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 (17-JAN-08, GAO-08-296).	 
                                                                 
Incidents of sexual harassment and assault contradict the	 
academies' core values to treat all with dignity and respect.	 
Yet, since 2003, each of the Department of Defense (DOD)	 
academies and the Coast Guard Academy has experienced at least	 
one incident. In 2003, Congress directed DOD to establish	 
programs and to submit annual reports, and although not required,
the Coast Guard Academy, within the Department of Homeland	 
Security, has taken similar action. GAO was asked to review	 
sexual harassment and assault programs at the academies. This	 
report evaluates (1) the academies' programs to prevent, respond 
to, and resolve sexual harassment and assault cases; (2) the	 
academies' visibility over sexual harassment and assault	 
incidents; and (3) DOD and Coast Guard oversight of their	 
academies' efforts. GAO analyzed data for program years 2003	 
through 2006, reviewed requirements, met with service and academy
officials, and interviewed randomly selected students at each	 
academy.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-296 					        
    ACCNO:   A79934						        
  TITLE:     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		 
     DATE:   01/17/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Coast Guard personnel				 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Military offenses					 
	     Military officers					 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Military training					 
	     Program management 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Sexual harassment					 
	     Statistical data					 
	     Government agency oversight			 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-296

   

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

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

January 2008: 

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: 

Military Personnel: 

GAO-08-296: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-296, a report to the Subcommittee on National 
Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Incidents of sexual harassment and assault contradict the academiesï¿½ 
core values to treat all with dignity and respect. Yet, since 2003, 
each of the Department of Defense (DOD) academies and the Coast Guard 
Academy has experienced at least one incident. In 2003, Congress 
directed DOD to establish programs and to submit annual reports, and 
although not required, the Coast Guard Academy, within the Department 
of Homeland Security, has taken similar action. GAO was asked to review 
sexual harassment and assault programs at the academies. This report 
evaluates (1) the academiesï¿½ programs to prevent, respond to, and 
resolve sexual harassment and assault cases; (2) the academiesï¿½ 
visibility over sexual harassment and assault incidents; and (3) DOD 
and Coast Guard oversight of their academiesï¿½ efforts. GAO analyzed 
data for program years 2003 through 2006, reviewed requirements, met 
with service and academy officials, and interviewed randomly selected 
students at each academy. 

What GAO Found: 

The academies have taken steps to prevent, respond to, and resolve 
sexual harassment and assault incidents. Each DOD academy, for example, 
has created and staffed the position of Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinator. Additionally, the DOD and Coast Guard academies have 
established training programs aimed at preventing and responding to 
future incidents. The academies have also established alternatives for 
responding to and resolving reported incidents, depending on whether 
the incident involves harassment or assault, and in cases of assault, 
whether the victim wishes to make a restricted reportï¿½privately 
disclosing the incident to select response service providers without 
triggering an investigationï¿½or an unrestricted reportï¿½which involves 
investigative authorities and the chain of command. A few of the 
reported sexual assault cases have resulted in formal charges. 

The academies collect sexual harassment and assault data, but student 
perceptions in surveys administered in 2006 indicate that incidents may 
be underreported, suggesting that the academies may not have full 
visibility over all sexual harassment and assault incidents. For 
academy program years 2003 through 2006, the DOD academiesï¿½ military 
equal opportunity offices reported 32 sexual harassment cases, the 
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators reported 25 restricted cases of 
sexual assault, and the military criminal investigators reported 96 
unrestricted sexual assault cases. However, estimates from DODï¿½s most 
recent survey of its academy students, which was administered in March 
and April 2006, suggest that approximately 200 female and 100 male 
students may have experienced ï¿½unwanted sexual contactï¿½ in the previous 
year alone. Coast Guard Academy data show similar results. 

While DOD has established an oversight framework for its academiesï¿½ 
sexual harassment and assault programs, its oversight has not been 
integrated and comprehensive, and the Coast Guard headquarters has not 
established an oversight framework. For example, inconsistencies exist 
in the way sexual harassment and assault data have been collected and 
reported because the department has not clearly articulated data 
reporting requirements. Further, DOD is unable to fully evaluate the 
academiesï¿½ programs because it has not established measures to analyze 
incident data, survey results, and academy programs. Also, DOD has been 
only minimally addressing congressional interest in academy programs 
because it has not been conducting a comprehensive and integrated 
analysis of academy data or programs before forwarding academy reports 
to Congress. As a result, it has been difficult for DOD and Congress to 
judge how well the academies are addressing these important issues. It 
appears that DOD has very recently taken steps to address these 
concerns. Although the Coast Guard has performed a limited assessment 
of its academyï¿½s sexual harassment activities, it does not report 
statistics to Congress. In addition, the Coast Guard headquarters has 
not established guidance with which to oversee and evaluate its 
academyï¿½s efforts. Consequently, the Coast Guard headquarters lacks 
measures of how well its academy may be addressing incidents of sexual 
harassment and assault. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO suggests that Congress consider requiring the Coast Guard Academy 
to submit data for DODï¿½s annual report and to participate in 
assessments methodologically comparable to those administered by DOD. 
GAO is also making recommendations to DOD and the Coast Guard to 
improve oversight of sexual assault and harassment at their academies. 
Both agencies concurred or partially concurred with GAOï¿½s 
recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-296]. For more information, contact 
Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The Academies Have Taken Steps to Prevent, Respond to, and Resolve 
Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault: 

Academies Collect Data on Sexual Harassment and Assault, but Results 
from Anonymous Surveys Administered in 2006 Suggest That the Academies 
May Not Have Complete Visibility Due to Underreporting: 

DOD's Oversight of Its Academies' Sexual Harassment and Assault 
Programs Has Not Been Integrated and Comprehensive, and Coast Guard 
Headquarters Has Not Established an Oversight Framework: 

Conclusions: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix IV: Commissions and Initiatives to Study Sexual Harassment and 
Assault: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Alleged Sexual Harassment Incidents at the DOD Academies for 
Academy Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Table 2: Unrestricted Sexual Assault Incidents Reported by the Military 
Criminal Investigative Organizations at the DOD Academies for Academy 
Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Table 3: Unrestricted and Restricted Sexual Assault Incidents Reported 
by the Sexual Assault Response Coordinators at the DOD Academies for 
Academy Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Table 4: Unrestricted and Restricted Sexual Assault Incidents at the 
Coast Guard Academy for Academy Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: General Responsibilities of DOD Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators (Applicable for Military Servicemembers, DOD Civilian 
Employees, or DOD Contractors Serving in This Capacity): 

Figure 2: Sexual Harassment and Assault Reporting Options: 

Abbreviations: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DMDC: Defense Manpower Data Center DOD Department of Defense: 

SAPR: Sexual Assault Prevention & Response: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 17, 2008: 

