed frustration
with previous cases in a generalized manner. She expressed her
confidence of dotting all of her I's and crossing all of her
T's to ensure a conviction and failed to obtain one. She also
expressed in confidence of how after selecting the panel for
court, some members still hold firm to the belief of why did
they not just leave or assaults occur in dark alleys by
complete strangers.
I was provided a copy of the case review committee results,
and an attorney from his chain of command was content with the
results because at least something was done.
The key takeaway from this whole process is what I had to
do and the effort it took on my part. Not all survivors of
intimate partner violence are the same. If we go forward
expecting this to continue to be the process in any way, shape
or form, justice could be delayed or even denied. The cycle of
abuse will continue because some will compare the amount of
effort it takes in an attempt to compartmentalize and
rationalize the abuse as a means to stay in the situation.
Prime example. In 2017, after separating from service, I
encountered a female friend who was Active Duty and in the
Navy. Her civilian husband had punched her in the face while
she was holding their infant daughter and attempted to push
both of them down a flight of stairs. She approached me with
her situation, and I immediately advised her to see the Navy's
Family Advocacy. They handed her the same packet I was
provided. Where she and I differ was no reference list was
given of legal aid services.
Finally, we contacted--well, she and I contacted the House
of Ruth. She rarely had any contact with her legal aid, and
when she did, it was minimal at best. A blanket service was
being provided rather than tailored to her situation.
When she attempted to change the locks of her own home, she
was advised she was not allowed to do that. In addition, her
husband had control of all of the finances. She could not
afford a real attorney nor could she adequately afford Pampers
and necessities for her child.
I told her to contact the Navy's version of the Army
emergency relief of her command financial noncommissioned
officer. She was denied financial assistance.
I cannot definitively say what became of her situation
because our contact became few and far between by her choice as
she dealt with what she was facing. Despite my providing her
financial support or trying to develop ways to afford an
attorney retainer fee for her, it was not enough. I tried my
best to advise her based upon my own personal experiences. Her
unit did not even attempt to grant her accommodations on the
military installation, which is local here, since she was
advised she was not allowed to change the locks on her home.
Throughout my process, I still had to complete the
mandatory counseling through Family Advocacy. There was a
slight miscommunication with scheduling my appointment to being
seen to enroll in the mandatory counseling required. The
receptionist was attempting to place me within a support group
prior to be seen by a licensed clinical social worker. The
normal process--and it should be the process--is for the
licensed clinical social worker to first determine if one-on-
one counseling sessions would be more suitable for treatment as
opposed to group sessions.
During the group sessions, we were provided handouts that
predominantly covered the warning signs of abuse. The start of
each group session was to discuss the warning signs of abuse,
where we were in the process with regards to our cases. Some
sessions included spouses and military personnel expressing
trying to reconcile with their abuser, their abuser cutting off
utilities, freezing their bank cards, not being able to get a
hold of anyone within their abuser's unit, not receiving
adequate assistance, et cetera. There were some spouses from
foreign countries and other spouses who did not know their
abuser's unit, where they specifically worked on the military
installation, or where important agencies and resources were
located. Quite frankly, some appeared as though they were at
their breaking point.
The civilian that was running the group sessions sat stoic
in a sense, determined to keep us all on track with the
handouts provided. I almost equated this experience to being a
student under the care of a substitute teacher who provided us
busy work.
What had occurred was I connected with some of the spouses
that expressed not knowing where certain agencies and
assistance were located both on the military installation and
locally. I had arranged a time after our group sessions to
personally take them from point A to point B. If a spouse
indicated that they had not heard from their victim advocate,
which was quite often, or direct representation from Family
Advocacy in X amount of days, I would physically take her to
the FAP to be seen.
On one particular incident, a spouse was told quite frankly
in an abrupt manner, ``You need to get a job.'' This was in
response to expressing the utilities were shut off purposely by
the abuser or withholding financial assets. It was the manner
in which the spouse was spoken to that I had a direct problem
with. This very same spouse was without a GED [General
Education Development], as it was required for her to support
her husband's career, stay house-ridden rather than further her
own goals. This prevented her from getting a job.
However, I took her to the Army community service building
that was advertising classes for both GED and English as a
single language classes. This simple assistance served other
females within that domestic violence support group conducted
by Family Advocacy Program well and empowered them to make
better decisions towards their situations. The key takeaway is
that I had to be the one to do it.
Given the aforementioned details account of my experiences,
I believe intimate partner violence in the military needs to be
approached strategically. This strategic approach should
involve accountability, care, and be streamlined. Furthermore,
it should be approached with an understanding of all the
dynamic factors involved.
Accountability entails ensuring all military installations
have memorandum of understanding on file with their local
civilian law enforcement and support agencies. It appears, from
just my experience alone, equal efforts need to be given to
address intimate partner violence that occurs off military
installations. To my knowledge, not all branches of service and
military installations have this memorandum of understanding in
place. At the very least, it could include identifying if the
parties involved in a domestic dispute are military. There
should be an automated system that the local authorities can
reference to validate who are military personnel. Immediately
following, procedures should be in place of how to contact the
local military installation is provost marshal office. In
return, this will ensure it appears on a blotter report for the
military as a whole, as well as both military police and chain
of command to have oversight.
I am well aware that when it comes to jurisdiction in
certain cases, the type of offense, severity, and monetary
factors influence who takes jurisdiction. Needless to say,
oversight needs to be achieved.
In 1929, the Uniform Crime Report system was developed,
which is a nationwide program that law enforcement agencies
report data to on crimes that occur within their jurisdiction.
This includes crimes reported. Perhaps it should become a
policy that all provost marshals of the military installation
be allowed to review that database because if you do not have
that oversight--and just from my experience alone, working with
the Killeen Police Department and working with the local
community, their decision was not to properly investigate. Nor
do I think that they thought that I deserved any form of
justice. If I did not go through 3rd Corps or beg and plead for
the military to take jurisdiction of my case, how would they
have known?
So I think that is why I am proposing that a better
memorandum of understanding be placed for all military
installations regardless of the branch of service and that the
provost marshal of the military installations be allowed to
review these databases.
What I have noticed is that each branch of service has
their own central registry for reporting incidents and crimes
involving domestic violence. They also have their own system
that is unique to their branch to adhere to what is mandated by
all DOD regulations. In return, they are each responsible for
providing the data to the Defense Incident Base Reporting
System and what is required to the National Incident Base
Reporting System.
You cannot win a battle with a lack of accountability, a
lack of true standardization, and lack of constantly
streamlining the process. If the Department of Defense can
collapse logistics information systems of all branches of the
military into one, they can collapse these databases into one
so better oversight and accountability can be adhered to.
One might think how much training is truly needed, but it
should always be revamped and residual. Training is the only
way to ensure the quality of care received or influence justice
rendered.
What resonates with me the most is the lack of confidence
expressed from the attorney in the military panel that hears
certain cases in military court. Perhaps all panelists should
be subject to training on intimate partner violence and
dispelling the myths associated with it. This training should
be compelling, involve storytelling, solicit feedback, and
encourage engagement in dialogue. Panelists that receive this
training should be identified by an additional skill identifier
within the training requirements and resource system. Although
dispelling myths, combating organizational behaviors and
culture can prove to be an arduous task, it is not impossible,
nor should it hinder constant efforts to try. At the very
least, consider this recommendation so justice can be achieved.
Clearly you cannot always rely on local law enforcement
agencies to do that particular job.
Lastly, at the heart of the matter is the care. I am asking
that special victims counsel be assigned to all victims of
intimate partner violence in the military. We have heard of my
process and how the unit's attorney made it clear she was not
my direct attorney. The special victim counsel can assist with
the legal aspects, especially with both the civilian and
military protective order that should be required. No one
should be provided a packet and say that is it. Here, go do
this, go do that. We have to constantly take into account one's
emotional state, the duration and level of abuse when first
saying here is a packet. We are living in an information age,
but given how isolated the abused partner is, they may not have
direct access to what is needed.
In addition, it should be required that all spouses of
military personnel have their own in-processing system on a
military installation. I can only speak from an Army
perspective. Perhaps it should be held at the Soldier Family
Assistance Center. This will eliminate some of the spouses I
have referenced who did not know where anything was, could not
tell me what unit their spouse was in. All they could tell me
was their spouse had the same patch I was wearing at the time.
How then can we expect them to know the full extent of what
assistance the Family Advocacy, first responders, and even
their spouse's units can offer? To eliminate this problem a
separate in-processing should be performed for all spouses that
includes Family Advocacy.
Also, another factor that can be considered is organizing
the domestic violence groups better so targeted outreach can be
performed. We are living in changing times with the
relationship dynamics, preferred gender identification, et
cetera. Furthermore, I am well aware that civilian spouses are
offered financial assistance throughout the process and even
after conviction of domestic violence from the military.
However, financial assistance was denied to my friend who was
Active Duty and whose spouse was civilian.
That is all. Thank you.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Ms. McKinley.
Ms. Vega, so that we can have adequate time for the second
panel, if you could keep your----
Ms. Perry. Sorry.
Senator Tillis. Oh, no. Actually there is no way--you put a
lot of work into your opening statements. They are obviously
going to be in the record. And, Ms. Perry, in your particular
case there are a number of actions that we are taking in our
office about the specifics of your case. But thank you for your
testimony. It was very helpful, particularly the suggestions
for moving forward.
Ms. Vega?
STATEMENT OF IRIS VEGA, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT ADVOCATE,
DOORWAYS FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES
Ms. Vega. Good afternoon, Senators. I want to thank each of
you for the opportunity to be here and share the experience and
the stories of the survivors.
My name is Iris Vega. I serve as the court advocate for
Doorways for Women and Families, a nonprofit whose mission is
to create pathways out of homelessness, domestic violence, and
sexual assault. So my role as the court advocate is to work
with survivors who come into the courthouse. We work on
protective orders, safety planning, and child support and
custody issues. So these are the stories that I will share with
you today in regards to what they experienced.
Survivor number one came to the courthouse with her victim
advocate from the military. And what she explained in her
statement was that her husband had strangled her on several
occasions in front of their 9-year-old baby girl that was with
them. She was scared. She did not know what to do. She reached
out to the military family victim advocacy who, in return,
referred her to get a protective order at the civilian court.
She also had reached out to the commander who was the
military spouse commander, and he had placed the abusive
partner out of the home and in the barracks.
So she pretty much felt very supported through the military
process. But her challenge was to face the civilian side, which
was where we were.
The civilian side, as you know, is not connected with the
military. There is a big gap in communication there. So when
the survivor comes in and her abusive partner is in the
military, there is no way we can know what is happening in the
military side. We do not know what the commanders have done. We
do not know what the victim service has done with them. They
just come with what they tell us. And our judges most of the
time require proof. Did you call the police? Who is involved?
Have you told somebody? A lot of the survivors that will come
in do not have that because there is no communication between
those two. The commanders are not there to explain what had
happened. Sometimes the victim advocate would not be there with
them. They will be by themselves. In this case, she really had
to retell her story again and again to different people, to the
judge that was there to try to get that protective order in
place.
With a lot of work, she was able to do it. We were able to
connect her with legal aid so they can represent her with a
protective order. But the fact that she has to go through so
many loops to be able to tell her story and get safety nets was
something that we have to keep providing her with emotional
support to continue to that process. She was able to secure one
and able to make out safety in that case.
Our survivor number two came to us through the hotline. She
described her husband as having post traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and that he had become increasingly angry towards her
violently. He would hit the walls, destroy personal property,
and tell her that if she ever was planning on leaving him, that
they both would end up dead. So she became very worried for her
life and safety concerns. Because there was no physical abuse,
it was very difficult for her to reach out.
