Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Strengthen Implementation  
and Oversight of DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault	 
Prevention and Response Programs (10-SEP-08, GAO-08-1146T).	 
                                                                 
In 2004, Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to	 
establish a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to sexual
assaults involving servicemembers. Though not required to do so, 
the Coast Guard has established a similar policy. This statement 
addresses implementation and oversight of DOD's and the Coast	 
Guard's programs to prevent and respond to sexual assault	 
incidents. Specifically, it addresses the extent to which DOD and
the Coast Guard (1) have developed and implemented policies and  
procedures to prevent, respond to, and resolve reported sexual	 
assault incidents; (2) have visibility over reports of sexual	 
assault in the military; and (3) exercise oversight over reports 
of sexual assault involving servicemembers. This statement draws 
on GAO's report on DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault	 
Prevention and Response programs issued on August 29, 2008	 
(GAO-08-924). For this work, GAO reviewed legislative		 
requirements and DOD and Coast Guard guidance, analyzed sexual	 
assault incident data, and obtained through surveys and 	 
interviews the perspective of more than 3,900 servicemembers on  
sexual assault matters. GAO made 11 recommendations to improve	 
implementation of DOD's and the Coast Guard's programs. These	 
include, for example, reviewing and evaluating guidance and	 
training, and improving oversight of the programs. DOD and the	 
Coast Guard concurred with the recommendations. 		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-1146T					        
    ACCNO:   A84101						        
  TITLE:     Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Strengthen	      
Implementation and Oversight of DOD's and the Coast Guard's	 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs 		 
     DATE:   09/10/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Coast Guard personnel				 
	     Crime victims					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Mental health care services			 
	     Military forces					 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Military training					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Sex crimes 					 
	     Sexual abuse					 
	     Sexual harassment					 
	     Surveys						 
	     Training utilization				 
	     Executive agency oversight 			 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Underreporting					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-1146T

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, September 10, 2008: 

Military Personnel: 

Actions Needed to Strengthen Implementation and Oversight of DOD's and 
the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs: 

Statement of Brenda S. Farrell, Director: Defense Capabilities and 
Management: 

GAO-08-1146T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1146T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2004, Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish 
a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to sexual assaults 
involving servicemembers. Though not required to do so, the Coast Guard 
has established a similar policy. This statement addresses 
implementation and oversight of DODï¿½s and the Coast Guardï¿½s programs to 
prevent and respond to sexual assault incidents. Specifically, it 
addresses the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard (1) have 
developed and implemented policies and procedures to prevent, respond 
to, and resolve reported sexual assault incidents; (2) have visibility 
over reports of sexual assault in the military; and (3) exercise 
oversight over reports of sexual assault involving servicemembers. This 
statement draws on GAOï¿½s report on DODï¿½s and the Coast Guardï¿½s Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response programs issued on August 29, 2008 (GAO-
08-924). For this work, GAO reviewed legislative requirements and DOD 
and Coast Guard guidance, analyzed sexual assault incident data, and 
obtained through surveys and interviews the perspective of more than 
3,900 servicemembers on sexual assault matters. 

GAO made 11 recommendations to improve implementation of DODï¿½s and the 
Coast Guardï¿½s programs. These include, for example, reviewing and 
evaluating guidance and training, and improving oversight of the 
programs. DOD and the Coast Guard concurred with the recommendations. 

What GAO Found: 

DOD and the Coast Guard have established policies and programs to 
prevent, respond to, and resolve reported sexual assault incidents 
involving servicemembers; however, implementation of the programs is 
hindered by several factors. GAO found that (1) DODï¿½s guidance may not 
adequately address some important issues, such as how to implement the 
program in deployed and joint environments; (2) most, but not all 
commanders support the programs; (3) required sexual assault prevention 
and response training is not consistently effective; and (4) factors 
such as a DOD-reported shortage of mental health care providers affect 
whether servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault can or do 
access mental health services. Left unchecked, these challenges can 
discourage or prevent some servicemembers from using the programs when 
needed. 