The Honorable John F. Tierney: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Christopher Shays: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Sexual harassment and assault are fundamentally at odds with the 
obligation of men and women in uniform to treat all with dignity and 
respect. Nonetheless, incidents of sexual harassment and assault at the 
service academies are not a new concern. Congress first asked us to 
examine the issue of sexual harassment at the Department of Defense 
(DOD) academies in the 1990s. More recently, following a series of 
sexual assault investigations at the United States Air Force Academy 
(Air Force Academy) in 2003, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004[Footnote 1] required the service secretaries, under 
guidance provided by the Secretary of Defense, to direct the 
superintendents of the United States Military Academy (Military 
Academy), the United States Naval Academy (Naval Academy), and the Air 
Force Academy to establish policies, programs, and procedures to 
address incidents of sexual harassment and assault at the academies 
overseen by DOD, to report annually on sexual harassment and assault 
involving academy personnel, and to perform assessments, to include 
surveys, to determine the effectiveness of the academies' policies, 
training, and procedures on sexual harassment and violence to prevent 
criminal harassment and violence involving academy personnel.[Footnote 
2] In response to this requirement, DOD released the results of a 
survey of DOD academy students in April 2005, which suggested that a 
number of sexual assaults involving students at the academies went 
unreported. In addition, DOD is required and has been reporting 
annually to Congress since 2005 on sexual assault incidents involving 
academy students. In June 2005, a DOD task force, established pursuant 
to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004,[Footnote 3] recommended that Congress create an additional 
reporting option that would protect the confidentiality of sexual 
assault victims at the academies. Since 2005, victims of sexual assault 
have had two reporting options: unrestricted, which will trigger an 
investigation by the appropriate military criminal investigative 
organization, and restricted, which allows victims to disclose a sexual 
assault incident to specified officials and receive medical care and 
other response services without automatically triggering a report to 
law enforcement or the initiation of an official investigation. 
Although the requirements Congress established for the service 
academies do not apply to the United States Coast Guard Academy (Coast 
Guard Academy), which is administered by the United States Coast Guard 
(Coast Guard) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the 
Coast Guard Academy has adopted similar sexual harassment and assault 
policies, programs, and procedures. Nevertheless, since the 
requirements were first put into place, each of the academies has 
experienced one or more reported incidents of sexual harassment or 
assault. 

In August 2006, Congressman Christopher Shays, then Chairman of the 
House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National 
Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, asked us to 
review the incidence, prevention of, response to, and resolution of 
sexual assault at the DOD and Coast Guard academies. In September 2007, 
Congressman John Tierney, in his new position as Chairman of the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National 
Security and Foreign Affairs, signed on to the original request 
submitted by Congressman Shays. This report evaluates (1) the 
academies' programs to address the prevention of, response to, and 
resolution of sexual harassment and assault cases; (2) the visibility 
that the academies have over incidents of sexual harassment and 
assault; and (3) the oversight exercised by DOD and the Coast Guard 
over the academies' sexual harassment and assault programs[Footnote 4]. 

During the course of this review, we visited each of the service 
academies: the Military Academy in West Point, New York; the Naval 
Academy in Annapolis, Maryland; the Air Force Academy in Colorado 
Springs, Colorado; and the Coast Guard Academy in New London, 
Connecticut. For each of our objectives, we reviewed multiple 
legislative requirements and DOD, DHS, service, and academy policies, 
regulations, procedures, and processes. To evaluate the academies' 
programs addressing the prevention, response, and resolution of sexual 
harassment and assault cases, we examined relevant government and non- 
government reports, studies, and surveys; conducted one-on-one 
structured interviews with randomly selected students; and consulted 
experts in the area of sexual harassment and assault. To evaluate the 
academies' visibility over sexual harassment and assault incidents, we 
analyzed data on reported incidents occurring at the academies during 
program years 2003 through 2006. We assessed the reliability of the 
academies' sexual harassment and assault data by interviewing 
knowledgeable officials and comparing data collected from different 
sources and found inconsistencies, which we discuss further in this 
report. We compared reported incidents from the DOD service academies 
with information provided by students on surveys administered by the 
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC).[Footnote 5] To evaluate DOD's and 
the Coast Guard's oversight of academy sexual harassment and assault 
programs, we obtained and reviewed applicable oversight reports and 
examined DOD's and the Coast Guard's responses to any recommendations 
from prior studies related to sexual harassment and assault at the 
academies. For each of our objectives, we also interviewed responsible 
officials and other knowledgeable personnel in the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, at DHS, at the 
service headquarters, and at each of the academies. Further details 
about our scope and methodology, including further details about the 
Defense Manpower Data Center's survey methods and the nature of the 
questions we used in our one-on-one structured interviews with academy 
students, can be found in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2007 through November 
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Results in Brief: 

All four academies have taken a number of steps to prevent, respond to, 
and resolve incidents of sexual harassment and assault. In 2006, DOD 
issued an instruction that required each major defense installation, 
including the academies, to establish the position of Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator, which serves as a single point of accountability 
for each academy's sexual assault prevention, response, and resolution 
efforts. The individuals currently serving in these positions are 
responsible for coordinating community sexual assault response, 
providing victim advocacy, facilitating the education of personnel on 
sexual assault and victim advocacy, organizing public awareness 
campaigns, documenting services provided, and reporting sexual assault 
data. The Sexual Assault Response Coordinator--who may be a 
servicemember, DOD civilian employee, or contractor--also conducts an 
ongoing assessment of the consistency and effectiveness of his or her 
academy's sexual assault prevention and response program. The Coast 
Guard Academy is not required to have a Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinator, but Coast Guard Academy officials have indicated that they 
plan to establish the position. Each of the academies has also 
established training requirements and programs aimed at preventing and 
responding to future incidents of sexual harassment and assault. For 
example, DOD academy policies require Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators to attend formal training that may include the management 
of sexual assault cases, reporting options available to victims, and 
appropriate methods for transferring victim care to civilian 
authorities. Academy students also receive mandatory sexual harassment 
and assault prevention and response training during their 4 years at 
the academies. Although the Coast Guard Academy is not subject to the 
laws that require the DOD academies to develop sexual harassment and 
assault prevention and response training requirements, the academy has 
instituted training policies and programs similar to those at the DOD 
academies, and these policies were revised in 2006. All of the students 
we interviewed from a nongeneralizable random sample confirmed that 
they had received sexual harassment and assault training, and many 
noted that they received the training in a variety of formats. In 
addition, the academies have established alternatives for responding to 
and resolving incidents of sexual harassment and assault, depending on 
whether the reported incident involves harassment or assault, and in 
cases of assault, whether the victim wishes the report to remain 
restricted or makes an unrestricted report. Nine of the 126 
subjects[Footnote 6] identified in the unrestricted reports of sexual 
assault that we reviewed from the DOD and Coast Guard military criminal 
investigative organizations in academy program years 2003 through 2006 
proceeded to a court-martial and, of those tried, 5 subjects were 
convicted and 4 were acquitted. The majority of the remaining 117 
subjects identified by the military criminal investigative 
organizations were not formally charged with sexual assault because the 
evidence was unsubstantiated, unfounded, or insufficient as determined 
by the academies' staff judge advocates. DOD has reported that some of 
these reported cases were resolved without the court-martial process 
because the academies have other nonjudicial options at their disposal. 

The academies collect sexual harassment and assault data; however, 
student perceptions gathered from a 2006 survey[Footnote 7] indicate 
that sexual harassment and assault may be underreported, suggesting 
that the academies may not have full visibility over the magnitude of 
sexual harassment and assault incidents involving academy students. 
Each DOD academy is statutorily required to submit annual sexual 
harassment and violence reports, which are to include, among other 
things, the number of sexual assaults and other sexual offenses 
involving academy students that have been reported to academy officials 
during the program year, and also to indicate the number of reported 
cases that have been substantiated during the same year.[Footnote 8] 
For academy program years 2003 through 2006, the DOD academies' 
military equal opportunity offices[Footnote 9] reported 32 sexual 
harassment cases, the Sexual Assault Response Coordinators[Footnote 10] 
reported 25 restricted cases of sexual assault, and the military 
criminal investigators[Footnote 11] reported 96 unrestricted sexual 
assault cases. However, the most recent DOD survey of its academy 
students, which was administered by the Defense Manpower Data Center in 
March and April 2006, resulted in an estimated 8.2 percent to 10.5 
percent of females and an estimated 1 percent to 1.4 percent of males 
reporting unwanted sexual contact. Based on the total number of men and 
women enrolled at the academies, the DOD survey estimates suggest that 
approximately 200 female and 100 male students may have experienced 
unwanted sexual contact in the previous year alone. Although the term 
unwanted sexual contact includes a range of activities that the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice prohibits and thus cannot necessarily be 
directly compared to reported cases of sexual harassment or sexual 
assault, survey results nonetheless suggest that cases may be 
underreported and that the academies may not have full visibility over 
the total number of incidents of sexual harassment and assault 
involving academy students. Although the Coast Guard Academy is not 
required to report sexual harassment and assault data through formal 
channels, it does track and record incidents that occur at the academy. 
The Coast Guard Academy also administers its own surveys of academy 
students, and the Coast Guard Academy surveys show disparities that are 
similar to the DOD academies' survey results. 