She finally decided to reach out to the--not to the
commander but the higher ranking from her husband. And he told
her that this will be taken care of. With time, nothing really
happened.
She then reached out to the family advocacy center at the
military, who gave her resources and told her where to call and
where to go, but she was expecting more action from them.
Nothing really happened.
She decided to take things in her own hand, came to
Arlington, got a protective order, the preliminary one. But it
was very difficult again to make it permanent because there is
no report. There are no police calls. There is no physical
abuse.
She strongly believed that the problem was that her husband
was a sergeant, and that nobody was willing to do anything
because of that. She felt that she was left alone, that there
was nobody there to support her in regards to the military
side.
But not only that, she also was challenged on our civil
side because the judge--when we went in front of the judge, he
looked at her and said, do you know you can ruin his career
doing this? So it was not about the safety of the survivor. It
was more about he is a sergeant and you are going to ruin his
career. So this is the message that she got through everywhere
that she went, that nobody was going to do something, anything
because of that.
She was denied a protective order. It never became
permanent. We had to do a lot of safety planning. She
eventually made it out, but it was a long way for her. It was
not easy. We had to get her into counseling, get her outside
resources that would be able to help her.
And this also is the same thing you see over and over
again. When there is emotional and psychological abuse and you
do not have a lot of the physical, it is very hard for the
survivors to even reach out to the commanders, to the advocacy
center when there is nothing they can show for.
Survivor number three came to us at the Poor House. She was
sent there actually by her commander because she was told that
it would be easier and faster if she would do the protective
order through the civil side first. She believed strongly that
the commander did not want to do anything because, in her
words, they were buddies with her husband, and she felt that he
did not want to get involved. It was a domestic violence
situation, and it was between them. So he told her if you get a
civil protective order, then I can do something in here.
And for her, she did have a lot of physical abuse. There
was a lot of pushing to the point that he would grab her by the
neck, choke her. And when she came to the courthouse, she had
bruises on her lips and her mouth, and it was very obvious. So
in her case, it was not difficult to get a protective order
because you could see it. But in the other cases, it was not
that easy.
So once she was able to get that protective order, she took
it back to the commander and he was able to proceed with that.
So those are some of the challenges that we see not only in
these cases but in other cases that we have dealt with. One,
which is a big one, is the lack of communication between the
civilian side and the military. That includes CPS [child
protective services]. It includes nonprofits. Even with the
victim advocacy center and other advocates that are outside,
police, judges, there is no connection. A way to break that has
to be in place.
Another big challenge that we see--and we have seen it over
and over again--is the officer's rank. Many of the survivors
are scared. They said if I go forward with this, he is big, he
is doing this, his career will be ruined, and I do not want to
put that in him. And when they do decide to go forward, there
is very little support in the military for that and very little
protection for them.
So based on those challenges we have seen, we think some
other recommendations would be to be able to put a system in
place that will be able to facilitate the military and the
civilian communication at all those different levels.
The second would be to provide training. We believe so
strongly that training does make a difference. And the people
who are in charge, higher ranks, officers, commanders who are
the ones who are making those decisions right now--and the
moment that victim, the survivor is calling out and reaching
out to the military, everybody who is involved, the
prosecutors, the panelists, everybody who is involved in that
process needs to be trained, and they need to be trained in
trauma-informed, and it has to be survivor-centered.
Once again, collaborating. I think collaboration with the
outside resources is very important. As we heard in some of the
cases that we have here today, outside civilian resources
sometimes make a big difference. So being able to have the
military connect the survivors with those resources outside,
knowing what they are, what they are doing, connecting them is
very important. And I believe that is the only way we can
continue to nurture the culture that starts by believing that,
yes, that happened. Start by believing the survivor and having
a survivor-centered approach to them.
Thank you.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Ms. Vega.
Ms. Perry and Ms. McKinley, thank you so much for the work
you put into your opening statements. And we will have those
for the record.
And, Ms. Perry, Ms. McKinley, this is the first--once we
receive your testimony--the first exposure I have had to your
case, but I am sure that our staff, the committee staff, and
our offices' staff, will have follow-up questions for you and
Ms. Perry.
You touched in your opening statement about Wilson--it is
impossible for me to call him ``Mr.''--had behaviors that were
clearly exhibited in Australia and what I consider to be an
unacceptable disconnect between the commands in Australia and
back at Camp Lejeune that we are taking a personal interest in
and we are going to continue to speak with you and try to
identify how we can prevent that in the future. But we also
have to hold people accountable for this particular breakdown.
So thank you all for being here today and for your time up
here. And I know that this committee is being held because we
know that you are only two of so many victims, that we need to
do a better job as we move forward with policies on this
committee. So thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Perry. Thank you so much.
Senator Tillis. We are now going to transition to the
second panel. The panel will consist of Ms. Stephanie Barna,
the Senior Policy Advisor for the Under Secretary of Defense,
Personnel and Readiness; Dr. Kenneth Dodge, Pritzker Professor
of Early Learning, Policy Studies, and Professor of Psychology
and Neuroscience at Duke University; Casey Taft, Ph.D.,
Professor of Psychiatry at the Boston University School of
Medicine; and Jacqueline Campbell, Ph.D., Professor of Nursing
at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing.
Thank you all for being here. And if we could have your
testimony limited to about 5 minutes so that we can have
adequate time for questions. And I am going to take a home
State prerogative and start with Dr. Dodge.
STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH A. DODGE, PROFESSOR IN THE SANFORD
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, DUKE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Dodge. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here today.
I am a clinical psychologist, research scientist, and
faculty member at Duke University in North Carolina, which is
proud home to several military bases.
Since Dr. Henry Kempe first identified the battered child
syndrome in 1962, most of our Nation's efforts have been
directed toward protecting battered children after the fact of
child abuse. This is understandable, but this is a never-win
situation because the battered keep on coming. So what I want
to talk with you about is moving upstream.
We have moved upstream to try to understand how child abuse
occurs in the first place and how we can prevent it from
happening, beginning in the very first year of life. We have
made progress in helping entire communities lower their infant
abuse rate. I began my work in Durham, North Carolina in 2001.
Since that date, the population-wide rate of child maltreatment
in Durham by official statistics has declined by 67 percent.
We have learned a great deal from scientific research on
the causes of child abuse and neglect in early life. We have
learned that one size does not fit all. Some families become
abusive because of alcohol or opioid or other drug use
problems. Still other families may be maternal depression or
domestic violence or family financial instability or maybe for
a young person, a lack of knowledge about child development and
parenting skills. We know financial stress causes challenges
that make the problem worse. For some parents it is the stress
of a crying baby at 2 o'clock in the morning or in the middle
of the night. On the positive side, we know what can protect
families. Social connectedness to families, friends, pastors,
and professionals can make a difference.
So these diverse needs tell us that one professional
intervention will not solve the problem for everybody, but we
have interventions that can address the needs of different
families. And so what we really face is an engineering problem.
How do we understand individual family needs and then direct
community resources to the right families at the right time,
not to direct resources to all families when they do not need
it and not to let families fall through the cracks.
So we have created the Family Connects approach to
community child abuse prevention. This program is trauma-
informed. It draws on the work from the National Center for
Child Traumatic Stress and the Family Assistance Program and
other good programs.
Family Connects has three pillars. First, we try to reach
every family in the community at the time of birth. We go to
the hospital where the birth occurs. We invite ourselves into
the home. A trained nurse will have one to three home visits,
up to seven contacts with the family. She tries to understand
what that particular family needs. Maybe it is professional
substance abuse treatment. Maybe it is a parenting support
group. Maybe it is an emergency housing loan. She then tries to
connect the family. She does education, universal education on
sleeping and crying and breastfeeding and a number of other
areas. And then she also connects the family to their community
resources that particular family needs.
The second pillar is if we are going to make these
community resource connections, we have to align all the
community resources. In Durham, where I live, we have an
electronic annotated directory of over 400 community agencies
that we have rallied and learned about to help families at the
time of birth. The nurse has this directory at her disposal as
she works with families.
The third pillar is an integrated computer data system that
tracks every family's contacts and progress so that we can be
efficient in our work, we can hold our staff accountable, we
can hold agencies accountable, we cannot direct too many
resources toward one family but spread them out appropriately,
we can track progress and evaluate the impact of what we do.
Now, the Family Connects program is brief. It is temporary.
It is community-wide. It costs about $500 per family for every
family in a community. Many families use less than that. Some
families use more, but that is the average.
Now, we have evaluated the Family Connects impact as
rigorously as we can. We have had two randomized controlled
trials, a third field quasi-experiment, a lot of qualitative
evaluation as well with over 7,000 families in these
experiments and trials so far. Our published evaluations show
that the Family Connects program decreases mothers' anxiety,
increases their confidence, improves parenting, but most
importantly, it reduces official rates of child abuse in a
community by one-third. It also reduces injuries and illnesses
in emergency rooms as detected by official records.
So we are now disseminating the Family Connects program
across the Nation. We are working with 28 communities today. We
plan to grow to several hundred communities. With each new
community, we learn and we adapt the program. We believe
military communities such as the Army's Fort Bragg near
Fayetteville and the Marines? Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville are
terrific opportunities to promote infant healthy development
and prevent child abuse. We believe we can lower the child
abuse rate in these military communities.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dodge follows:]
Prepared Statement by Kenneth A. Dodge
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am a
clinical psychologist, research scientist, and faculty member at the
Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University in North Carolina,
proud home to several large military bases.
Since Dr. Henry Kempe first identified the battered child syndrome
in 1962, most of our Nation's efforts have been devoted to protecting
battered children after the fact of child abuse. This is a never-win
situation because battered children keep coming. As we all know, even
in the military, the rate of child abuse is too high and has not
declined enough in the past several years.
Recently, the field has moved upstream to understand how child
abuse occurs and how to prevent it within families in the first year of
life. We have made progress in helping entire communities lower their
child abuse rate. Our work began in 2001 in Durham, North Carolina.
Since that date, the population-wide rate of substantiated infant abuse
in Durham has declined by over 67 percent.
We have learned a great deal from scientific research on the causes
of child abuse and neglect in early life. Abusive parents are not
necessarily ``evil people'' but rather are struggling due to
circumstances. A large body of research tells us that every family is
at risk after the birth of a child, but the particular reason for risk
varies across families. Alcohol and drug abuse, maternal depression,
and domestic violence are factors for some parents. Lack of knowledge
about child development and parenting skills are common. Financial
stress makes the challenges worse for other families. For some parents,
the stress of a crying baby in the middle of the night can be
overwhelming. On the positive side, we know that social connectedness--
to family, friends, neighbors, pastors, and professionals--can protect
parents from going over the edge.
These diverse needs tell us that no single intervention will help
all families. The field does have intervention programs that rigorous
evaluations have shown are effective for small numbers of families,
such as the Nurse-Family Partnership and Trauma-Focused Cognitive
Behavior Therapy. But these programs by themselves do not solve the
child abuse problem for an entire community. Instead, what we need is a
system that reaches every family but quickly triages and provides
different resources to different families. We must identify each
family's unique needs, address those needs quickly, and match families
in need with professional community resources. What we need is a system
of engineering to understand what a family needs and to connect that
family with the right community resources at the right time. We have
created the Family Connects approach to solve this problem. It builds
on three pillars.
First, we try to reach every family in the community at the time of
birth through one to three home visits. A trained nurse assesses a
family's needs, including screening for depression, domestic violence,
and substance abuse. She provides education in baby feeding, sleep, and
crying; parent self-care and parenting; and child care. She identifies
individualized ongoing concerns and connects parents with community
resources such as professional mental health intervention, parenting
groups, and breast-feeding consultation.