GAO found, based on responses to its nongeneralizable survey 
administered to 3,750 servicemembers and a 2006 DOD survey, the most 
recent available, that occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding 
the rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have 
only limited visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. At the 
14 installations where GAO administered its survey, 103 servicemembers 
indicated that they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 
months. Of these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not report 
the sexual assault. GAO also found that factors that discourage 
servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault include the belief that 
nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and 
concern that peers would gossip. There were also concerns that 
reporting an incident would negatively affect their careers or unit 
morale and that a report made using the restricted reporting option 
would not remain confidential. 

Although DOD and the Coast Guard have established some mechanisms for 
overseeing reports of sexual assault, neither has developed an 
oversight frameworkï¿½including clear objectives, milestones, performance 
measures, and criteria for measuring progressï¿½to guide their efforts. 
GAOï¿½s prior work has demonstrated the importance of outcome-oriented 
performance measures to successful program oversight, and that an 
effective plan for implementing initiatives and measuring progress can 
help decision makers determine whether initiatives are achieving 
desired results. DOD provides information on reports of alleged sexual 
assaults annually to Congress. However, DODï¿½s report does not include 
some data that would aid congressional oversight, such as why some 
sexual assaults could not be substantiated following an investigation. 
Further, the military services have not provided data that would 
facilitate oversight and enable DOD to conduct trend analyses. While 
the Coast Guard voluntarily provides data to DOD for inclusion in its 
report, this information is not provided to Congress because there is 
no requirement to do so. Without an oversight framework, as well as 
more complete data, decision makers in DOD, the Coast Guard, and 
Congress lack information they need to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the programs. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1146T]. For more 
information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today for this follow-up 
hearing to discuss issues related to the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
and the Coast Guard's programs to prevent, respond to, and resolve 
reported incidents of sexual assault. Sexual assault is a crime that 
contradicts the core values that DOD, the military services,[Footnote 
1] and the Coast Guard expect servicemembers to follow, such as 
treating their fellow members with dignity and respect. Recognizing 
this, in 2004 Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
comprehensive policy for DOD on the prevention of and response to 
sexual assaults involving servicemembers, including an option that 
would enable servicemembers to confidentially disclose an incident of 
sexual assault. Since 2005, active duty servicemembers have had two 
options for reporting an alleged sexual assault: (1) restricted, which 
allows victims of sexual assault to disclose a sexual assault incident 
to specific individuals and receive medical care and other victim 
advocacy services without initiating a criminal investigation, and (2) 
unrestricted, which entails notification of the chain of command and 
may trigger a criminal investigation. Although these requirements do 
not apply to the Coast Guard, which is overseen by the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Coast Guard has adopted similar reporting 
options. 

Mr. Chairman, you have recognized the need to shed light on this 
important issue. Specifically, you and the Ranking Member asked GAO to 
examine sexual assault prevention and response programs at the military 
academies as well as at military installations within DOD and the Coast 
Guard and during deployments. In response, we issued a report in 
January 2008 that reviewed programs to address sexual assault and 
sexual harassment at the military and Coast Guard academies.[Footnote 
2] Also, on July 31, 2008, we testified before the subcommittee on our 
preliminary observations on DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Programs.[Footnote 3] Further, on August 29, 
2008, we issued a comprehensive report that expanded upon the 
preliminary observations we discussed during the July hearing that 
examines implementation and oversight of sexual assault prevention and 
response programs for the active duty servicemembers in DOD and the 
Coast Guard, including during deployments.[Footnote 4] 

My testimony today summarizes the findings and recommendations of our 
comprehensive August 2008 report. Specifically, in my remarks today I 
will discuss the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard: 

* have developed and implemented policies and programs to prevent, 
respond to, and resolve sexual assault incidents involving 
servicemembers; 

* have visibility over reports of sexual assault involving 
servicemembers; and: 

* exercise oversight over reports of sexual assault involving 
servicemembers. 