DOD has established an oversight framework for its academies' sexual 
harassment and assault programs, but the department's oversight has not 
been integrated and comprehensive. The Coast Guard has not established 
an oversight framework for the Coast Guard Academy's programs. DOD has 
established directives and other guidance that establish an oversight 
framework for its sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention and 
response programs. Oversight responsibility for sexual harassment 
programs is assigned to the Office of Diversity Management and Equal 
Opportunity and for sexual assault programs to the Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Office--both of which are under the authority 
of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness. DOD guidance also provides oversight expectations to the 
military services, and defines statutory reporting requirements. In 
addition, each military department prepares service-specific operating 
instructions based on DOD's guidance, and the academies develop 
implementation guidance based on their services' instructions and 
regulations. However, DOD's oversight has not been comprehensive and 
integrated. For example, inconsistencies exist in the way sexual 
harassment and assault data have been collected and reported because 
the department has not clearly articulated data-reporting requirements. 
Further, DOD is unable to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the 
academies' programs because it has not established evaluative 
performance measures with which to conduct a comprehensive and 
integrated analysis of reported sexual harassment and assault incident 
data, survey and qualitative data analyses results, and information on 
programs implemented at the academies. Moreover, DOD has been only 
minimally addressing congressional interest in academy programs because 
it has not been conducting a comprehensive and integrated analysis of 
the information contained in the DOD academies' annual reports, or a 
meaningful assessment of the academies' programs before forwarding the 
academies' reports to Congress. As a result, DOD and congressional 
decision makers have not had an integrated source of reliable data with 
which to judge how well the academies are addressing these important 
issues and may have difficulty assessing the overall successes, 
challenges, and overall lessons learned from the academies' sexual 
harassment and assault prevention and response programs. DOD has very 
recently taken steps to address these concerns. For example, we 
reviewed a draft of the 2007 annual academies report, which, among 
other things, included DOD's assessment of academy compliance with DOD 
program requirements and a summary of sexual harassment incidents that 
occurred during the academy program year. Although the Coast Guard has 
performed a limited assessment of its academy's sexual harassment 
program, it has not established guidance, program requirements, or 
other aspects of an oversight framework for the sexual harassment and 
assault programs at the Coast Guard Academy. While there is no 
statutory reporting requirement for the Coast Guard Academy, the 
academy voluntarily participates in DOD's annual reporting process by 
submitting data, although in a more limited format, to DOD's Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office, and it internally administers 
climate surveys and focus groups on an annual basis. Nevertheless, 
without a management oversight framework for the Coast Guard Academy to 
include data collection, maintenance, and reporting requirements, 
management goals, performance measures, and milestones to evaluate 
progress made toward addressing the incidence of sexual harassment and 
assault, the Coast Guard also will be unable to assure Congress or even 
members of its own community that its efforts to prevent, respond to, 
and resolve these incidents are effective. 

We are suggesting that Congress may wish to consider requiring the 
Coast Guard Academy to submit sexual harassment and assault incident 
and program data for the annual report on Sexual Harassment and 
Violence at the Military Academies and to participate in surveys and 
appropriate qualitative methods that produce results that are 
methodologically comparable to those administered by DOD. In addition, 
we are making recommendations to DOD to improve the oversight of sexual 
harassment and assault programs at the DOD academies and to ensure 
consistent capturing and reporting of data. DOD concurred or partially 
concurred with the recommendations in our draft report. Specifically, 
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the department 
clearly articulate data reporting requirements, to include common 
terminology, stating that there are challenges with maintaining 
consistent terminology in the data reporting process. DOD concurred 
with our recommendation to create service-wide performance metrics for 
sexual harassment and assault programs, noting that the department 
plans to make this a priority for the upcoming year. DOD partially 
concurred with our recommendation that it conduct a comprehensive, 
integrated assessment of the health of academy sexual harassment and 
assault programs, stating that it had conducted such an assessment of 
the academies for academic program year 2006-2007 and documented its 
findings in its annual report, which it delivered to Congress on 
December 7, 2007. We reviewed this most recent assessment, and our 
report notes DOD's recent efforts to address this concern. We continue 
to believe, however, that additional action is needed. DOD requested 
clarification of the term "health", asserting that the term does not 
clearly define what is to be assessed. Through this recommendation, we 
are expressing our finding that DOD, at the departmentwide level, has 
been missing the opportunity to provide its own assessment of the 
successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the academies' sexual 
harassment and assault programs. We changed our recommendation to 
reflect this language. 

We are also recommending that Coast Guard headquarters develop a 
management oversight framework for the Coast Guard Academy's sexual 
harassment and assault program to include management goals, performance 
measures, reporting requirements, and milestones to evaluate progress 
made. The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation, stating that 
it recently released a Commandant Instruction on its Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Program that will provide the necessary 
framework and oversight recommended in our report. We have reviewed 
this Instruction and it addresses many of our concerns. 

DOD's and the Coast Guard's written comments are reprinted in 
appendixes II and III, respectively. 

Background: 

The Military Academy, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, and Coast Guard 
Academy educate and train young men and women to be leaders and 
effective officers in the uniformed services. Student life at the 
academies is demanding and, in many ways, differs from student life at 
other colleges and universities. The approximately 4,000 students who 
attend each of the three DOD service academies and 1,000 students who 
attend the Coast Guard academy undergo a challenging 4-year program of 
academic, physical, and military education that culminates in a 
bachelor's degree and a commission as an officer in one of the four 
military services for 5 years after graduation. In addition to 
completing the academic course work, students must participate in 
rigorous military training activities, mandatory athletic events, and 
leadership training that includes topics such as ethics and sexual 
harassment and assault. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1976 directed 
the three DOD service academies to admit female students as part of the 
graduating class of 1980.[Footnote 12] This act states that the 
academic and other relevant standards required for appointment, 
admission, training, graduation, and commissioning are to be the same 
for women and men, except for those minimal essential adjustments 
required due to physiological differences. Similarly, the Coast Guard 
also first admitted women in 1976 as part of its graduating class of 
1980. Coast Guard Academy female students, like those at the DOD 
academies, are also required to meet the same standards for the 
appointment, admission, training, graduation, and commissioning 
required of male students except for adjustments necessary due to 
physiological differences. Currently, women constitute about 15 percent 
of the students at the Military Academy, approximately 17 percent of 
the students at the Naval Academy, about 19 percent of the students at 
the Air Force Academy, and about 27 percent of the students at the 
Coast Guard Academy. 