The Family Connects program is brief and temporary. The cost
averages about $500 per family. Many families use less of our time, and
some use more.
In order to make these community resource connections, we create a
second pillar, which is an alignment of community resources. In Durham,
we have created an annotated electronic directory of over 400 agencies
that serve families at birth, including eligibility criteria, cost, and
evidence of effectiveness. The nurse has this directory at her disposal
when she visits a family.
The third pillar is an integrated computer data system that tracks
every family's contacts and progress so that we can be efficient in our
work, monitor staff performance, and be accountable for implementation
and impact.
We have evaluated Family Connects as rigorously as possible,
through two randomized controlled trials and a third field quasi-
experiment. Our published evaluations show that the Family Connects
program decreases maternal anxiety and improves parenting. Most
importantly, it reduces child abuse as indicated by official child
protective service records and illnesses and injuries at emergency
rooms..
We are now disseminating the Family Connects program across the
Nation. We are working with 28 communities today and plan to grow to
over 200 communities. With each new community, we continue to learn how
to adapt the program to particular circumstances and how to improve
impact. We believe military communities, such as the Army's Fort Bragg
near Fayetteville, and the Marines' Camp Lejuene in Jacksonville, offer
both challenges and opportunities to promote infant healthy development
and prevent child abuse.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Dr. Dodge.
Dr. Campbell?
STATEMENT OF DR. JACQUELYN C. CAMPBELL, RN, FAAN, PROFESSOR,
ANNA D. WOLF CHAIR, JOHNS HOPKINS SCHOOL OF NURSING
Dr. Campbell. I want to thank the committee for having us.
I especially want to thank both of you Senators for your
eloquent, informative opening remarks.
I am a nurse researcher at Johns Hopkins University School
of Nursing. I have done research on domestic violence and
health outcomes for more than 20 years. I was a proud member of
the congressionally appointed U.S. Department of Defense Task
Force on Domestic Violence in the military from 2000 to 2003.
In that role, I was able to travel all over the world and
observe and listen to domestic violence survivors, domestic
violence offenders, and those that were trying to deal with
domestic violence in the military. I learned so much about the
military and grew to an even greater level of respect and honor
for all of our armed services at every rank.
Most of the recommendations that we made as part of that
Domestic Violence Task Force were adopted by the military. We
could hear from some of the testimony some of the things that
are supposed to be put into place. The problem is now, of
course, implementation, sustainability, continuous evaluation,
and continuous improvement. That is where I think we have
fallen down.
One of the recommendations we made was to conduct a
systematic population-based, regularly repeated and,
importantly, totally anonymous survey of Active Duty military
women and Active Duty military wives, wives of Active Duty
military men. This was done by the CDC in 2010. It is being
repeated now in 2016 to 2017. Those results have not yet been
made public.
Fortunately, there is good data from that survey about what
was happening to Active Duty military women. What is
unfortunate is part of that survey was questions about injury.
That injury data has never been published. The military has
taken over on that data and has not allowed CDC to publish it.
So we do not know how much injury there was to Active Duty
military women.
We also know that although it is being repeated now, there
is not funding from the military to repeat it after 2016 and
2017. That absolutely has to be done.
From that data, we learned that the domestic violence
against Active Duty military women was very similar to the
amount of domestic violence against civilian women. About 40
percent of civilian women experienced lifetime physical
violence, rape, or stalking by an intimate partner, and about
31 percent of Active Duty military women and 30 percent of the
wives of Active Duty military men. So very similar percentages,
and approximately a third of women in the military experiencing
domestic violence.
For Active Duty military women that translates to 56,000
Active Duty military women who have been abused by a partner or
ex-partner sometime in their lifetime, 40,000 severely
physically abused women by a partner. And even if we look at
the past 3 years, which the rates are lower--and that is
similar to civilian women--21,000 abused in the past 3 years,
9,000 severely abused Active Duty military women in the past
year and 6,000 of the even more severe, repeated physical
violence or sexual assault. And that is every year.
We must use that data intelligently to develop policy and
to do further research on what is reported and what is not
reported to the military. We know that officially reported
domestic violence is far lower than the actual domestic
violence just like we know that about sexual assault.
What is missing from the NISVS [National Intimate Partner
and Sexual Violence Survey], as it is called in CDC, as I
mentioned, is the health outcomes of domestic violence for
Active Duty military women. And we have new science, as Senator
Gillibrand mentioned, about traumatic brain injury that happens
to abused women in the civilian world. We need to apply this
new knowledge to domestic violence victims in the military, as
well as to our soldiers that are injured by blast injuries and
our athletes. This is one of the long-term health outcomes of
domestic violence that we are beginning to discover. We have
known for a long time that women who are abused by their
partners have long-term neurological problems. What we did not
know is why. What we know now from new data--my team published
it in 2017. We have some data from Eve Valera at Harvard
showing definitively that women who are beaten in the head or
have facial injuries, hit in the eye, hit in the ear, fractured
jaws--I always make the analogy. We know what happens to boxers
over time. And domestic violence victims are repeatedly hit in
the face, repeatedly hit in the head, and they are also
strangled, as was mentioned.
Ms. Vega talked about the woman who was strangled by her
partner in front of their 9-year-old daughter, and what was
recommended to her was a protective order. Important, yes, but
what about medical care for that strangulation? We know that
strangulation leads to long-term brain injuries. And what about
counseling for that 9-year-old? That is also incredibly
important so that we can prevent these children that are so
often exposed to domestic violence both in the military and
outside from having that cumulative trauma that we know is so
important in terms of increasing the risk of them using
violence in their adolescent and adult relationships.
We know now that we have to heal from that trauma, as well
as teach kids to do better, that it is not just cognitive
reasoning that makes the difference in whether or not people
use violence. It is also if they have had cumulative trauma.
What that does to the brain--we know much more about that.
We also have really good science now in terms of how to
treat people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the military.
We do a great job of treating with the most advanced
neurological techniques our blast injury victims in the
military who have TBI. We do not do the same for our Active
Duty military women who have TBI from domestic violence. So we
need to routinely screen in all of our Active Duty military
health facilities for those experiencing domestic violence. We
need to do it in a way--and as was talked about in terms of
restricted referrals versus non-restricted reports to military
command, all of that is useful, but we need to be sure to be
screening not for just present domestic violence, but for past
domestic violence. These neurological problems last long after
someone has left an abusive relationship.
We heard from an incredibly brave, smart, resourceful
victim of domestic violence. And I always wonder how well they
have been treated for those long-term medical problems. And we
heard about hers in terms of requiring surgery, et cetera. As
soon as we find a victim of domestic violence in an Active Duty
military setting, we need to make sure that we are using a
traumatic brain injury screen.
There is a modified screen that Kathleen Iverson, who is in
the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs], has used with veteran
women where women can disclose whether or not they have had a
strangulation event and whether or not they have had these
kinds of head injuries that would lead to traumatic brain
injury. And again, it is those repeated blows to the head and/
or strangulation. That is the issue. We can use those to screen
for TBI amongst women, and we can use those to decide how to
best provide treatment for those women for the traumatic brain
injury.
My last note is, first of all, in terms of the other kind
of injury that we too often incur for both civilian and
military women and that is gunshot injuries. What we know now
in terms of--the person we know of is the Texas shooter was so
egregiously violent toward his wife in the military that he was
sentenced to a year in the brig. That is really serious
domestic violence for that to happen. And yet, the record of
that domestic violence did not get into the background check
database. And he legally obtained a firearm. We talk about the
bill. We talk about fix NICS [National Instant Criminal
Background System]. It is not going to fix that problem. We
have to look at that very carefully in terms of how that would
be allowed to happen to make sure it never happens again.
And as I mentioned, in terms of prevention, those kids that
are witnessing domestic violence in terms of treatment for
their trauma so that they do not go on to be using domestic
violence as they grow older.
Thank you.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Dr. Campbell.
Dr. Taft?
STATEMENT OF DR. CASEY T. TAFT, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, BOSTON
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Dr. Taft. Good afternoon, Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member
Gillibrand, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss my observations on domestic violence in
the military.
I am appearing today on behalf of Boston University School
of Medicine and not on behalf of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
The focus of my work is on understanding how domestic
violence develops in servicemembers and veterans and in
developing evidence-based programs to prevent or end that
violence. My programs focus on those engaging in domestic
violence or those who are at risk for violence.
Trauma and PTSD are among the strongest risk factors for
domestic violence. When a servicemember has PTSD, their
domestic violence risk increases threefold. When a
servicemember does not have PTSD, their violence rates are
virtually the same as in civilians. In other words, existing
data suggests that it is the trauma and PTSD that most strongly
drives the risk for domestic violence, not preexisting violent
tendencies in those who join the military.
However, it is also critical to understand that PTSD does
not cause domestic violence. It only increases risk. Although
PTSD is related to higher violence risk, most of those with
PTSD are not domestically violent. In other words, we must not
think of violence as a symptom of PTSD or something that is
inevitable. Those who engage in domestic violence ultimately
make a choice to be violent and are responsible for their own
behavior.
To better understand how trauma increases violence risk, it
is helpful to consider how trauma can alter how we respond in
social situations. When in a war zone or dangerous area, the
servicemember may be extremely alert to threat and learns to
see threats that others do not see. This is obviously adaptive
in a war zone, but when the servicemember returns home, they
may be more likely to develop a mindset where they assume that
others have hostile intentions towards them. They may begin to
falsely assume that their partner is trying to push their
buttons, is cheating on them, or trying to do them harm in some
way. When one assumes the worst in their partners, they will be
more likely to engage in controlling and abusive behavior.
Servicemembers exposed to trauma report that their
experiences have changed the ways that they view the world. For
example, virtually every violent servicemember I have worked
with describes difficulty trusting others. This difficulty
trusting may be due to observing people harming others in the
war zone or perhaps they felt betrayed or did not know whom
they could trust during their traumatic experiences. These
feelings of mistrust can often carry over into intimate
relationships and are often a precursor to coercive and
controlling behavior.
Power and control themes are also important with
servicemembers exposed to trauma. Perhaps they felt powerless
while exposed to trauma and they attempt to exert power and
control in their home environment that they did not have during
their trauma. They may also use more dominating forms of
communication that are effective in a military context but not
in the home context.
We need to take a trauma-informed approach when working
with those who engage in domestic violence, meaning that we
discuss the role of trauma throughout the entire intervention
process. Trauma-informed care is standard in every other area
of intervention, but the domestic violence field has been slow
to adopt it, even with military populations for which trauma
takes on particular importance.
Some worry that by taking a trauma-informed approach, we
are excusing abusive behavior. In fact, when we listen to the
stories that servicemembers tell about their trauma, it lowers
their defenses and they open up and take greater responsibility
for their abuse. If we listen to their stories, they will join
with us and work to end their abusive behavior. We can and
should talk about the role of trauma in abusive behavior, while
emphasizing accountability and personal responsibility at the
same time.
This is not just my theoretical speculation. Through
funding from DOD, CDC, VA, and the Bob Woodruff Foundation, my
team has developed and implemented the Strength at Home
programs, trauma-informed group therapy programs to prevent and
end domestic violence. These are the only programs demonstrated
effective for veterans and servicemembers through randomized
controlled trials. So we now have good evidence that a trauma-
informed approach is the best way forward to prevent and end
domestic violence in servicemembers at risk.