To conduct our work, we reviewed legislative requirements; reviewed 
DOD's, the military services', and the Coast Guard's guidance and 
requirements for the prevention of, response to, and resolution of 
sexual assault; analyzed sexual assault incident data; and visited 15 
military installations in the United States and overseas to assess 
implementation of the programs. At the installations we visited, we met 
with sexual assault prevention and response program coordinators; 
victim advocates; judge advocates; medical and mental health personnel; 
criminal investigative personnel; law enforcement personnel; chaplains; 
various military commanders, including company and field grade 
officers; and senior enlisted servicemembers. We also obtained the 
perspective of more than 3,900 servicemembers by administering a total 
of 3,750 confidential surveys to a nonprobability sample of randomly 
selected servicemembers and conducting more than 150 one-on-one, 
structured interviews with randomly selected servicemembers at 14 of 
the 15 installations we visited. Our survey is the first since 2006 to 
obtain the perspectives of selected servicemembers in each military 
service and the Coast Guard on sexual assault issues, and the first to 
assess sexual assault issues in the Coast Guard since the restricted 
reporting option became available in December 2007. Because we did not 
select survey and interview participants using a statistically 
representative sampling method, our survey results and the comments 
provided during our interview sessions are nongeneralizable and 
therefore cannot be projected across DOD, a service, or any single 
installation we visited. However, the survey results and comments 
provide insight into the command climate and implementation of sexual 
assault prevention and response programs at each location at the time 
of our visit. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 through August 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Summary: 

DOD has taken steps, in response to congressional direction, to develop 
and implement policies and programs to prevent, respond to, and resolve 
reported sexual assault incidents, and the Coast Guard has taken 
similar steps on its own initiative. However, we found that DOD's 
guidance may not adequately address some important issues, such as how 
to implement the program in deployed and joint environments. We also 
found that implementation is hindered by (1) the lack of support from 
some commanders, (2) training that is not consistently effective, and 
(3) limitations on access to mental health services. Further, based on 
responses to our survey and a 2006 DOD survey, we found that 
occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being 
reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only limited 
visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. DOD and the 
military services provide information on reports of alleged sexual 
assaults annually to Congress in accordance with statutory 
requirements. However, DOD's report does not include some data that 
would aid congressional oversight, such as why some sexual assaults 
could not be substantiated following an investigation. Further, while 
the Coast Guard voluntarily provides data to DOD for inclusion in its 
report, this information is not provided to Congress because there is 
no requirement to do so. Importantly, we also found that while DOD and 
the Coast Guard have established some mechanisms for overseeing reports 
of sexual assaults involving servicemembers, both lack an oversight 
framework--including clear objectives, milestones, performance 
measures, and criteria for measuring progress--to guide their efforts. 
DOD also lacks key information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the department's sexual assault prevention and response program. GAO 
made 11 recommendations to improve implementation of DOD's and the 
Coast Guard's programs. These include, for example, reviewing and 
evaluating guidance and training, and improving oversight of the 
programs. DOD and the Coast Guard concurred with the recommendations. 

Implementation of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs Is 
Hindered by a Number of Factors: 

DOD has taken positive steps to respond to congressional direction by 
developing and implementing policies and a program to prevent, respond 
to, and resolve reported sexual assault incidents involving 
servicemembers, and the Coast Guard has on its own initiative taken 
similar steps. However, DOD's guidance may not adequately address some 
important issues, and implementation of the program is hindered by 
several factors. To their credit, DOD and the Coast Guard have issued 
guidance for preventing and responding to reports of sexual assault and 
have established offices to oversee sexual assault matters.[Footnote 5] 
The military services and the Coast Guard have also established and 
staffed key positions to manage programs at installations and require 
servicemembers to receive periodic training on their respective sexual 
assault prevention and response programs. However, DOD's guidance may 
not adequately address some important issues, such as how to implement 
the program when operating in deployed or joint environments. Program 
officials we met with overseas told us that DOD's guidance does not 
sufficiently take into account the realities of operating in a deployed 
environment, in which unique living and social circumstances can 
heighten the risks for sexual assault and program resources are more 
widely dispersed than they are in the United States, which can make 
responding to a sexual assault challenging. For example, at one 
installation we found no criminal investigative presence, and program 
officials told us that it can take 48 hours or longer for the criminal 
investigative organization with jurisdiction to respond to some sexual 
assaults. Further, we identified a number of factors that hinder 
implementation of the programs, including the following. 