All of DOD's programs related to sexual harassment and sexual assault, 
including the programs at its academies, fall under the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The Under 
Secretary has assigned responsibility for sexual harassment program 
oversight to DOD's Office of Diversity Management and Equal 
Opportunity, and has designated the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Office as the department's single point of responsibility for 
sexual assault policy matters. In 2003, the new DHS became the parent 
agency of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard maintains an Office of Civil 
Rights to address issues including sexual harassment and an Office of 
Work-Life to address issues including sexual assault. Both offices fall 
under the Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

DOD defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests 
for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual 
nature, when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or 
implicitly as a term or condition of a person's job, pay or career, or 
submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a 
basis for career or employment decisions affecting that person, or such 
conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an 
individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or 
offensive work environment. This definition emphasizes that workplace 
conduct, to be actionable as "abusive work environment" harassment, 
need not result in concrete psychological harm to the victim, but 
rather need only be so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person 
would perceive, and the victim does perceive, the work environment as 
hostile or offensive.[Footnote 13] Any person in a supervisory or 
command position who uses or condones any form of sexual behavior to 
control, influence, or affect the career, pay, or job of a military 
member or civilian employee or who makes deliberate or repeated 
unwelcome verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual 
nature in the workplace is also engaging in sexual harassment. The 
Coast Guard employs a similar definition of sexual harassment. 

In response to the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2005,[Footnote 14] the Secretary of Defense issued a 
directive for DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program that 
included a standard definition of sexual assault for all service 
branches, to include the academies. Under the standard definition, 
sexual assault is "intentional sexual contact, characterized by the use 
of force, physical threat or abuse of authority or when the victim does 
not or cannot consent. It includes rape, nonconsensual sodomy (oral and 
anal sex), indecent assault (unwanted, inappropriate sexual contact or 
fondling), or attempts to commit these acts. Sexual assault can occur 
without regard to gender or spousal relationship or age of victim. 
"Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the 
victim to offer physical resistance. Consent is not given when a person 
uses force, threat of force, coercion, or when a victim is asleep, 
incapacitated, or unconscious."[Footnote 15] The Coast Guard employs a 
similar definition of sexual assault. 

DOD provides oversight of the sexual harassment and assault programs at 
the DOD academies by complying with statutory reporting requirements. 
Following a series of high-profile sexual assault cases at the DOD 
academies, Congress directed DOD to provide an annual report on 
incidents of sexual harassment and assault at the DOD 
academies.[Footnote 16] The John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 revised and codified the reporting 
requirements and directed DOD to administer surveys of academy students 
in odd-numbered years and to conduct focus groups for any year that 
surveys are not required.[Footnote 17] 

To date, DOD has completed three surveys: 

1. The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
issued a Report on the Service Academy Sexual Assault and Leadership 
Survey on March 4, 2005. 

2. The Defense Manpower Data Center issued the results of the Service 
Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey in December 2005. 

3. The Defense Manpower Data Center issued the results of the Service 
Academy 2006 Gender Relations Survey in December 2006. 

DOD, through its Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and in 
conjunction with the Defense Manpower Data Center, issued its fourth 
report in December 2007. This report is the first to include results 
from academy focus groups as well as an assessment by the Sexual 
Assault and Prevention Response Office and the Office of Diversity 
Management and Equal Opportunity of the academies' policies and 
programs relating to sexual harassment and assault cases. The report 
also includes academy data on formal reports of sexual harassment, 
which were not included in the earlier reports. 

We first examined congressional concerns about sexual harassment at the 
DOD academies beginning in 1990, following a Senate Committee on Armed 
Services request that we evaluate the treatment of service academy 
students. In the years from 1992 through 2003, we issued two 
testimonies and three reports on this issue, and made recommendations 
for improving the military service academies' treatment of sexual 
harassment. 

* In June 1992, we testified that sexual harassment occurred more 
frequently than what was reported to officials on student treatment at 
the DOD academies.[Footnote 18] 

* In January 1994, we issued a report based on the 1992 testimony, 
which stated that DOD's academies had not met DOD's policy of providing 
an environment free from sexual harassment.[Footnote 19] 

* In February 1994, we followed up with a testimony based on the 
January 1994 report's findings.[Footnote 20] 

* In March 1995 we reported that the majority of women in each of the 
DOD academies reported experiencing at least one form of sexual 
harassment on a recurring basis in academic year 1993-94.[Footnote 21] 

* We conducted a survey on students and faculty at the DOD academies 
from February 5 through March 7, 2003, which found that on average, 
from 21 to 37 percent of female students at the DOD academies responded 
that sexual harassment prevention was generally or greatly 
underemphasized. We subsequently issued a report in September 2003 that 
detailed our findings.[Footnote 22] 

In addition, Congress has undertaken several initiatives and DOD has 
created a number of related task forces and conducted a number of 
studies, which are further detailed in appendix IV. 

The Academies Have Taken Steps to Prevent, Respond to, and Resolve 
Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault: 

All four academies have taken a number of steps to prevent, respond to, 
and resolve incidents of sexual harassment and assault. For instance, 
the DOD academies have each established and staffed a Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator position to operate as the single point of 
accountability for each academy's sexual assault prevention, response, 
and resolution efforts. Each of the academies has also established 
training requirements and programs aimed at preventing and responding 
to future incidents of sexual harassment and assault. Procedures 
academies use to respond to and resolve incidents of sexual harassment 
and assault generally depend on which type of incident is reported and 
the reporting option chosen by the victim. A few of the reported sexual 
assault cases have resulted in formal charges. 

The DOD Academies Have Established and Staffed a Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator Position to Serve as the Single Point of 
Accountability: 

In 2006, DOD issued an instruction[Footnote 23] requiring the military 
services to establish Sexual Assault Response Coordinator positions and 
required each coordinator to serve as a single point of contact to 
coordinate community sexual assault response when a sexual assault is 
reported. The coordinator is the focal point for sexual assault 
prevention, response, and resolution efforts at each major 
installation, including the DOD academies. The coordinator, who has a 
full-time position dedicated to working on sexual assault prevention 
and response, is responsible for, among other things, coordinating 
community sexual assault response, activating a round-the-clock system 
to provide victim advocacy, facilitating the education of personnel on 
sexual assault and victim advocacy services, organizing public 
awareness campaigns for victims of sexual assault, documenting services 
provided, and reporting sexual assault data. When providing victim 
care, the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator documents the services 
referred to or requested by the victim of each reported sexual assault 
incident from the time of an initial report to the final disposition of 
the case or until the victim no longer desires services. The 
coordinator also serves as the chair of the monthly sexual assault case 
management group, oversees victim advocates, and conducts an ongoing 
assessment of the consistency and effectiveness of his or her academy's 
sexual assault prevention and response program. Figure 1 provides a 
general overview of Sexual Assault Response Coordinator 
responsibilities. 

Figure 1: General Responsibilities of DOD Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators (Applicable for Military Servicemembers, DOD Civilian 
Employees, or DOD Contractors Serving in This Capacity): 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure depicts the following data: 

SARC: Shall serve as the single point of contact to coordinate 
community sexual assault response when a sexual assault is reported. 

Training: 
* Facilitates education of command personnel on sexual assault; 
* Facilitates briefings on victim advocacy services; 
* Facilitates training of first responders, medical responders, health 
care providers, military and civilian law enforcement, and criminal 
investigative personnel; 
* Facilitates Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) public 
awareness campaigns, including events for Sexual Assault Awareness 
Month; 
* Assists the senior commander to meet annual SAPR training 
requirements, including orientation for newly assigned personnel and 
community education publicizing available SAPR services. 

Reporting: 
* Provides aggregate information to assist senior-level commanders to 
better understand and manage trends and characteristics of sexual 
assault crimes; 
* Provides the senior commander with nonidentifying personal 
information within 24 hours of report of sexual assault; 
* Provides aggregate data on restricted cases for annual sexual 
harassment and violence reports. 

Victim Care: 
* Documents the services referred to and/or requested by the victim 
from the time of the initial report to final disposition or until 
victim no longer desires services; 
* Collaborates with other agencies and activities to improve SAPR 
response to and support of victims of sexual assault; 
* Advocates to ensure the views of the victim of the sexual assault are 
considered in the decision-making process; 
* Activates victim advocacy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for all 
incidents of reported sexual assault occurring either on or off the 
installation. 