I believe that the military response to domestic violence
is far ahead of the civilian response. Through their Family
Advocacy Programs, DOD uses a coordinated community response to
deal with the problem and has a system for identifying abusive
behavior and getting folks the help that they need. DOD
standards for best practices to deal with domestic violence are
also well thought out and trauma-informed, and that is what
Jackie was just referring to where she was an important part of
that process.
One recommendation that I have is that DOD adopt a system
where they identify only trauma-informed programs truly shown
to be effective to prevent and end military domestic violence
through clinical trials and work to consistently implement
these programs across DOD. Currently there are some programs on
installations that do not meet this standard. This approach
would ultimately benefit military families who experience
domestic violence.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Taft.
And Ms. Barna, I want to thank you and Secretary Wilkie for
having you here.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE BARNA, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Ms. Barna. Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Gillibrand, and
Members of the Subcommittee.
The Department of Defense is committed to preventing and
responding to domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, and
child abuse and neglect in the military community.
On behalf of Mr. Wilkie, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, and the cadre of dedicated and expert
professionals who comprise the DOD family advocacy team, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Department's coordinated community response to
preventing, identifying, and responding to domestic abuse,
child abuse and neglect.
The testimony of Mrs. Perry and Ms. McKinley and Ms. Vega
was both heart-wrenching and deeply concerning from our
perspective. I want each of you to know how much I respect the
courage that you have demonstrated over time and here today in
testifying in pursuing care and justice for those that you
love, for yourself, and in the case of Ms. Vega, for those she
has committed to protect and assist. I deeply appreciated the
opportunity hear what you have to say, and I can assure you
that the Department will work with this committee to be
responsive to the issues that you have raised in your
testimony.
To the members of this committee, I look forward to taking
your questions and to the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barna follows:]
Prepared Statement by Ms. Stephanie Barna
Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Gillibrand, and Members of this
distinguished Subcommittee, the Department of Defense (DOD) is
committed to preventing and responding to domestic abuse/intimate
partner violence and child abuse and neglect in the military community.
On behalf of Mr. Robert Wilkie, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, and the cadre of dedicated and expert
professionals who comprise the DOD Family Advocacy Program team, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to highlight the
Department's efforts to keep our families and children safe and
healthy. Our sincere thanks to you for your continued, stalwart support
of programs that help our servicemembers and their families stay strong
and resilient.
Although domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect are serious
national public health issues, the Department is committed to a
military culture in which domestic abuse and child maltreatment \1\ of
any kind are not tolerated, condoned, or ignored. The welfare and well
being of our servicemembers and their families are imperative to the
readiness of our force. In addressing domestic abuse and child abuse
and neglect, we use a comprehensive approach that promotes awareness,
highlights prevention, emphasizes early intervention, mandates timely
reporting, and utilizes evidenced-based tools to support response and
treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Child maltreatment'' is an umbrella term encompassing both
child abuse and child neglect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
overview of the department's approach--a coordinated community response
Central to the DOD strategy for addressing the multidimensional and
complex nature of domestic abuse and child maltreatment is the
coordinated community prevention and response model, a best practice
adopted from the civilian sector. This model employs the comprehensive
resources of a servicemember's command, medical, military law
enforcement, legal, the chaplaincy, civilian child protective services
(CPS), and other community-based resources to prevent, identify, and
respond to family violence, abuse, and neglect. This dynamic approach
recognizes that, depending on the circumstances, multiple, simultaneous
responses to an incident are necessary and beneficial. Each component
of the coordinated community response effort contributes to the shared
mission of ensuring the safety and welfare of servicemembers and their
families. At the same time, each component is charged to execute its
own unique, but equally important mission. Any element of the
coordinated community response network may receive a report of an
incident of domestic abuse or child maltreatment; receipt of such a
report ``lights up the system,'' initiating reciprocal reporting to
other members of the coordinated community response and signaling each
member to respond to the report as appropriate to its unique mission
and functions. For example, a child abuse allegation involving a
servicemember or family member would involve mandatory reporting to
civilian CPS, which would determine if the allegation meets its
threshold for investigation and intervention. Every child abuse
allegation also mandates a report to military law enforcement, which
determines if law enforcement action, or action by a military criminal
investigative organization is required, with the possibility of
referral to the military Staff Judge Advocate or other legal counsel
action that may include criminal prosecution or other disciplinary or
adverse administrative action. The allegation is also reported to the
servicemember's commander, who determines how the command can best
support the family and what actions should be taken to hold the
offender accountable. Finally, the allegation is reported to the
Department's Family Advocacy Program for immediate assessment and to
ensure victim safety, determination as to whether the incident meets
the Department's definition of child abuse or neglect, and the delivery
of support and clinical services to both the victim and the offender,
as may be appropriate given the individual facts and circumstances of
the case.
These same actions occur when a domestic abuse allegation is
received, \2\ unless the victim has elected to make a ``restricted
report.'' The option of restricted reporting is provided to adult
victims of domestic abuse who wish to receive medical services,
clinical counseling, and victim advocacy support, but do not wish the
chain of command or law enforcement to become involved. It is important
to note that ``restricted report'' procedures are not available with
regard to allegations of child abuse or neglect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Except for reporting to civilian CPS, which occurs only in
cases involving children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinated community response partners work together--through
parallel, but distinct processes. We believe that when each partner
focuses on fulfilling its own critical mission, the Department achieves
a holistic system of prevention and support. For example, while FAP
provides treatment and support to victims, law enforcement is working
to investigate the matter. This separation of functions and lines of
effort ensures that FAP can maintain its primary focus on ensuring
victim safety; providing clinical services to reduce and mitigate
victim trauma; and supporting family re-stabilization, as appropriate;
meanwhile, law enforcement and legal personnel can apply their efforts
and expertise to investigating criminal allegations and prosecuting
offenders, as warranted.
the family advocacy program
The keystone of the Department of Defense's response to domestic
abuse and child maltreatment is the Family Advocacy Program. The
Department's FAP program is designed solely to prevent and address
domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect in military families. The
Department of Defense FAP office is the policy proponent for prevention
and response to domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect. FAP
services are provided through the Military Service FAPs, which foster
awareness of the program across their Service; train leaders,
servicemembers, and their families; and implement initiatives geared to
preventing domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect. Each Military
Service FAP coordinates with CPS, ensures adult and child victim
safety, provides victim advocacy and support, and manages the Incident
Determination Committee (IDC) process for determining if an incident
meets the clinical threshold for intervention services and recording in
the FAP Central Registry--a database for tracking trends across DOD.
Importantly, the Family Advocacy Program recognizes that there
exist unique, military-specific factors that may contribute to domestic
abuse and child abuse and neglect incidents, and provides military-
specific support and services to servicemembers and their families. The
Family Advocacy Program's 5-year Strategic Prevention Plan establishes
a common direction for abuse and neglect prevention efforts across the
Department.
fap oversight
To ensure consistency in the implementation of the FAP across the
Military Services, DOD FAP provides oversight of Service FAP programs,
policies, and procedures, through a comprehensive FAP Oversight
Framework. The objective of the FAP Oversight Framework is to ensure
that all 3 Military Departments, for the four Military Services,
implement and execute a comprehensive FAP--across the domains of
prevention, response, reporting, intervention, treatment, advocacy,
risk management, and safety planning. The goals of the framework are
twofold: compliance, to ensure the Military Services are complying with
applicable law, regulation, and policy; and evaluation, to confirm that
Service FAP programs and efforts meet the high standards established by
Congress, DOD, and the Service's own regulations and policies.
Oversight also includes standardization of processes and procedures,
management of research activities, evaluation of the research results,
implementation of the evidence-based programs, and to the extent
possible, emphasis on the utilization of metrics as the basis for
program compliance and evaluation.
The framework is designed to allow for some customization by each
Service, as may be appropriate to address unique Service-specific
factors, and to fit best with Service identity and culture. Most
importantly, the FAP Oversight Framework ensures that prevention
efforts are focused on identified risk and protective factors; that
clinical assessment and treatment protocols utilizes the best,
evidence-based models; that awareness and education campaigns are
military-specific; and that victim advocacy is guided by the most
current best practices in addressing victim safety and reduction of
risk.
fap process
In general, the FAP reporting and response process begins when FAP
receives an allegation that an incident of domestic abuse or child
abuse or neglect has occurred. The report may come to FAP directly
(such as from the victim or neighbor who may have observed the
incident) or may be forwarded to FAP from another coordinated community
response partner (such as law enforcement, the chain or command, or a
medical care provider). If the incident involves a child, FAP notifies
CPS, military law enforcement, and the commander of the member's
military unit (presuming that these coordinated community response
partners have not already been notified). If physical injury is
involved, FAP makes a referral for medical assessment and treatment, as
well. A FAP clinician responds and performs an assessment to ensure the
safety of the victim and all other family members and to gather
clinical information to determine immediate support needs.
Concurrently, the member's command, military law enforcement, and CPS
execute their respective processes.
Within 30 days of the incident report, the Service FAP IDC will
meet and employ a rigorous and quantifiable evidence-based tool, called
the Decision Tree Algorithm, to determine if the incident meets the
clinical threshold for abuse. If the IDC determines that an incident
``meets criteria,'' the case is referred to a clinical case review
team, which develops an intervention plan. Even if the IDC determines
that the incident does not meet the clinical threshold for abuse, but
that risk factors for potential abuse are present, appropriate
intervention services will be offered to the servicemember and family.
When an allegation of domestic or intimate partner abuse is
received, the victim is immediately offered the services of a domestic
abuse victim advocate. Otherwise, the notification process is the same
as set forth above, except that civilian CPS is not notified. Victims
of domestic and intimate partner abuse may elect to file a ``restricted
report,'' however. When a victim elects to file a ``restricted
report,'' the command and law enforcement are not notified, but all
other medical and victim advocacy support services are provided.
Child Abuse
The Department's definitions of child maltreatment and its policies
for preventing and responding to child abuse and neglect are fully
aligned with the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. In
accordance with the Act, prevention, public awareness, training,
reporting, and treatment are addressed in comprehensive Department
policies. Identification and reporting are considered the
responsibility of all servicemembers, family members, and individuals
in a servicemember's chain of command. By law, covered professionals
(i.e., FAP staff, military law enforcement and criminal investigative
personnel, medical personnel, child care givers) are required to report
directly to the appropriate civilian CPS agency and to FAP any
information that gives reason to suspect that a child in the family or
home of a servicemember has suffered an incident of abuse or neglect.
And, on June 12, 2017, the Department implemented section 575 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017, to mandate
reporting to FAP, by any individual within a servicemember's chain of
command, of any credible information of child abuse or neglect in a
military family.
Domestic Abuse
In order to assist the Department in improving its response to
domestic violence, section 591 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for fiscal year 2000 required the Secretary of Defense to establish
the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. From 2000 to 2003, the
Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of the Department's efforts
to address domestic violence, and generated recommendations that today
remain embedded in prevention and response processes across the
coordinated community response. A key enhancement to the Family
Advocacy Program was the addition of domestic abuse victim advocates to
provide early engagement and support of domestic abuse victims in a
confidential environment.
A victim's decision to report domestic abuse can be a complicated
and traumatic choice, as some victims of domestic abuse may elect to
stay in the relationship with the offender. The Department has long
acknowledged that the stigma and victim re-traumatization often
associated with law enforcement and command involvement in responding
to domestic abuse were powerful disincentives to reporting; yet a
victim who declined to report had little hope of receiving necessary
treatment, care, and support. With a view to resolving this conundrum
in favor of caring for victims, the Department introduced the
``restricted reporting'' option for adult victims of domestic abuse.