While Most Commanders Support the Programs, Some Do Not: 

At the installations we visited, we generally found that commanders-- 
that is, company and field grade officers[Footnote 6]--had taken 
actions to address incidents of sexual assault and were generally 
supportive of sexual assault prevention and response programs. However, 
at some of these installations we found evidence that not all 
commanders supported the program. Further, we found that implementation 
of the programs may be hindered at some installations where key program 
coordinator positions are a collateral duty. DOD's guidance calls for 
commanders and other leaders to advocate a strong sexual assault 
prevention and response program, and the Coast Guard's guidance 
similarly calls for commanders and other leaders to ensure compliance 
with Coast Guard policies and procedures. At the installations we 
visited, commanders told us that they set a zero tolerance policy for 
incidents of sexual assault, communicated the respective policies at 
command briefings, understood their roles and responsibilities in 
supporting the programs, and understood the need to protect victims. 
The results of our nongeneralizable survey supported these statements; 
at the 14 installations where we administered our survey, the 
percentage of servicemembers who indicated that they thought their 
direct supervisor (military or civilian) would address sexual assault, 
should it occur at their current location, ranged from 91 to 98 
percent. However, we also found evidence that some commanders did not 
support the programs. For example, at 3 of the installations we visited 
program officials told us of meeting with resistance from commanders 
when attempting to advertise, in barracks and work areas, the programs 
or the options for reporting a sexual assault. Also, some program 
officials told us that commanders do not support the programs because 
they do not understand them or do not consider sexual assault matters 
to be a priority in the military. Program officials also told us that 
they lacked the resources to promote the programs and raise 
servicemembers' awareness of sexual assault matters. Further, some key 
program coordinators, such as Sexual Assault Response Coordinators or 
Employee Assistance Program Coordinators, lack the time and resources 
to devote to the programs. Neither DOD nor the Coast Guard has 
performed a systematic analysis to evaluate their processes for 
staffing key program coordinator positions, and thus both are hindered 
in their ability to ensure that key installation-level program 
officials can effectively perform their duties in implementing the 
programs. 

Training Is Not Consistently Effective: 

Although DOD and the Coast Guard require that all servicemembers 
receive periodic training on their respective sexual assault prevention 
and response programs, our survey, interviews, and discussions with 
servicemembers and program officials revealed that most but not all 
servicemembers are receiving the required training, and that some who 
have received it still would not know or were not sure how to report a 
sexual assault using the restricted reporting option. We also found 
that neither DOD nor the Coast Guard has systematically evaluated the 
effectiveness of the training provided to date. Some servicemembers 
told us that the training they received was not engaging and, 
therefore, they did not pay attention, and others said that 
servicemembers do not always take the training seriously. For example, 
while the majority of respondents to our survey indicated that they had 
received required sexual assault prevention and response training and 
would know how to report a sexual assault using the restricted 
reporting option, as table 1 shows, the percentage of servicemembers we 
surveyed who indicated that they would not know or were not sure of how 
to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option, 
despite having received the training ranged from 13 to 43 percent at 
the seven installations we surveyed in the United States and from 13 to 
28 percent at the seven installations where we administered the survey 
overseas. 

Table 1: Percentage of Selected Servicemembers Who Reported Receiving 
Required Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Training and Also 
Reported They Would Not Know or Were Not Sure of How to Report a Sexual 
Assault Using the Restricted Reporting Option: 

Installation: United States: Camp Lejeune; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 68%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 32. 

Installation: United States: Fort Bliss; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 81%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 19%. 

Installation: United States: Fort Drum; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 84%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 16%. 

Installation: United States: Integrated Support Command Portsmouth[A]; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 60%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 40%. 

Installation: United States: Lackland Air Force Base; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 87%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 13%. 

Installation: United States: Marine Corps Base Quantico; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 57%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 43%. 

Installation: United States: Naval Station Norfolk; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 78%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 22%. 

Installation: Overseas: Al Udeid Air Base; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 85%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 15%. 

Installation: Overseas: Balad Air Base; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 82%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 18%. 