Oversight: 
* Serves as chair of monthly, mutidisciplinary case management group 
for unrestricted cases of sexual assault; 
* Exercises oversight of victim advocates and familiarizes the unit 
commanders and/or supervisors of victim advocates with the victim 
advocate roles and responsibilities; 
* Conducts an ongoing assessment of the consistency and effectiveness 
of SAPR within assigned area of responsibility. 

Sources: GAO analysis, Art Explosion (clip art). 

[End of figure] 

The Military Academy and Naval Academy employ Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators who are solely dedicated to students, while the Air Force 
Academy's Coordinator serves academy students and the active duty 
military personnel assigned to both the academy and the collocated 
installation. The Sexual Assault Response Coordinator at the DOD 
academies can be a military servicemember, DOD civilian employee, or 
DOD contractor. Currently, the position at the Military and Naval 
Academies is filled by a military servicemember, while the Air Force 
Academy's coordinator is a Government Series civilian. Victim 
advocates, chaplains, health care providers, psychologists, criminal 
investigative units, judge advocate's offices, military law enforcement 
personnel, and victim and subject commanding officers provide support 
to the coordinator--and to the sexual assault prevention and response 
program in general. 

The Coast Guard Academy is not required to have a Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator position. Instead, the Coast Guard relies on a 
network comprised of academy leadership, licensed psychologists, 
chaplains, staff judge advocates, peers, and investigative personnel to 
respond to sexual assault incidents. The Coast Guard Academy also has 
victim advocates who provide assistance to students throughout the 
unrestricted sexual assault reporting process. Coast Guard Academy 
students who choose to make restricted reports may receive services 
from victim advocates employed by civilian victim care organizations. 
During our review, however, Coast Guard Academy officials indicated 
that they plan to establish a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator 
position. 

The Academies Have Established Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention 
and Response Training Requirements and Programs: 

Each of the academies has established training requirements and 
programs on the prevention of and response to sexual harassment and 
assault. In response to the statutory requirements[Footnote 24] and DOD 
guidance, DOD's October 2005 directive[Footnote 25] states that DOD's 
policy includes eliminating sexual assault within DOD by providing a 
culture of prevention, education and training, response capability, 
victim support, reporting procedures, and accountability that enhances 
the well-being and safety of all its members. The three DOD academies 
have established separate sexual harassment and assault-related 
training requirements and programs for students, responders, academy 
personnel, and academy mental health professionals, such as counselors. 

DOD academy policies require the Sexual Assault Response Coordinators 
to attend formal training--as victim responders--that includes the 
management of sexual assault cases, reporting options available to 
victims, and appropriate methods for transferring victim care to 
civilian authorities. Coordinators are also trained to provide 
instruction to other academy personnel, such as victim advocates. 
Additionally, the Sexual Assault Response Coordinators assist 
commanders in meeting annual sexual assault prevention and response 
training requirements by providing sexual harassment and assault 
orientation briefings for new students and personnel. 

Each of the DOD academies employs different training curricula for 
students, but all share common elements, including mandatory training 
on response procedures, available resources, terminology, and the 
consequences of committing sexual harassment and assault. Additionally, 
each of the academies employs graduated student training programs, 
which culminate in more advanced training for seniors on how to handle 
potential incidents of sexual harassment and assault as commissioned 
officers. Academy sexual harassment and assault training is conducted 
in various formats, such as traditional classroom instruction, small 
group interaction, and role play. Each of the academies also hosts 
nationally recognized lecturers, who present their unique perspectives 
to academy students. Students receive an approximately 16 hours of 
formal sexual harassment and assault training throughout their 4 years 
at the academies. In addition to formal training, students also spend 
time participating in command and unit-based briefings, lectures, 
presentations, and discussion groups on sexual harassment and assault 
issues. 

Although the Coast Guard Academy is not subject to the laws requiring 
the DOD academies to establish sexual harassment and assault prevention 
and response training requirements, the academy has instituted 
policies, which were revised in early 2006, and training programs 
similar to those at the DOD academies. The Coast Guard Academy policy 
on sexual assault requires periodic training on policy requirements to 
ensure adequate and appropriate implementation. Specifically, the 
training must provide all military personnel, including students, with 
an understanding of the reporting options available to them and the 
procedures used to ensure confidentiality. Since the Coast Guard 
Academy does not have a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, academy 
personnel responsible for all student training develop, coordinate, and 
execute the Coast Guard Academy's sexual harassment and assault 
training. This training, which is intended to teach character, core 
values, and leadership, is conducted outside of regular classes. 
Similar to the DOD academies, students at the Coast Guard Academy begin 
training during the summer before their freshman year, in which they 
learn about and demonstrate understanding of standards. These training 
sessions include program definitions, policies, resources, appropriate 
responses, confidentiality requirements, a briefing on their peer 
resource program, and student roles. Students receive more than 20 
hours of formal sexual harassment and assault training throughout their 
4 years at the academy. Coast Guard Academy students also participate 
in additional command and unit-based briefings, lectures, 
presentations, and discussion groups on these topics. 

In October and November 2007, we conducted one-on-one structured 
interviews with randomly selected students at each of the academies, 
who had been at the academy for more than 1 year, to discuss student 
perceptions of sexual harassment and assault prevention and response 
training programs. While we cannot project to the total population of 
students at the academies from our limited sample, all 70 of the 
students we interviewed confirmed that they had received sexual 
harassment and assault training, and many noted that they received the 
training in a variety of formats. 

Procedures for Responding to and Resolving Incidents of Sexual 
Harassment or Assault Depend on the Incident Reported and the Reporting 
Method: 

Procedures academies use to respond to and resolve incidents of sexual 
harassment and assault at the military academies generally depend on 
which type of incident is reported and the reporting option chosen by 
the victim. Students at the DOD academies who wish to report an 
incident of either sexual harassment or sexual assault have a choice of 
two reporting options, each of which includes multiple individuals to 
whom a student can report. The reporting option chosen determines the 
response from academy officials and presents different options for 
achieving resolution. The Coast Guard Academy has similar reporting 
options. 

The academies provide two options for filing complaints of sexual 
harassment: informal and formal. The academies encourage sexual 
harassment victims to resolve incidents through the informal complaint 
process first, which triggers the lowest-level response. The DOD and 
the Coast Guard Academies' sexual harassment policies recommend that 
the complainant resolve informal complaints by directly confronting the 
subject. If the complainant does not feel comfortable directly 
confronting the subject, he or she may ask for help from another 
student or another person in the complainant's chain of command. In 
informal cases, the subject's commanding officer, with input from the 
chain of command, determines the type of action that can range from 
informal counseling to written reprimands. 

Procedures for filing a formal complaint of sexual harassment differ 
slightly depending on the academy attended. For example, the amount of 
time a student has to file a formal complaint ranges from 45 to 60 days 
of the alleged incident. In response, the official who receives and 
reviews the written complaint determines if an investigation should be 
initiated. If a student chooses to file a formal complaint, the DOD 
academies' military equal opportunity offices and the Coast Guard 
Academy's Office of Civil Rights will interview any witnesses, collect 
data, and create a report with findings and recommended actions. From 
this point, the commander will determine whether further investigation 
is necessary or whether to approve all or part of the findings and 
recommendations. Once the commanding officer determines that a sexual 
harassment complaint has merit, the Superintendent will determine the 
most appropriate action to address the subject's misconduct. If 
egregious enough, sexual harassment claims may be prosecuted under the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Resolution time varies depending on 
the nature of the incident and whether the complainant makes a formal 
or informal complaint. 