A ``restricted report'' is an option for adult victims who do not
want an official investigation of the incident. Victims of domestic
abuse who desire to make a ``restricted report'' must report the abuse
to one of the following specified personnel: a victim advocate, a
healthcare provider, or a FAP clinician or supervisor. Restricted
reporting ensures that every victim has access to medical care,
clinical counseling, support, and victim advocacy services, even if
that victim does not wish to pursue law enforcement or command actions
against the offender. The victim always retains the option to change
the report to ``unrestricted,'' at which time the law enforcement and
the command would be engaged. ``Restricted reporting'' gives adult
victims additional time to consider reporting the domestic abuse
incident to law enforcement or the command, while benefiting from
receiving relevant information, treatment, and support. DOD policy
requires a response that is respectful of the victim's personal
relationship decisions and choice of reporting options.
fap support
The Department is committed to providing services that address
victim safety, respect victim rights, and support stabilizing the
family as a unit, when indicated. Department policy, updated in April
of 2017, addresses both standards of competence for all victim
assistance personnel and standards of service--all of which are
consistent with national victim assistance standards, while remaining
cognizant of the unique needs of the military community. Although many
partners in the coordinated community response model designate victim
advocates, Service FAP clinicians and FAP domestic abuse victim
advocates are assigned specifically to respond to victims of domestic
abuse at the installation level. FAP clinicians are licensed clinical
providers who offer services and support to domestic abuse victims and
to abusers, as well as to children affected by domestic abuse.
Clinicians conduct psycho-social assessments, risk assessments and
safety planning, develop treatment plans, and provide clinical
services. Clinical treatment aims to support the victim, mitigate the
impact of the abuse, and assist the abuser in ending the abusive
behavior. FAP domestic abuse victim advocates are available 24-hours a
day and work directly with victims, provide ongoing safety assessments,
and when needed, accompany victims to court to secure protective
orders, all with a view to reducing the risk of re-offense and
promoting victim and family safety and victim empowerment. Victim
advocacy services are offered to victims with the goal of ensuring that
victims are actively involved in all aspects of their safety and
service plans. FAP clinicians and domestic abuse victim advocates
assess risk and safety on a continual basis while providing services to
victims, to include any safety planning and referrals to civilian
resources or Veterans Affairs if a victim leaves the military system.
The Department is committed to ensuring an appropriate and timely
response to victims and has initiated the development of a staffing
model to ensure that an adequate number of trained FAP clinicians and
victim advocates are always available for this purpose.
FAP is designed to be both preventive and rehabilitative in nature,
and to facilitate clinical treatment for both victims and offenders.
FAP clinical cases are closed as either ``resolved'' or ``unresolved''
based on FAP assessment of victim safety and security and FAP
determinations of the likelihood of offender recidivism. It is
important to note that under the coordinated community response model,
FAP does not conduct criminal investigations of domestic abuse or
neglect, has no role in disciplinary action against servicemembers
found to have engaged in criminal or inappropriate conduct, and does
not track adjudication of cases by law enforcement, the command, or the
judicial system. Under the coordinated community response model, these
other processes are the sole responsibility of Military Service law
enforcement and military criminal investigative organizations, lawyers,
the commander, and duly empowered judges. Under the coordinated
community response model, these other process are separate from FAP,
although law enforcement investigations, command-imposed discipline,
and criminal prosecutions may be conducted in parallel to FAP
processes.
The important distinctions between FAP and these other processes
notwithstanding, FAP clinicians and victim advocates work regularly
with the chain of command to provide information about what the
commander can do to protect and assist the victims of abuse. FAP also
works with Staff Judge Advocates and other legal counsel to refer
victims who qualify for assistance through the Special Victim
Investigation and Prosecution Counsel services.
The Department places specific emphasis on primary and targeted
prevention activities, to include promoting awareness of signs,
symptoms, and risk factors associated with domestic abuse and child
maltreatment, as well as the treatment and rehabilitative services FAP
provides. Department policy requires Service FAPs at the installation
level to promote public awareness of the FAP program, and to provide
training and education to commanders, senior enlisted advisors,
servicemembers and their families, DOD civilian employees, and
contractors about domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect, and on
the services and support available through FAP. The Department also
endeavors to strengthen family functioning and resilience by promoting
the protective factors that serve as buffers to abuse, including
building and sustaining safe, stable, and nurturing family
relationships. Training activities in this vein include information and
classes to assist servicemembers and their families in strengthening
their relationships, building parenting skills, and adapting
successfully to military life.
data collection/reporting and trends in domestic abuse and child abuse
and neglect
Data collection is critical to the Department's efforts to track,
identify, and understand domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect
trends, with a view to informing future prevention and response actions
and initiatives. The FAP Central Registry captures demographic and FAP-
specific clinical data on domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect
incidents that a Service FAP Incident Determination Committee found to
``meet criteria'' for abuse or maltreatment.
It is important to note that measures of accountability (such as
command action), law enforcement data, and legal dispositions related
to domestic abuse and child maltreatment cases are deliberately tracked
via mechanisms separate from the FAP Central Registry. The Department
believes that co-mingling accountability, law enforcement, and legal
disposition data with FAP clinical data, could have significant adverse
consequences and unintended second- and third-order effects. If every
report or referral to FAP is perceived to require a follow-on
investigative, legal, or command disciplinary action, we are likely to
experience a decrease in self-reporting and participation in treatment
for both victims and offenders, as well as a decline in command
referrals for preventive intervention. Similar to the situation that
existed prior to the Department's introduction of the ``restricted
reporting'' option for adult victims of domestic abuse, because a
victim of domestic abuse may choose to stay in the relationship with
the offender, the perception that seeking help through FAP is
inevitably associated with command or legal action that may threaten
family integrity or adversely affect an offender's military career
could make a victim reluctant to seek help through FAP, and in the
process, deprive that victim of necessary care, support, and advocacy
services.
Child Abuse and Neglect
Department policy defines child abuse and neglect [together called
``child maltreatment''] for military families as follows: ``The
physical or sexual abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect of a child by a
parent, guardian, foster parent, or by a caregiver, whether the
caregiver is interfamilial or extra familial, under circumstances
indicating the child's welfare is harmed or threatened. Such acts by a
sibling, other family member, or other person shall be deemed to be
child abuse only when the individual is providing care under express or
implied agreement with the parent, guardian, or foster parent.''
Although the victimization rate for child abuse and neglect per
1,000 military children (5.1 in fiscal year 2016) is approximately half
that of the civilian sector (9.1 in fiscal year 2016 \3\), DOD is
committed to doing all it can to prevent any occurrence of child abuse
or neglect in our military families. To this end, DOD provides FAP
services across the Military Services through licensed clinical
providers, domestic abuse victim advocates, New Parent Support Home
Visitors, and expert prevention staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth, and
Families, Children's Bureau. (2017) Child maltreatment 2016. Available
from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2016, there were 13,916 reports to FAP of suspected
child abuse and neglect. Approximately half of those incidents (6,998)
met the DOD clinical criteria for child abuse and neglect. These ``met
criteria'' incidents involved 4,960 unique child victims. Child neglect
was the largest category, accounting for nearly 59 percent of these
``met criteria'' incidents. Approximately 4 percent of ``met criteria''
child abuse incidents involved sexual abuse.
Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2014, the Department
observed a slight year-to-year upward trend in the rate of incidents of
child maltreatment that ``met criteria.'' To address this trend, DOD
and the Military Services initiated targeted prevention and research
efforts and subsequently implemented programs to target specific risk
factors. Some of these programs were focused on preventing infant head
trauma related to abusive shaking, strengthening father-child bonding,
decreasing distracted parenting, and creating safe sleeping
environments to prevent child suffocation. We continue to administer
these prevention programs diligently, and it is important to note that
this slight upward trend in incidents has not continued in recent
years. As compared to fiscal year 2014, the rate of ``met criteria''
child maltreatment incidents decreased slightly in both fiscal year
2015 and fiscal year 2016.
Domestic Abuse
The Department defines domestic abuse, which includes domestic
violence, as ``a pattern of behavior resulting in emotional/
psychological abuse, economic control, and/or interference with
personal liberty that is directed toward a person who is a current or
former spouse; a person with whom the abuser shares a child in common;
or a current or former intimate partner with whom the abuser shares or
has shared a common domicile.'' DOD policy distinguishes two types of
adult victims under the category of domestic abuse: spouses and
intimate partners. Spouse abuse involves an incident in which either
the victim or offender may be an Active Duty servicemember or the
civilian spouse of an Active Duty servicemember. Intimate partner abuse
is defined as an incident in which either the victim or offender may be
an Active Duty servicemember or civilian partner who is ``a former
spouse, a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, or a
current or former intimate partner with whom the victim shares or has
shared a common domicile.'' Individuals who experience sexual assault
and fall outside of the definition of intimate partner receive services
through the Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program
In fiscal year 2016, FAP received 15,144 reports of suspected
spouse abuse. Approximately half of those incidents (7,651) met the DOD
criteria for domestic abuse. These ``met criteria'' incidents involved
6,033 unique spouse victims. The fiscal year 2016 rates of spouse abuse
reporting and ``met-criteria'' incidents do not indicate significant
increases when compared to the past decade. In fiscal year 2016, there
were 1,022 incidents of ``met criteria'' intimate partner abuse,
involving 847 unique victims. Unlike child abuse and neglect, for which
there exist federal definitions and standards, and which are tracked
nationwide through the Department of Health and Human Services, there
is no standard or centralized mechanism in the civilian sector to track
civilian rates of domestic abuse for comparison to the military
population. This is due, in part, to the fact that each state has
different laws and definitions of domestic abuse, which makes tracking,
aggregation, and comparison of incidents difficult, if not impossible.
initiatives and programs
Although the Department considers our prevention and response
actions to be comprehensive, we recognize that, much like sexual
assault and suicide, domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect present
human factor challenges that require continuous and persistent efforts
to train and educate our leaders, servicemembers, and families, and to
improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of our system.
Notably, DOD is partnering with the University of California Los
Angeles/Duke and the National Child Traumatic Stress Network to train
FAP clinicians and home visitors on trauma-informed care in the
military setting. DOD FAP is also collaborating with the National
Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome to deliver standardized training to new
parents to cope with periods of inconsolable infant crying. In
addition, we collaborate across all four Services and leverage the
resources of Military OneSource, the Department's 24-7/365 virtual
family support information and referral service, to sustain
standardized public awareness messages and provide direct access to
resources that encourage servicemembers and families to seek help early
and often.
Further, DOD is leading several ongoing initiatives to strengthen
our FAP processes. The scope and breadth of these ongoing initiatives
are significant. Once brought to fruition, these initiatives will
affect policies and processes both internal and external to the DOD: we
are working with expert academic partners to develop cutting-edge
clinical tools to aid FAP clinicians in risk assessment and safety
planning; and we are engaging in concerted efforts to inform state
lawmakers of the benefits of requiring reciprocal reporting to FAP by
their state civilian CPS agencies, of child abuse and neglect
allegations involving military families. Finally, the Department is
sponsoring numerous research projects to develop new evidence-based
tools and processes that will enable FAP to better determine risk and
protective factors associated with domestic abuse and child abuse and
neglect, and to enhance the effectiveness of abuse prevention and
response training for commanders, leaders, and first responders.
A brief discussion of some of the Department's major initiatives
and programs follows:
Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse Integrated Project Team
In 2013, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
directed a comprehensive review of all components of the coordinated
community response to domestic abuse and child maltreatment. Two Rapid
Improvement Events resulted in the identification of 37 recommendations
warranting focused attention. An integrated project team of senior
executives and leaders tracked the assessment of these issues. As of
2018, all 37 of the recommendations have been addressed or implemented,
resulting in improvements across all elements of the coordinated
community response system.