Installation: Overseas: Camp Arifjan; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 83%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 17%. 

Installation: Overseas: Camp Ramadi; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 87%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 13%. 

Installation: Overseas: Camp Stryker; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 72%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 28%. 

Installation: Overseas: Logistics Support Area Anaconda; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 82%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 18%. 

Installation: Overseas: Naval Support Activity Bahrain[B]; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would know how to report 
a sexual assault using the restricted reporting option: 78%; 
Percentage of selected servicemembers who reported having received 
required training and also reported that they would not know or were 
not sure how to report a sexual assault using the restricted reporting 
option: 22%. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Includes servicemembers from Yorktown Training Center, Virginia. 

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

[End of table] 

Servicemembers who have not received the required training or who have 
received training that is not effective may not know how to mitigate 
the possibility of being sexually assaulted or how to seek assistance 
if needed, and they are at risk for not knowing how to report an 
assault in a way that does not limit their option to seek treatment 
while maintaining confidentiality. 

Access to Mental Health Services May Be Limited: 

DOD and the Coast Guard require that sexual assault victims be made 
aware of available mental health services, and in 2007, DOD's Mental 
Health Task Force recommended that DOD take action to address factors 
that may prevent some servicemembers from seeking mental health care. 
However, we found that several factors--including a DOD-reported 
shortage of mental health care providers, the logistical challenges of 
operating overseas or in geographically remote locations, and 
servicemembers' perceptions of a stigma associated with mental health 
care--can affect whether servicemembers who are victims of sexual 
assault can or do access mental health services. Further, we could find 
no indication that either DOD or the Coast Guard has performed an 
analysis to aid in addressing barriers to mental health care 
specifically for victims of sexual assault. To their credit, DOD and 
the Coast Guard screen servicemembers for mental health concerns, such 
as post-traumatic stress disorder, which can afflict victims of sexual 
assault. Officials at some of the installations we visited told us that 
one barrier to ensuring that victims of sexual assault receive mental 
health care if they desire it is the lack of adequate resources and 
staff at some installations. Some mental health care officials we spoke 
with overseas said that the shortage of providers can make it even more 
difficult for servicemembers to seek mental health care, for any 
reason, in overseas locations or geographically remote locations in the 
United States. However, we did find that the military services were 
taking steps to address this challenge. For example, DOD has 
established a memorandum of understanding with the Public Health 
Service to enable its uniformed providers to work in military treatment 
facilities. Perceptions of stigma may also discourage servicemembers 
from seeking mental health care following a sexual assault, but DOD 
recently took steps that may encourage servicemembers to do so by 
successfully advocating a revision to Standard Form 86, Questionnaire 
for National Security Positions.[Footnote 7] Under the revision, 
applicants no longer need to disclose certain noncourt-ordered mental 
health care treatment received in the preceding 7 years if it was (1) 
strictly marital, family, or grief related, as long as it was not 
related to violence committed by the servicemember, or (2) strictly 
related to adjustments following service in a military combat 
environment. Further, in an April 2008 memorandum from the Secretary of 
Defense, DOD noted that professional care for mental health issues 
should not be perceived as jeopardizing an individual's security 
clearance.[Footnote 8] However, officials with DOD's Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Office told us that it is unclear whether these 
steps will encourage servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault 
to seek mental health care and whether the revisions apply to 
servicemembers who have been sexually assaulted and seek mental health 
care. 

Survey Data Suggest That Occurrences of Sexual Assault May Exceed Rates 
Reported: 