Like sexual harassment, academy responses to allegations of sexual 
assault are largely based on how the victim chooses to report the 
incident. Each academy offers two reporting options: restricted and 
unrestricted. The restricted reporting option permits a victim to 
disclose an alleged sexual assault incident to designated officials, 
such as Sexual Assault Response Coordinators at the DOD academies, 
doctors, or victim advocates, privately. In response, designated 
academy officials will provide necessary medical treatment, mental 
health services, or other care the victim needs while maintaining the 
anonymity of the victim and without initiating a criminal investigation 
or taking action for any victim misconduct associated with the reported 
incident. However, the academies' military criminal investigative 
organizations or military police are required to store forensic 
evidence gathered by health care providers using nonpersonalized 
identifiers for up to a year after a restricted report of sexual 
assault. This allows a victim the option of converting the restricted 
report to an unrestricted report at a date within 1 year of the initial 
restricted report. 

Alternatively, the unrestricted reporting option affords the victim the 
same level of care, but may also initiate a response by the appropriate 
military criminal investigative organization. If a victim reports a 
sexual assault through unrestricted channels, the appropriate military 
criminal investigative organization--such as the Army's Criminal 
Investigative Division, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Air Force 
Office of Special Investigations, or Coast Guard Investigative Service-
-will be contacted to collect evidence and interview the victim, 
subject, and witnesses. The staff judge advocate office will review the 
evidence collected by the criminal investigative organization and 
advise the subject's commanding officer on how to proceed. The 
subject's superintendent ultimately decides the level at which an 
offense is to be resolved. The superintendent may opt for no 
punishment; administrative measures, which can vary from an oral or 
written reprimand to separation from the academy; nonjudicial 
punishment such as loss of privileges, extra duty, and loss of rank or 
pay; or, for the most serious offenses, a court-martial. After being 
found guilty at a general court-martial, a subject could be dismissed 
from the service academy, confined, or--if the case is referred as a 
capital case--sentenced to the death penalty. According to officials we 
spoke with, legal proceedings in the military courts tend to occur more 
promptly than in the civilian judicial system. DOD policy affords the 
victim a number of rights during this process, including the right to 
consult with the government's attorney, notification of and the right 
to be present at all court proceedings unless otherwise determined by 
the court, and reasonable protection from the subject.[Footnote 26] 

From academy program years 2003 through 2006, 9 of the 126 subjects 
identified in the 108[Footnote 27] unrestricted reports of sexual 
assault that we reviewed from the DOD and Coast Guard military criminal 
investigative organizations proceeded to a court-martial. The majority 
of the remaining 117 subjects identified were not formally charged with 
sexual assault because the evidence was unsubstantiated, unfounded, or 
insufficient. Of those 9 subjects tried, 5 subjects were convicted and 
4 were acquitted. 

Academies Collect Data on Sexual Harassment and Assault, but Results 
from Anonymous Surveys Administered in 2006 Suggest That the Academies 
May Not Have Complete Visibility Due to Underreporting: 

The academies collect data on sexual harassment and assault; however, 
student perceptions gathered from a survey administered in 2006 suggest 
that sexual harassment and assault may be underreported and, hence, 
that the academies do not have visibility over the total number of 
incidents. Although the Coast Guard Academy is not required to report 
sexual harassment and assault data, it does record incidents of sexual 
harassment and assault and also administers its own surveys of academy 
students. The 2006 Coast Guard Academy survey shows similar disparities 
in the results. 

The DOD Academies Collect Data on Reported Incidents of Sexual 
Harassment and Assault: 

For academy program years 2003 through 2006, the DOD academies' 
military equal opportunity offices[Footnote 28] reported 32 sexual 
harassment cases, the Sexual Assault Response Coordinators[Footnote 29] 
reported 26 restricted cases of sexual assault, and the military 
criminal investigators[Footnote 30] reported 96 unrestricted sexual 
assault cases. Each DOD academy is statutorily required[Footnote 31] to 
submit annual sexual harassment and violence reports to its respective 
service secretary each academy program year.[Footnote 32] These reports 
must include the number of sexual assaults, rapes, and other sexual 
offenses involving academy students or other personnel that have been 
reported to academy officials during the academy program year, and also 
indicate the number of reported cases that have been substantiated. The 
sexual assault data reported in the annual DOD academy reports are 
currently provided by each academy's respective military criminal 
investigative organization and Sexual Assault Response Coordinator. In 
addition, the DOD academies are statutorily required to participate in 
DOD-administered surveys, typically conducted by the Defense Manpower 
Data Center, in odd-numbered years and in focus groups in even-numbered 
years to determine the effectiveness of the policies, training, and 
procedures of the academies with respect to sexual harassment and 
sexual violence involving students and other academy personnel. The 
academies provide this information to their respective service 
secretaries, who forward the report to the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness' Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Office[Footnote 33] for report assembly and submission to Congress. 

Table 1 presents the number of sexual harassment complaints reported by 
each of the DOD academies' military equal opportunity offices for 
program years 2003 through 2006. Although all the DOD academies offer 
an informal sexual harassment complaint option, the Air Force Academy 
is the only academy that formally tracks data on informal complaints. 
Sexual harassment data have not been reported previously in the DOD 
academies' annual sexual harassment and violence report; however, the 
2007 report does include these data. 

Table 1: Alleged Sexual Harassment Incidents at the DOD Academies for 
Academy Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Military Academy: 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0;
2006: 0; 
Total: 0[A]. 

Naval Academy: 
2003: 5; 
2004: 5; 
2005: 13; 
2006: 3; 
Total: 26. 

Air Force Academy[B]: 
2003: Not available[C]; 
2004: Not available[C]; 
2005: 1; 
2006: 5; 
Total: 6. 

Total: 
2003: 5; 
2004: 5; 
2005: 14; 
2006: 8; 
Total: 32. 

Source: GAO analysis of sexual harassment data provided by the DOD 
academies' military equal opportunity offices. 

Note: All included alleged cases were closed prior to the end of 
academy program year 2006. 

[A] According to Military Academy officials, there were no reported 
cases of sexual harassment for academy program years 2003 through 2006. 

[B] The Air Force Academy numbers include both formal and informal 
complaints of sexual harassment. 

[C] The Air Force Academy maintains case files for 2 years only. 

[End of table] 

Table 2 presents the number of unrestricted reports of sexual assault 
provided by the military criminal investigative organizations, and the 
incidents that were substantiated by each DOD academy for academy 
program years 2003 through 2006. The military criminal investigative 
organizations track unrestricted sexual assault reports involving 
academy students as victims, subjects, or both. Officials noted that 
reported data are incident based and do not necessarily reflect the 
number of victims or subjects. 

Table 2: Unrestricted Sexual Assault Incidents Reported by the Military 
Criminal Investigative Organizations at the DOD Academies for Academy 
Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Military Academy: 
2003: 7; 
2004: 8; 
2005: 13; 
2006: 4; 
Total: 32; 
Total substantiated: 15. 

Naval Academy: 
2003: 7; 
2004: 7; 
2005: 5; 
2006: 7; 
Total: 26; 
Total substantiated: 18. 

Air Force Academy: 
2003: 8; 
2004: 19; 
2005: 7; 
2006: 4; 
Total: 38; 
Total substantiated: 3. 

Total: 
2003: 22; 
2004: 34; 
2005: 25; 
2006: 15; 
Total: 96; 
Total substantiated: 36. 

Source: GAO analysis of unrestricted sexual assault data provided by 
the DOD military criminal investigative organizations. 

[End of table] 

In addition to the unrestricted data obtained from criminal 
investigators, we also collected restricted and unrestricted reports of 
sexual assault from the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator at each 
academy. Table 3 presents the number of restricted and unrestricted 
reports of sexual assault incidents reported by the Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator at each academy for academy program years 2003 
through 2006. Data collected by the Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators are victim based. 