Incident Determination Committee (IDC)/ Decision Tree Algorithm (DTA)
The purpose of the IDC, an evidence-based approach designed by
researchers from New York University (NYU), with sponsorship by the
Department of the Air Force, is to determine whether reports of
suspected domestic abuse or child abuse and neglect meet the DOD
definitions of abuse, and thereby must be documented in the FAP Central
Registry. This decision is known as the incident status determination
(ISD). All incidents of alleged abuse or neglect must be presented to
the IDC.
The IDC uses a DTA, also developed by NYU, which was developed and
rigorously tested prior to its implementation DOD-wide. The DTA process
provides the IDC with clear and consistent descriptors of the acts and
the impact on the victim, which in conjunction determine whether the
incident ``meets criteria'' for abuse or neglect. In child sexual abuse
and domestic abuse related sexual assault, the determination as to
whether an incident ``meets criteria'' is based solely on the act. The
DTA provides a consistent, Department-wide process and criteria for
assessing incidents of domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect.
Incident Severity Scales
The Incident Severity Scale is an evidence-based algorithm
developed by researchers at NYU to accurately determine the level of
severity of an incident of domestic abuse or child abuse or neglect.
Historically, abuse and maltreatment incident severity ratings were
based on the FAP clinician's individual clinical judgment. Given the
potentially significant effects of abuse on victims and the
implications for an offender's rehabilitation, FAP committed to
ensuring that its evaluations of incident severity were evidence-based
and implemented the Incident Severity Scale's proven algorithm to
enhance the accuracy and consistency of its assessments. Continued
monitoring by DOD and Service FAPs, supplemented by implementation
support provided by the Penn State University's Clearinghouse for
Military Family Readiness through the Department's partnership with the
United States Department of Agriculture, will ensure that the Incident
Severity Scale accurately reflects the severity of ``met criteria''
domestic abuse and child maltreatment cases.
Intimate Partner Physical Injury Risk Assessment Tool
The Intimate Partner Physical Injury-Risk Assessment Tool (IPPI-
RAT), developed by researchers from Kansas State University and
Northern Illinois University, is an evidence-based tool used to predict
and manage the risk of domestic and intimate partner violence with
physical injury among individuals (both males and females) who have
already experienced any incident of domestic or intimate partner
violence, whether or not the initial incident involved physical abuse
or injury. The IPPI-RAT was developed through extensive research funded
by the DOD and Service FAPs and has been rolled out for use DOD-wide.
This tool was designed specifically for use by FAP clinical providers
as part of the comprehensive clinical assessment completed when an
incident of domestic or intimate partner violence is reported. The
IPPI-RAT is military-specific and has been determined to be as accurate
as the best available civilian-sector instruments using similar risk
measures. Standardized training on the application of the IPPI-RAT is
available, and the tool is supplemented by a field-tested user's
manual.
New Parent Support Program (NPSP)
The NPSP is a prevention program used across DOD to provide
intensive, voluntary home visitation and support services to expectant
and new parents of children from birth to age 3. Families may self-
refer or may be referred by military or civilian service providers for
voluntary screening, assessment, and services. NPSP services include:
(1) screening for risk and protective factors associated with child
abuse and neglect; (2) parent education and support targeted to the
developmental needs of the infant or young child; (3) promoting
nurturing and attachment to support the social and emotional
development of children; (4) strengthening formal and informal social
support; (5) referrals to concrete services and resources during times
of need; and (6) building coping skills and strategies to strengthen
family resilience.
New Parent Support Program Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Project
The NPSP CQI Project is an evaluation of the NPSP across the four
Services. The evaluation plan was co-developed by the DOD FAP, NPSP
Program Managers, and research and evaluation scientists at the Penn
State University's Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness.
The objectives of the CQI are to test a common evaluation plan for
NPSP at four installations, assess both current and potential measures
for accurately identifying decreases in a family's risk for child
maltreatment and unhealthy parenting practices, understand how
variations in program implementation may impact program outcomes, and
provide home visitors with tools that could help them better identify
and meet the needs of NPSP families. The NPSP CQI program evaluation
runs through fiscal year 2018.
Period of PURPLE Crying
The DOD Period of PURPLE Crying Program is an evidence-based
prevention program to prevent abusive head trauma in infants related to
shaking. The program is a delivered in ``3 doses'' through the New
Parent Support Program and in military medical inpatient post-natal
departments.
The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome (NCSBS) converted the
Period of PURPLE Crying shaken baby syndrome prevention program into a
mobile and web app (PURPLE app) to enable military families to access
program information about infant crying and the dangers of shaking a
baby, from any smartphone, tablet, or computer. The NCSBS also
developed a web-based training platform for military service providers
to receive training about infant crying, soothing, coping, the dangers
of shaking a baby, and the process for providing military families with
the PURPLE app, by which the military service provider can generate
access codes that permit a military family to activate the PURPLE app
on up to five devices. All NPSP home visitors are required to complete
the service provider training, which allows them to teach parents
enrolled in NPSP about the Period of PURPLE Crying with fidelity and to
supply PURPLE app access codes to new parents.
Family Foundations
Family Foundations is a series of participatory classes for
expectant and new parents. This evidence-based program helps prepare
couples for parenthood by fostering attitudes and skills related to
positive family relationships, particularly positive parenting
teamwork. National Institutes of Health-funded and subsequent research
has shown Family Foundations to be effective in all targeted domains:
parenting, couple relations, and parent and child well being.
Approximately 250 FAP personnel have been trained to offer Family
Foundations to parents.
National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN)
The NCTSN, co-led by experts from the University of California Los
Angeles (UCLA) and Duke University, is a unique collaboration of
academic and community-based service centers, whose mission is to raise
the standard of care and increase access to services for traumatized
children and their families across the United States. Combining
knowledge of child development, expertise in the full range of
childhood traumatic experiences, and attention to cultural
perspectives, the NCTSN serves as a national resource for developing
and disseminating evidence-based interventions, trauma-informed
services, and public and professional education.
DOD FAP has partnered with the NCTSN. Through this project, NCTSN
is developing the ``Academy of Child Traumatic Stress'' and an
interactive website, ``NCTSNAcademy.org,'' to provide FAP and NPSP
staff with comprehensive training in trauma-informed care and
continuing education units on childhood traumatic stress and specific
practices to address the trauma associated with specific types of child
abuse and neglect. The site offers a unique blend of social and multi-
media activities to enhance staff learning through self-paced events
and live, interactive webinars.
Training consists of 3 main courses--Foundational Knowledge, Core
Curriculum on Child Trauma/Problem-Based Learning, and Trauma-Specific
Practices. Additionally, supplemental information and resource
libraries are available to FAP and NPSP providers. An online wellness
center offers the practitioner opportunities to learn and practice
self-care activities when working with demanding and complex child and
family trauma cases. NCTSN will equip FAP and NPSP staff with the most
informed, effective, cutting-edge tools and resources to support our
military servicemembers and families.
Collaboration with Federal and External Civilian Agencies
Servicemembers and their families belong to a unique military
community, but are also citizens of the larger society. In addition to
efforts internal to the Department, FAP endeavors to address domestic
abuse and child abuse and neglect through extensive active engagement
and collaboration with our federal partners and other civilian agencies
with experience in addressing similar challenges, including:
The Department Of Health and Human Services Office on
Child Abuse and Neglect
The Department of Veterans Affairs
The National Domestic Violence Hotline
The Department of State Family Advocacy Program
The Department of Justice
The Federal Interagency Working Group on Violence Against
Women
The Federal Interagency Working Group on Child Abuse and
Neglect
The Federal Committee on Women and Trauma
Research
The Department places great importance and significant emphasis on
developing the best possible understanding of human factor-related
behaviors, like domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect. Research
represents a critical component of the Department's comprehensive
effort to address these complex issues.
Currently underway are two research projects focused on domestic
abuse and child maltreatment. The first is a two-part study to identify
``Military-specific Risk Factors Associated with Child Abuse and
Neglect,'' in progress at the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences (USUHS). Part I of the study will compare demographic,
family, and military experience data associated with active duty
military families (servicemembers, spouses, and children) who
experienced one or more ``met criteria'' incidents of child abuse or
neglect between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, to a propensity
score-matched sample of active duty military families who had one or
more dependent children during 2014, but no history of child
maltreatment. Analysis of these data will allow USUHS to frame a model
of risk and protective factors for military child abuse and neglect
that will inform a follow-on comprehensive analysis of data from fiscal
years 2004 to 2014. Part II of the study will employ a comprehensive
retrospective examination of demographic and health care data to model
the course of the military experience and dynamics of families who
experienced at least one incident of ``met criteria'' child abuse or
neglect during an 11-year period (October 1, 2003 through September 30,
2014). The study findings will contribute to the development of a risk
and protection model that will inform policy and practice approaches to
preventing child abuse and neglect, above and beyond the best practices
the Department has already established.
RAND is conducting a second study on ``Improving Resources to
Reduce and Remedy Violence and Maltreatment within Military Families''.
This study has as its goal the identification and assessment of
military and civilian resources directed toward the response to, and
reduction of, violence in military families. The study will incorporate
information pertaining to active duty families who live on a military
installation, active duty families who live in local civilian
communities, and families of Reserve and National Guard members who
live in the civilian community. The information gleaned from this
study, expected to be completed in by the end of calendar year 2018,
will result in recommendations for strategies to enhance awareness of,
and increase access to, resources for military families experiencing
family violence.
Fatality Reviews
Family violence fatalities reflect the most serious breakdown in
family well-being. In an effort to understand and learn from the
circumstances involved in domestic and child abuse fatalities, the
Department has directed the Military Departments to establish fatality
review teams, conduct annual fatality reviews, and provide the
summarized results of their reviews to the DOD. An annual DOD Fatality
Review Summit is subsequently convened to review and discuss the
findings and recommendations of the Military Department fatality review
teams.
DOD FAP invites federal partners and experts on child abuse and
domestic violence fatality reviews from the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Department of Justice, the National Resource Center
on Domestic Violence, and the Defense Centers of Excellence--, Violence
Prevention and Resilience Directorate, to participate in these heart-
wrenching, but necessary Fatality Review Summits. This rich
collaboration provides information on military and civilian sector
trends and promotes an exchange of ideas on strategies to improve the
quality of fatality reviews and identify best practices in the review
process. Most importantly, the collaboration seeks to identify areas of
focus that will contribute meaningfully to the reduction and
elimination of abuse-related fatalities. The Period of PURPLE Crying
initiative resulted directly from observations generated through the
fatality review process.
conclusion
The Department of Defense is committed to continuing its efforts to
seek, develop, and implement processes and practices that provide the
highest caliber of support for families impacted by domestic abuse and
child abuse and neglect. Through our Family Advocacy Program, we will
continue to focus on prevention and rehabilitation, striving always for
a military community that fosters safe, healthy, and resilient
relationships. We are acutely aware that there is much more work to be
done and we pledge our unflagging efforts to effectively preventing and
responding to domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect in the
military. We need and welcome the continued interest and support of
this Subcommittee, and the Congress, in advancing this essential work.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Tillis. Thank you very much, Ms. Barna.
Dr. Dodge, thank you for coming up here, first and
foremost, and your work. I think that your review of the Durham
experience since 2008 was extraordinary. I mean a reduction of
over 60 percent, going from a community that was above the
State average that was itself above the national average and
doing the work that you have done proves that it works.
I immediately want to how you pay for it and also how you
measure the benefits, and I think you have a very good story to
tell there.