We found, based on responses to our nongeneralizable survey 
administered to 3,750 servicemembers and a 2006 DOD survey, the most 
recent available, that occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding 
the rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have 
only limited visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. We 
recognize that the precise number of sexual assaults involving 
servicemembers is not possible to determine, and that studies suggest 
that sexual assaults are generally underreported in the United States. 
Nonetheless, our findings indicate that some servicemembers may choose 
not to report sexual assault incidents for a variety of reasons. In 
fiscal year 2007, DOD received 2,688 reports of alleged sexual assault, 
brought with either the restricted or unrestricted reporting option, 
involving servicemembers as either the alleged offenders or victims. 
The Coast Guard, which did not offer the restricted reporting option 
during fiscal year 2007, received 72 reports of alleged sexual assault 
brought with the unrestricted reporting option during that time period. 
However, servicemembers told us that they were aware of alleged sexual 
assault incidents involving other servicemembers that were not reported 
to program officials, and a 2006 Defense Manpower Data Center survey 
found that of the estimated 6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men 
who experienced unwanted sexual contact[Footnote 9] during the prior 12 
months, the majority chose not to report it. At the 14 installations 
where we administered our survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that 
they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. 
[Footnote 10] Of these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not 
report the sexual assault. Notably, respondents to our survey revealed 
a number of reasons that discouraged servicemembers from reporting a 
sexual assault incident. Commonly cited reasons by survey respondents 
at the installations we visited included (1) the belief that nothing 
would be done; (2) fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule by peers; 
and (3) the belief that their peers would gossip about the incident. 
There were also concerns that reporting an incident would negatively 
affect their careers or unit morale and that a report made using the 
restricted reporting option would not remain confidential. 

While DOD and the Coast Guard Have Established Some Mechanisms for 
Oversight, They Lack an Oversight Framework: 

While DOD and the Coast Guard have established some mechanisms for 
overseeing reports of sexual assaults involving servicemembers, both 
lack an oversight framework, and DOD lacks key information needed to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the department's sexual assault 
prevention and response program. DOD's instruction charges the Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office (within the Office of the Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense for Plans) with identifying and managing 
trends and establishing program evaluation, quality improvement, and 
oversight mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of the sexual 
response prevention and response program. Our prior work has 
demonstrated the importance of outcome-oriented performance measures to 
successful program oversight, and that an effective plan for 
implementing initiatives and measuring progress can help decision 
makers determine whether initiatives are achieving their desired 
results.[Footnote 11] However, neither DOD nor the Coast Guard has 
developed an oversight framework that includes clear objectives, 
milestones, performance measures, or criteria for measuring progress. 
While DOD and the military services provide information on reports of 
alleged sexual assaults annually to Congress in accordance with 
statutory requirements, its report does not include some data that 
would aid congressional oversight, such as why some sexual assaults 
could not be substantiated following an investigation. Further, because 
some of the data collection elements are not clear, some data included 
in DOD's annual reports to Congress are open to misinterpretation and 
may not provide the information needed to facilitate congressional 
oversight or understanding of victims' use of the reporting options. In 
addition, the military services are not providing DOD with installation-
and case-specific data beyond those statutorily required for inclusion 
in the department's annual report. Without such data, DOD lacks the 
means to fully execute its oversight role. Congress also lacks 
visibility over extent to which sexual assaults involving Coast Guard 
members occur. While the Coast Guard voluntarily provides the data to 
DOD for inclusion in its report, this information is not provided to 
Congress because there is no requirement to do so. To provide oversight 
of DOD's program, in 2004 Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to 
establish the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military 
Services to undertake an examination of matters relating to sexual 
assault in which members of the Armed Forces are either victims or 
offenders. Although DOD considers the task force's work to be an 
important oversight element, the task force only began its review in 
August 2008. Without an oversight framework, as well as more complete 
data, decision makers in DOD, the Coast Guard, and Congress lack 
information they need to evaluate and oversee the programs. 

Recommendations from Our August 2008 Report: 