Table 3: Unrestricted and Restricted Sexual Assault Incidents Reported 
by the Sexual Assault Response Coordinators at the DOD Academies for 
Academy Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Military Academy: Unrestricted; 
2003: 10; 
2004: 7; 
2005: 12; 
2006: 6. 

Military Academy: Restricted; 
2003: Not available[A]; 
2004: Not available[A]; 
2005: 3; 
2006: 7; 
Total: 45. 

Naval Academy; Unrestricted; 
2003: 12; 
2004: 10; 
2005: 11; 
2006: 12. 

Naval Academy; Restricted; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 1; 
2005: 6; 
2006: 3; 
Total: 55. 

Air Force Academy; Unrestricted; 
2003: 11; 
2004: 16; 
2005: 7; 
2006: 5. 

Air Force Academy; Restricted; 
2003: Not available[A]; 
2004: Not available[A]; 
2005: Not available[A]; 
2006: 5; 
Total: 45. 

Total: 
2003: 33; 
2004: 34; 
2005: 39; 
2006: 38; 
Total: 145. 

Source: GAO analysis of unrestricted and restricted reports of sexual 
assault provided by the DOD academies' Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators. 

[A] The DOD-wide restricted reporting option did not go into effect 
until academy program year 2006; however, the Military Academy employed 
a restricted reporting option in academy program year 2005 and the 
Naval Academy employed a restricted reporting option in academy program 
years 2003, 2004, and 2005. 

[End of table] 

As tables 2 and 3 illustrate, the data will vary based on the source 
providing the information. Given that data collected by the Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinators are victim based, and data collected by 
the military criminal investigative organizations are incident based, 
the numbers reported by these organizations will not always correspond. 
For example, an incident involving one subject and three victims would 
be reported as one incident by the military criminal investigative 
organization and as three incidents by the Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinator. 

Student Perceptions Gathered from Surveys Administered in 2006 Suggest 
That Sexual Harassment and Assault Data May Be Underreported, and That 
the Academies Do Not Have Visibility over the Total Number of Cases: 

Responses of students to recent surveys conducted at each of the four 
academies indicate that incidents of sexual harassment and assault may 
be occurring at higher rates than are being reported, suggesting that 
the academies do not have full visibility over the actual number of 
cases. The first survey to measure academy students' experience with 
sexual harassment and assault while at the academies was conducted in 
2004 by the DOD Inspector General. Responsibility for subsequent 
surveys was transferred to the Defense Manpower Data Center. The 
results of the most recent survey of DOD academy students, which was 
administered in March and April 2006, are that an estimated 8.2 percent 
to 10.5 percent of females and an estimated 1 percent to 1.4 percent of 
males experienced "unwanted sexual contact."[Footnote 34] Based on the 
total number of men and women enrolled at the academies at that time, 
the DOD survey estimates suggest that approximately 200 female and 100 
male students may have experienced unwanted sexual contact in the 
previous year alone.[Footnote 35] Although the term unwanted sexual 
contact includes a range of activities that the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice prohibits and thus cannot necessarily be directly 
compared to reported cases of sexual harassment or sexual assault, 
survey results nonetheless suggest that cases may be underreported and 
that the academies may not have full visibility over the total number 
of incidents of sexual harassment and assault involving academy 
students. Nearly all of female respondents who indicated experiencing 
unwanted sexual contact reported that their offenders were male 
students at the academy. Furthermore, of the same group of females, 
roughly 75 percent from the Military Academy, 45 percent from the Naval 
Academy, and 47 percent from the Air Force Academy reported that their 
experience of unwanted sexual contact occurred on academy 
grounds.[Footnote 36] Results regarding offender identity and the 
location of incidents are not reportable for male respondents. Results 
from the same survey indicated that an estimated 51 percent to 60 
percent of female respondents at the three DOD academies, and an 
estimated 8 percent to 12 percent of male respondents, experienced 
sexual harassment,[Footnote 37] which, like the previous measure, is 
higher than the 8 sexual harassment incidents recorded by the DOD 
academies for the 2006 academy program year.[Footnote 38] 

Although the survey results suggest a disparity between the number of 
reported sexual harassment and assault cases and the actual number of 
incidents, this is largely an expected result of anonymous surveys. 
Whereas formal reports, whether restricted or unrestricted, involve 
some level of personal identification--and therefore a certain amount 
of risk on the part of the victim--the risks and incentives for the 
students making anonymous reports are very different. Hence, anonymous 
survey results tend to produce higher numbers of alleged incidents of 
sexual harassment and assault. In addition, academy officials will 
likely never have complete visibility over sexual harassment and 
assault incidents--particularly those that are never reported or those 
that are reported to individuals who are not required to disclose these 
incidents, such as clergy, counselors, civilian victim care 
organizations, friends, or family. Figure 2 depicts various reporting 
options open to victims and highlights those options over which the 
academies may likely never have complete visibility. 

Figure 2: Sexual Harassment and Assault Reporting Options: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure presents graphical illustrations of Sexual Harassment and 
Assault Reporting Options. The following data is depicted 

Sexual harassment reporting options: 

Sexual harassment complaint: 
Complainant may file formal sexual harassment complaint to these 
entities or seek advice only; Complaints made to these entities are 
included informal reports to the academy: 
Chain of command[A]; 
Military Equal Opportunity Office. 

Complaints provided to these entities may not result in a formal sexual 
harassment complaint; therefore the Academy has limited to no 
visibility; Complainant may seek advice from these entities without 
filing a complaint or report: 
Chaplain; 
Counselor; 
Peer resources; 
Civilian organizations; 
Friends and family. 

Sexual assault reporting options: 

Sexual assault victim: 
Victim must file an unrestricted report/mandatory reporting; Complaints 
made to these entities are included informal reports to the academy: 
Chain of command[A]. 

Victim may file restricted or unrestricted report; Complaints made to 
these entities are included informal reports to the academy: 
Health care provider; 
Sexual Assault Response Coordinator. 

Sexual assault complaints provided to these entities may not result in 
an unrestricted or restricted report; therefore the Academy has limited 
to no visibility; Complainant may seek advice from these entities 
without filing a complaint or report: 
Chaplain; 
Counselor; 
Peer resources; 
Civilian organizations; 
Friends and family. 

[A] Chain of command responsibilities differ depending on whether a 
student wishes to report sexual harassment or assault and is 
represented as such in these figures. 

[End of figure] 

The Coast Guard Academy Is Not Required to Report Sexual Harassment and 
Assault Data but Does Record Incidents: 

The Coast Guard Academy is not required to assess its students; 
however, it does administer its own surveys of academy students, and 
these surveys show similar disparities in the results. In 2006, for 
example, 43 females and 20 males of the 793 student survey respondents 
reported that they had experienced an incident of sexual harassment or 
assault between October 2005 and October 2006.[Footnote 39] The Coast 
Guard Academy combined its assessment of students experiencing sexual 
harassment and assault into a single measure, which makes it difficult 
to compare survey responses to reported data. However, the combined 
sexual harassment and assault measure still exceeds the 10 recorded 
sexual assault incidents and 0 recorded incidents of sexual harassment 
at the Coast Guard Academy in the 2006 academy program year. 
Additionally, the DOD and Coast Guard academies' survey results cannot 
be compared because they used different measures in their surveys. 

Table 4 presents the total number reports of sexual assault that were 
reported to the Coast Guard Investigative Service, the Coast Guard's 
military criminal investigative organization, from academy program 
years 2003 through 2006. The Coast Guard Academy did not receive any 
sexual harassment complaints from academy program year 2003 through 
2006. 