If you could briefly talk about some of the ways that you
believe there is a compelling economic positive impact, I would
like to talk about that, and then we will also make sure that
our staff follow up because I think what you are doing there
could serve as a basis for something that we should identify a
way to pilot, work with the Department, and identify a way to
have a public-private partnership as you have done in so many
other places now across the country. But if you could briefly
talk a bit about the savings. We have the most important thing,
which is the benefit to the family, but the savings and the
other positive impacts that I think build a compelling fiscal
case.
Dr. Dodge. Thank you, Senator Tillis. Yes.
If we look merely at the two primary outcomes of reducing
emergency room visits in the first 2 years of life for
illnesses and injuries and reducing official child protective
services investigations for child abuse, we find in Durham that
we save at least $3 for every dollar that we spend in the
program in the first 2 years of life. We continue to do these
economic studies as children get older, and we are doing them
in our other communities as well. So I think there is a good
economic case to make.
Part of the problem is we, of course, cannot in the
meantime stop serving those already battered children and
abused children. So there is an investment that needs to be
made. I think that is the nature of it.
Second, as far as how do we pay for it. We are in 28
communities across the Nation, and each community pays for it
in different ways. In Durham, the county commissioners have
elected to use tax dollars to pay for one little part of it.
Philanthropy pays for another part of it. We capture some
modest Medicaid funding for part of it. And we capture some
State grants as well. In other communities, we have found that
private, for-profit health care agencies will pay for it or
have paid for it in several communities perhaps because they
think it is a good thing for their clients, their patients,
perhaps because it is good public relations, but also perhaps
because they realize it will save them dollars down the road in
the long run. So I think it is a combination of public funds,
private funds, and nonprofit, philanthropy.
In military communities I think it can be a combination of
the military plus the surrounding community. So I know fairly
well Fayetteville, Cumberland County in our State of North
Carolina where we are beginning to interact with Cumberland
County, and that community could provide some resources but
also the Army's Fort Bragg could provide some resources for
those families. So I think there are creative possibilities
here.
Senator Tillis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Barna, probably this is the first time you have heard
of this particular program, but I would like an opportunity for
us to maybe talk about it and see if there is some way to
explore an application on a pilot basis or possibly other
programs that we can at least possibly make some headway for
the support of military families.
Ms. Barna. Absolutely, sir. We would be happy to do it. We
are familiar with Dr. Dodge's work. We are great admirers of
it, and we would be very interested in the outcomes of the
current pilots.
Senator Tillis. Thank you very much. Senator Gillibrand?
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Dr.
Taft, can you elaborate on the types of barriers researchers
and clinicians face when trying to start these types of
programs?
Dr. Taft. Barriers in starting the program on an
installation?
Senator Gillibrand. Correct. Prevention programs for
military families.
Dr. Taft. Right. So we actually have a DOD-funded clinical
trial/implementation study right now at Madigan, Lewis-McChord
where we are trying to implement our couples-based prevention
program. And this is a program that is focused on preventing
violence in couples at risk, so before there is any violence
going on at all. And we have shown through a CDC trial that it
is effective. We compared in a clinical trial to support
groups, and it was more effective than that.
So we are now attempting to implement this on an
installation currently. To be honest, up to this point, we have
been trying get through the military IRB [institutional review
board] for like 2 years. So that has been our primary barrier
thus far.
But I think the most important thing is getting buy-in, and
our experience has been reaching out to the partners, to the
family members is probably the most successful approach rather
than reaching out directly to the servicemembers who do not
necessarily want to go to couples therapy or any kind of
conflict prevention kind of program.
So I think the biggest challenge is reaching directly to
the partners, finding ways to reach them. When we did our
clinical trial, we reached them through Strong Bonds retreats,
through Yellow Ribbon events. Anyplace where we thought we
could talk to partners directly that is where we would go.
Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Dodge, I understand that our
youngest children are at the greatest risk of fatality from
abuse and neglect. And I remember how difficult it was as a new
mother, and I cannot imagine what it would be like to go
through that kind of experience without a strong support
system.
So what are the barriers that families seeking help
encounter when it comes to caring for their children? And are
there policies and procedures that would reduce these barriers
to seek help and the stigma of child abuse and neglect that
would make prevention programs more accessible?
Dr. Dodge. Yes. Thank you for that question.
There are barriers that we have learned about from
interacting with families over time.
One barrier is the stigma of reaching out for help with
mental health problems, with financial problems, even with
child care problems.
Another barrier is the belief that one should do it alone.
One of the things we say to mothers in the hospital room after
giving birth is we congratulate the mother and we welcome the
baby in the community. We say every parent can be successful,
but no parent has ever been successful alone. We are successful
by surrounding ourselves with others. So we try to set up that
norm in the family's eyes so that they do not feel that they
have to do it alone.
There are ways to overcome those barriers. Our approach is
universal. Every family is offered the opportunity. So there is
no stigma. So there is no belief that you have to do it alone
or should even do it alone, but it is universal.
But of course, we do not want to spend thousands of dollars
on every family. So we have to have a way to triage and to get
the resources to the right families at a particular time.
So there are barriers, but I think we can overcome them
with a universal public health kind of approach.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Ms. Barna, currently we do not have numbers reflecting the
estimated prevalence of child abuse and intimate partner
violence in the military, only the reported cases. Why does the
Department of Defense not survey military members and their
dependents to try to establish an estimated rate of prevalence
so that we have a better idea of the scope of the problem?
Ms. Barna. Senator Gillibrand, we have heard you, and we
are in the process of actually incorporating questions about
domestic violence in our military spouse survey. There are
questions about domestic violence and abuse that will be
inserted into our workplace gender relations survey.
It is always, of course, a challenge for us to endeavor to
survey children in an effort to ascertain prevalence. Our
concern is that such a survey would be quite skewed simply
because our practice is that for children under the age of 18,
we would certainly require parental consent, and that we likely
would not receive such consent from households where abuse is
ongoing. And as well, just the challenge of interviewing and
soliciting the children's response makes that kind of
prevalence survey very challenging.
But we are hopeful that the military spouse survey and
again the gender workplace relations survey--
Senator Gillibrand. You could get some of it from the
spousal survey I suspect.
The Family Advocacy Program publishes a report each year
containing the number of the reported allegations of child
abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence and the number
of cases that met the criteria of the program's guidance.
However, in the annual report, there is no data on the outcome
of such cases in terms of prosecution by civilian or military
authorities, recidivism rates, or treatment outcomes.
Can you give us guidance on why Family Advocacy does not
track and report this data?
Ms. Barna. Actually I can speak from a couple of
perspectives there.
The Family Advocacy Program is focused persistently first,
foremost, always on the victim. Our primary concern is the
victim. We have concern for the offender, and certainly we will
offer treatment to an offender where treatment is suggested and
the offender will participate. But it is all with a view to
helping the victim. And so we do not really get involved other
than as part of the coordinated community response in the law
enforcement, the legal, and the command response to holding the
offender accountable.
We do have great concern that if victims were to regularly
perceive that our objective is offender accountability, victims
would not come to us, that they would be hesitant to, as you
heard today, ruin the careers of people that they care about,
people with whom they may share a child.
We also have concerns that commanders who today would
preventatively refer a servicemember to us say this individual
needs service would not do it.
And finally, there are practical concerns. If you saw in my
statement our discussion of fatality reviews, we complete
fatality reviews only after the accountability process is done,
meaning that we are 3 years behind in fatality reviews. So you
are seeing our fatality reviews of cases where the
accountability actions have only been completed and it is 3
years later in time. We do not want to wait 3 years to provide
you with data about how our victims and, in some cases, how our
offenders are responding to treatment.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tillis. Well, thank you all. And, Dr. Campbell, I
think your point on getting sufficient data is critically
important for us to instruct us in terms of additional actions
we need to do here.
This hearing is not a once-and-done moment. It is a
process. I think Senator Gillibrand and I are very focused on
this issue, as evidenced by the fact we held this hearing, but
what is even more important is the dialogue that follows. So,
Ms. Barna, we will be following up with the Department and to
each one of you.
We will keep the record open through Tuesday of next week.
We may submit questions to you for the record. If you are able
to respond, we would appreciate it.
But more importantly, as you track what we are doing here,
please make sure you contact my office and the Ranking Member's
office for any suggestions and improvements that we can make.
Thank you all.
And again, Ms. Perry, Ms. McKinley, thank you for your
courage. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that
your stories are becoming fewer and fewer until we can get them
to be none. Thank you so much, and thank you for traveling
here.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
talia's law
1. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 contained a provision known as
``Talia's Law'' requiring any person within the chain of command to
immediately report suspected child abuse or neglect. That could
potentially mean personnel from rank of E4 to O10 that will all need to
be adequately trained on this requirement as well as how to recognize
the signs of child abuse.
Ms. Barna, how is DOD monitoring the services' compliance with this
requesting?
Ms. Barna. USD P&R issued a memo to all of the Military Departments
on June 12, 2017 providing notification of the new legislation and
requiring that DOD and Service-level policies be updated in accordance
with the new law. DOD Instruction 6400.01 and DOD Manual 6400.01,
Volume 1 were reissued with a Change 2 to include the statutory
language on reporting requirements and were both published March 16,
2018. The Service Family Advocacy Programs (FAP) were informed and
tasked with the responsibility to monitor compliance. OSD FAP monitors
compliance with policy through quarterly meetings with the Services.
Service FAP Managers are scheduled to present at the Quarterly FAP
Managers' meeting in July 2018 to provide information to OSD FAP on
their compliance, to include Service-level policy modifications and any
training plans they may have developed. OSD FAP is reviewing additional
monitoring processes to include on-site monitoring visits with the
Services.
While the Department is required to notify civilian authorities of
all allegations, civilian Child Protective Services (CPS) staff are not
required by law to notify FAP if and when they receive reports
involving military families. Therefore, some incidents may be unknown
to FAP, even though those incidents involve military families. To
address this gap, the DOD Defense State Liaison Office is working to
educate states about the need for state legislation that would require
civilian CPS agencies to notify FAP when they receive reports of child
abuse and neglect involving military families.
2. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, how is DOD evaluating whether the
training is adequate and are there any requirements on who presents the
training?
Ms. Barna. DOD policy states that qualified Family Advocacy Program
(FAP) trainers, as defined in accordance with Service FAP headquarters'
implementing policy and guidance, conduct training on child abuse and
domestic abuse in the military community. FAP trainers may also assist
with providing subject matter experts who conduct this training.
Through the reissuance of FAP policies, effective March 2018, the
Department has complied with the statute in promulgating regulations to
require reporting to the Family Advocacy Program. Through its oversight
function, OSD FAP will represent the Department in monitoring Service
compliance with the law and associated policies, to include any
training or public awareness plans the Services develop to support the
requirement to report suspected child abuse and neglect to the FAP.
Service FAP Managers are scheduled to present at the Quarterly FAP
Managers' meeting in July 2018 to provide information on their
compliance.
intimate partner violence
3. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, I understand that the majority of
survivors of intimate partner violence are female. However, as you
know, boys and men can be survivors of child abuse and intimate partner
violence as well. I'm concerned about the stigma surrounding this type
of violence for male servicemembers or partners. Unfortunately, I know
of one particular instance in which a military investigator actually
said the following during an investigation of intimate partner
violence, ``I didn't know a male could be sexually assaulted by a
female.'' What is the Department of Defense doing to change the culture
and stigma for male survivors?
Ms. Barna. The DOD Family Advocacy Program (FAP) recognizes the
history and persistent potential in both the military and civilian
community for stigma against male victims of family, and especially
sexual, violence that may prevent them from reporting and seeking help.