In our recently issued report, we suggested that Congress may wish to 
improve oversight of sexual assault incidents in the Coast Guard by 
requiring the Coast Guard to annually submit to Congress sexual assault 
incident and program data that are methodologically comparable to those 
required of DOD. We also made a number of recommendations to improve 
implementation of sexual assault prevention and response programs and 
improve oversight of the programs in DOD and the Coast Guard. With 
regard to DOD, to improve program implementation we recommended that 
the agency review and evaluate its guidance for the prevention of and 
response to sexual assault, to ensure that adequate guidance is 
provided to effectively implement the program in deployed environments 
and joint environments; evaluate its processes for staffing and 
designating key installation-level program positions, to ensure that 
these individuals have the ability and resources to fully carry out 
their responsibilities; review and evaluate its training, to ensure 
that the military services are meeting requirements and to enhance 
training effectiveness; systematically evaluate any factors that may 
prevent or discourage servicemembers from accessing mental health 
services following a sexual assault; and emphasize to all levels of 
command their responsibility for supporting the program, and review the 
extent to which resources are available to raise servicemembers' 
awareness of sexual assault matters. To enhance program oversight, we 
recommended that DOD develop an oversight framework to guide continued 
program implementation and evaluate program effectiveness; take 
specific steps to improve the usefulness of its annual report to 
Congress as an oversight tool; direct the service secretaries to 
provide installation-level incident data to the Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Office; and direct the Defense Task Force on 
Sexual Assault in the Military Services to begin its examination 
immediately, now that all members of the task force are appointed. With 
regard to the Coast Guard, we recommended that it evaluate its 
processes for staffing key installation-level program positions, to 
ensure that these individuals have the ability and resources to fully 
carry out their responsibilities, and that it develop an oversight 
framework to guide continued program implementation and evaluate 
program effectiveness. In written comments on a draft of our report, 
both DOD and the Coast Guard concurred with all of our recommendations. 

Concluding Observations: 

In closing, we want to recognize that DOD and the Coast Guard have 
taken positive steps to prevent, respond to, and resolve reported 
incidents of sexual assault. However, a number of challenges--such as 
limited guidance for implementing DOD's policies in certain 
environments; limited support from some commanders, and limited 
resources for the programs; training that is not consistently 
effective; limited access to mental health services; and the lack of an 
oversight framework--could undermine the effectiveness of their 
efforts. Left unchecked, these challenges could undermine DOD's and the 
Coast Guard's efforts by eroding servicemembers' confidence in the 
programs and thus decreasing the likelihood that sexual assault victims 
will turn to the programs for help when needed, and by limiting the 
ability of DOD and the Coast Guard to evaluate the overall successes, 
challenges, and lessons learned from their programs. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 
prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may 
have at this time. 

[End of section] 

Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this testimony, 
please contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or [email protected]. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Key 
contributors to this statement include Marilyn K. Wasleski, Assistant 
Director; Joanna Chan; Pawnee A. Davis; K. Nicole Harms; Wesley A. 
Johnson; Ronald La Due Lake; Amanda K. Miller; and Cheryl A. Weissman. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For purposes of this testimony, we use "military services" to refer 
collectively to the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine 
Corps. While the Coast Guard is a military service, it generally falls 
under the control of the Department of Homeland Security and not the 
Department of Defense. Therefore, we address the Coast Guard separately 
from the other military services. 

[2] GAO, Military Personnel: The DOD and Coast Guard Academies Have 
Taken Steps to Address Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault, but 
Greater Federal Oversight Is Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-296] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2008). 

[3] GAO, Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations on DOD's and 
Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1013T] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008). 

[4] GAO, Military Personnel: DOD's and Coast Guard's Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementations and Oversight 
Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-924] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2008). 

[5] Department of Defense Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Response (SAPR) Program (Oct. 6, 2005), Department of Defense 
Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program 
Procedures (June 23, 2006), and Commandant Instruction 1754.10C, Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Program (SAPRP) (Dec. 20, 2007). 

[6] Company grade officers encompass the ranks of O1-O3 and field grade 
officers encompass the ranks of O4-O6. 

[7] Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, is 
a governmentwide form applicable not only to DOD servicemembers and 
civilians who occupy sensitive positions but to individuals who occupy 
sensitive positions across the federal government. 

[8] Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Policy Implementation--Mental 
Health Question, Standard Form (86), Questionnaire for National 
Security Positions" (Apr. 18, 2008). 

[9] The 2006 Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members defines 
unwanted sexual contact to include rape, nonconsensual sodomy (oral or 
anal sex),or indecent assault (unwanted, inappropriate sexual contact 
or fondling) that can occur regardless of gender, age, or spousal 
relationship. 

[10] Of these 103 servicemembers, 85 were female, 14 were male, and 4 
did not indicate a gender on the survey. 

[11] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 
2, 2003). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***