Currently, data suggest that victims of either gender feel comfortable
reporting domestic abuse incidents to FAP; in fiscal year 2017,
approximately one-third of spouse abuse victims (36 percent) and
intimate partner abuse victims (29 percent) in met-criteria incidents
of domestic abuse were male. While a direct comparison to the civilian
population is not available due to the absence of a centralized
domestic violence reporting mechanism, these statistics represent
slightly higher numbers than those estimated in the civilian sector
from sources such as the Centers for Disease Control through their
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey and the National
Coalition on Domestic Violence.
To increase awareness of prevalence and unique risk factors in male
victimization, OSD FAP has funded several literature reviews, to
include a 2017 review by the University of Minnesota Center for
Research and Outreach (REACH) which evaluates and identifies strategies
for engaging males and encouraging reporting, to identify best
practices for positive outcomes. OSD FAP is using these findings to
guide policy and to improve and standardize services DOD-wide. The
Department has also made significant steps to more proactively support
male victims of domestic abuse, to include a requirement that all
victim advocates are trained in gender bias, unique considerations, and
best practices for responding to male victims.
When abuse is reported, FAP uses clinical assessments that are
objective to ensure safety of the victim based on circumstances of the
incident, including separate interviews with both victim and alleged
offender, as well as reports from external sources such as command,
medical, law enforcement, and civilian authorities. The installation
Incident Determination Committee likewise uses objective criteria to
determine whether the case meets standardized DOD criteria for child
abuse and neglect or domestic abuse.
Finally, the Department is very deliberate in its use of diverse
and gender-neutral images and content in public awareness materials
related to parenting, healthy intimate relationships, domestic abuse,
parenting, and reporting options for victims/survivors of domestic
abuse.
family advocacy program
4. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, I understand from your testimony
that the Family Advocacy Program does not track and publish data on the
outcome of cases in terms of prosecution by civilian or military
authorities or other administrative action by the command because it
does not want to chill survivors from utilizing prevention and support
services from the program. But, there are other entities that collect
this data that could report on this. Why doesn't DOD compile
information from the military criminal investigative organizations to
publish the data without connecting it to the family advocacy program?
Ms. Barna. The Department is currently working with the Military
Criminal Investigation Organizations and Components on a review to
determine what system(s) are currently available that can be modified
to collect outcome data. This review was started in May 2018, and we
anticipate a way forward by October. We do know that any modification
to current systems will require funds that have not been included in
the fiscal year 2019 budget.
5. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, I know that it is part of DOD
policy to encourage installations to enter into memorandums of
understanding with local, civilian authorities and agencies to
encourage information sharing and better response to incidents of
domestic violence and child abuse. However, it is unclear whether this
policy is being met. Is DOD regularly evaluating compliance with this
policy? If so, please describe the results of any such evaluation and
any efforts to bring the services into full compliance.
Ms. Barna. Cross-communication and collaboration among military and
civilian stakeholders is critical to the overall effectiveness of
efforts to prevent, respond to, and provide services related to
domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect. Department, Service, and
installation FAP policies direct efforts to establish reciprocal
agreements in the civilian community for the purposes of information
sharing and service delivery. Agreements are executed at the
installation level, as the Departments and Military Services recognize
that each community will require a customized approach due to specific
characteristics of the locality. Thus, the Military Services assume the
oversight role for facilitating agreements and ensuring compliance with
DOD and Service-level policy.
The presence of current and accurate agreements between FAP and
civilian counterparts, such as child welfare service organizations and
domestic violence shelters, is a Service-level FAP inspection and/or
certification item assessed on an annual or triennial basis. OSD FAP
conducts oversight of adherence to all FAP policy through quarterly in-
person meetings with Service FAP leaders and periodic oversight
activities.
domestic violence and traumatic brain injury
6. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, we heard from civilian
researchers and experts that a best practice is to routinely screen and
evaluate patients for domestic violence and traumatic brain injury. Can
you please explain what current programs are in place to train medical
providers, first responders, and other response personnel (i.e. victim
advocates, law enforcement, prosecutors, etc.) on the signs and
symptoms of traumatic brain injury and how the presence of such might
impact the respective services provided to that survivor?
Ms. Barna. The Department of Defense's (DOD) Traumatic Brain Injury
Center of Excellence (DVBIC) provides traumatic brain injury (TBI)
training and education for Military Health System health care
providers, Active Duty servicemembers, supervisors, unit commanders,
veterans, and families. DVBIC experts provide training on TBI
mechanisms, assessment, management, and recovery after mild TBI, also
known as concussion. Although not specific to domestic violence as a
cause of injury or designed for law enforcement, prosecutors, etc.,
such trainings cover the causes and effects of TBI (which may include
TBI caused by domestic violence and sexual assault), prevention,
screening (including signs and symptoms of TBI), assessment, and
treatment.
dod data collection/surveys
7. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, in your testimony, you mentioned
that you are in the process of incorporating questions regarding
prevalence of domestic violence in the ``spouse survey'' as well as
into the workplace and gender relations survey of active duty members
conducted by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.
Can you please explain which spouse survey you are referring to?
Ms. Barna. The Department anticipates that a general proxy for
prevalence of domestic abuse behaviors will be available from the
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) in early
2019, which included both a sample of active duty women and military
spouses.
Finally, FAP is currently working with the Department's Office of
People Analytics to begin the process of leveraging or modifying
existing Federal or Defense Department surveys to include questions on
experiences of domestic abuse. This process will rely on developing a
methodology which aligns with industry standard survey sampling and
methods and convening a panel of experts to guide adaptation and
testing of a behaviorally-based measure. The goal of this approach
would be to ultimately generate a biannual prevalence rate for domestic
abuse in the future. Due to the reliable sampling and weighting methods
used, this approach would yield estimates which are generalizable to
the military spouse population (or population of military members.)
8. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, if you intend to ask questions of
servicemembers and spouses regarding domestic violence, why wouldn't
you also ask questions in these two surveys about child abuse
prevalence?
Ms. Barna. A scientific survey to accurately assess the prevalence
of child abuse and neglect is not recommended due to concerns that such
a survey would underestimate the prevalence of abuse and neglect.
Asking questions to servicemembers and spouses regarding their
participation in behaviors that constitute child abuse and neglect is
not likely to yield reliable estimates, as respondents would have a
significant disincentive to provide this information to the Department.
The Department has additional concerns with maintaining the
confidentiality of respondents, should spouses or servicemembers
indicate they currently (or had previously) engaged in such potentially
abusive behaviors towards their children, given that there are
regulations in place that mandate the reporting of abusive behaviors to
the DOD Family Advocacy Program and Child Protective Services. Such
responses may trigger Human Subject protection issues and Office of
People Analytics survey practices that require breaking confidentiality
with respect to respondents when harm to self or others is indicated.
Further, similar concerns of underestimated prevalence arise with
the alternate method of surveying military children about their
experiences. The majority of victims of child abuse and neglect in
military families are five years old or younger. Due to inherent
limitations on surveying children this young, estimates would fail to
capture rates among this core population, thereby underestimating the
scope (e.g., if the survey is unable to capture the group most likely
to experience abuse and neglect, the survey estimates will be lower
than the true population rate).
In addition, regulations on the protection of human research
participants typically require parental consent to survey minors. The
Department has concerns that requiring parental consent may result in
systematically lower response rates for those children who have a
history of abuse or neglect and whose parents may not consent to their
taking the survey. This would introduce ``response bias'' towards
children who have not experienced these behaviors, which may further
skew estimates.
9. Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Barna, are you working with any outside
researchers to develop these questions? If so, who?
Ms. Barna. Family Advocacy Program (FAP) staff have extensive
research knowledge of this issue area and regularly consult with
experts and researchers (both within and outside DOD) in the fields of
domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect. OSD FAP has not yet engaged
outside researchers in the development of survey questions, but is
working with survey researchers at the Office of People Analytics (OPA)
to begin the process of adding a question (or questions) to generate a
prevalence rate of domestic abuse in the military. OPA staff have
experience investigating sensitive topics such as sexual harassment,
sexual assault, and suicide ideation in military populations.
It is critical that whichever metric or measure is selected has
been thoroughly pre-tested to ensure respondent comprehension and is
scored for the highest level of reliability. Therefore, in the interest
of expediency, the Department is first researching and reviewing
existing questions/modules which have been used on prior surveys (both
military and civilian) and validated to accurately estimate prevalence.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
tracking and reporting domestic violence cases
10. Senator McCaskill. Ms. Barna, what steps has DOD taken in the
past six months to ensure that cases of domestic violence are
accurately reported to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) and that the individual running a background check
can easily identify that an individual has a domestic violence
conviction?
Ms. Barna. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does have a
separate offense regarding intimate partner violence, Article 128b--
Domestic Violence.
11. Senator McCaskill. Ms. Barna, the Lautenberg Amendment bans
access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence,
even misdemeanor crimes. Many states have separate criminal offenses
for domestic violence. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not
have a separate offense regarding intimate partner violence is that
correct? Has DOD considered any changes to address this issue? If so
what are they? If not, why not?
Ms. Barna. Possibly. Since Article 128b's enactment the Department
is carefully observing its impact on identifying and tracking domestic
violence cases in the military.
12. Senator McCaskill. Ms. Barna, do you believe that creating a
separate domestic violence offense within the UCMJ may resolve some of
the issues with identifying and tracking domestic violence cases in the
military?
Ms. Barna. Possibly. Since Article 128b's enactment the Department
is carefully observing its impact on identifying and tracking domestic
violence cases in the military.
special victim counsel
13. Senator McCaskill. Ms. Barna, as you know, the Special Victims
Counsel program has been popular among survivors of military sexual
assault. The most recent DOD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the
Military reported that 80 percent of survivors who interacted with SVCs
were satisfied with the service provided to them, more than any other
victim service provided by the military. In fact I believe that that
state and local governments while may not be able to replicate such a
program could definitely learn from it.
Ms. Barna, what impact would expanding the SVC program to include
victims of domestic violence have on DOD?
Ms. Barna. The Department would require additional resourcing and
end strength and risks a significant reduction in the quality of
services currently provided. Additionally, if implemented, a longer
period is needed to train and field additional SVCs.
Domestic violence offenses consume substantially more resources
than other violence offenses. This is due in large part to the
increasingly complex trial and legal assistance issues involved in
domestic violence cases, such as a history of violence, child custody
matters, divorce proceedings, victims re-uniting with their attackers,
victims recanting allegations, victims who rely on their attackers for
support, and protective orders and violations of protective orders.
Because this expansion would include a large number of non-sexual
domestic violence victims, the impact would likely be greater than
numbers alone might suggest.
Should a Congressionally required expansion of SVC eligibility
occur the Military Departments need at least one year to develop,
train, equip, and field the additional SVCs and support personnel
necessary to handle the expanded workload.
14. Senator McCaskill. Ms. Barna, what impact would it have on the
SVCs representation of sexual assault victims?
Ms. Barna. The SVC program for each of the Military Departments is
at near-maximum capability under the current eligibility guidelines,
expanding eligibility would take the SVC programs beyond acceptable
caseload levels to provide adequate representation. In total, the SVC
programs are representing more than 4,000 victims of sex-related
offenses. The optimal case load for a SVC is 25 cases or fewer, with 30
cases as the maximum permissible before encountering an unacceptable
degradation of services. Under current manning, the Military
Departments are averaging about 27 active cases per SVC right now.
There is, therefore, little room for expansion without suffering a
significant degradation in services.
Currently, each of the Military Departments has a process for
expanding SVC eligibility on a case-by-case basis. This process allows
a reasonable expansion of services within resource constraints.