Table 4: Unrestricted and Restricted Sexual Assault Incidents at the 
Coast Guard Academy for Academy Program Years 2003 through 2006: 

Coast Guard Academy; 
2003: 1; 
2004: 1; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 10; 
Total[A]: 12. 

Source: GAO analysis of unrestricted and restricted reports of sexual 
assault provided by the Coast Guard Academy. 

[A] The total number of sexual assault cases includes both restricted 
and unrestricted reports. 

[End of table] 

The Coast Guard Academy, unlike the DOD academies, is not required to 
submit annual reports to Congress on incidents of sexual harassment and 
assault. The Coast Guard Academy does record these data, but like DOD 
academy sexual harassment and assault data, it is difficult to draw 
conclusions about the effectiveness of Coast Guard Academy sexual 
harassment and assault programs just by analyzing those data. 

DOD's Oversight of Its Academies' Sexual Harassment and Assault 
Programs Has Not Been Integrated and Comprehensive, and Coast Guard 
Headquarters Has Not Established an Oversight Framework: 

DOD has established an oversight framework for its academies' sexual 
harassment and assault programs, but the department has not clearly 
articulated data-reporting requirements or established performance 
measures for evaluating the data collected from the academies, and it 
has not taken the opportunity to assess the overall health of academy 
sexual harassment and assault programs as part of its annual report to 
Congress. However, DOD has recently taken steps to address these 
concerns. Furthermore, although Coast Guard headquarters has performed 
a limited assessment of the academy's sexual harassment program, it has 
not established any oversight framework for either the sexual 
harassment or sexual assault programs at the Coast Guard Academy. 

DOD Has Issued Guidance Establishing an Oversight Framework for Its 
Academies' Sexual Harassment and Assault Programs: 

DOD has issued guidance establishing an oversight framework for its 
sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention and response programs 
that assigns oversight responsibility within the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, provides oversight 
expectations to the military services, and defines statutory reporting 
requirements. 

DOD Sexual Harassment Program Oversight: 

DOD's Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity has 
oversight responsibilities for DOD's sexual harassment programs, and 
DOD provisions regarding sexual harassment are contained in various 
equal opportunity documents. These documents include DOD Directive 
1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program, dated 
August 18, 1995, and DOD Instruction 1350.3, Affirmative Action 
Planning and Assessment Process, dated February 29, 1988. Office of 
Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity officials noted that the 
directive and instruction are currently under revision and will include 
separate instructions to describe a diversity management program, the 
military equal opportunity program, and the equal employment 
opportunity program. 

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity officials stated 
that they assign sexual harassment oversight responsibility of the 
academies to the service headquarters. DOD's affirmative action 
instruction focuses on the DOD policy for the military services to 
monitor and report on selected dimensions of their personnel programs 
(including the academies' programs) to ensure equal opportunity and 
fair treatment for all service members through affirmative actions and 
other initiatives.[Footnote 40] The instruction also assigns 
responsibilities and establishes minimum reporting requirements. The 
officials also noted that the service academies are subject to the 
provisions of DOD Directive 1350.2 as well as their respective service 
operating instructions and regulations and academy-specific guidance. 
Each military department prepares its service-specific operating 
instructions based on the guidance contained in the DOD directive. 
Similarly, the service academies prepare guidance based on their 
specific service instructions and regulations. 

DOD Sexual Assault Program Oversight: 

DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office was established 
following concerns raised in early 2004 regarding sexual assault within 
DOD. On February 5, 2004, the Secretary of Defense directed the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to undertake a 90-day 
review of all sexual assault policies and programs among the services 
and DOD. Subsequently, the Task Force Report on Care for Victims of 
Sexual Assault was published in April 2004, and it identified 
significant problems with military prevention and response to sexual 
assault. The task force recommended for long-term action that DOD 
establish institutional sexual assault program evaluation, quality 
improvement, and oversight mechanisms. Since the issuance of the task 
force report and the passage of recent legislation, DOD has made a 
number of changes to its sexual assault program. From 2004 to 2006, DOD 
refined and initiated a new policy on sexual assault first through a 
series of directive-type memorandums to the services--including the 
academies--and subsequently through DOD Directive 6495.01, Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Program. The directive established a 
comprehensive DOD policy on prevention of and response to sexual 
assaults and assigned responsibilities for many tasks, including, but 
not limited to, the development of overall policy and guidance for the 
DOD sexual assault and prevention program, the monitoring of compliance 
with the directive, the collection and maintenance of sexual assault 
data, the development of metrics to measure compliance and the 
effectiveness of sexual assault prevention and response training, and 
the oversight of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. In 
addressing one of the key recommendations of the task force, DOD 
established the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office as the 
department's single point of responsibility for sexual assault policy 
matters, except for criminal investigative policy matters assigned to 
the DOD Inspector General. 

The office monitors the effectiveness of the academies' sexual assault 
prevention and response programs through required academy assessments 
and has overseen surveys and focus groups at the DOD academies. Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office officials noted that they are 
working collaboratively with the services to create standards for 
evaluation in order to continue to effectively monitor sexual assault 
prevention and response programs. 

DOD Has Not Clearly Articulated Sexual Harassment and Assault Data- 
Reporting Requirements: 

Although it is hard to know the total number of actual sexual 
harassment and assault incidents, DOD's previously issued annual 
reports to Congress may not effectively characterize incidents of 
sexual assault at the academies because the department has not clearly 
articulated data-reporting requirements, such as requiring common 
terminology or consistent methodology for reporting incidents. 
Inconsistencies in the way sexual harassment and assault data have been 
collected and the academies' dissimilar methods for reporting data in 
the annual sexual harassment and violence report could be misleading or 
confusing. As a result, congressional decision makers have lacked a 
clear picture of the incidence of sexual harassment and assault 
involving academy students and, therefore, may have difficulty judging 
the overall successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the 
academies' sexual harassment and assault prevention and response 
programs. For example: 

* Reported numbers of substantiated claims are inconsistent. 
- DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office requires DOD's 
academies to provide data on reported sexual assaults that have been 
"substantiated," but each academy has been defining the term 
differently because DOD has not provided clear definitions in its data 
request to the DOD academies. For example, the Naval Academy considers 
an unrestricted report of sexual assault to be substantiated if any one 
of the following three events occurs: an investigation can be 
conducted, an investigation results in a guilty verdict, or a minor 
case of sexual assault occurred and is handled administratively. This 
definition is much broader than that of either the Air Force or the 
Military Academy. The Air Force Academy's definition of substantiated 
unrestricted reports excludes cases that are still under investigation, 
false reports, and reported incidents that do not meet the DOD standard 
definition of sexual assault. The Military Academy defines 
substantiated cases as those for which criminal investigators have 
determined probable cause that a subject has committed a criminal 
offense. Based on these differences in the interpretation of DOD 
reporting requirements, there has been inconsistent reporting among the 
academies of substantiated incidents. 

* Reported data from different offices on restricted and unrestricted 
sexual assault reports have not been compared or aggregated. 
- DOD has not been generating a total number of restricted and 
unrestricted reported incidents of sexual assault. The offices 
providing the data measure incidents of sexual assault differently and 
in ways that are inconsistent, thus making it difficult to aggregate 
the data. Although the academies' Sexual Assault Response Coordinators 
collect data on both restricted and unrestricted cases, DOD's Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office asks the coordinators to report 
only the number of restricted incidents, because it asks the criminal 
investigative organizations to provide data on unrestricted reports of 
sexual assault. The Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, who focus on 
victim care, collect and report data based on the number of victims 
involved. The criminal investigative organizations, however, report on 
"incidents," which they define as events that take place at the same 
time and same place, regardless of the number of victims or subjects 
involved. Thus, the lack of a shared definition for what constitutes an 
incident for reporting purposes in DOD's annual report on sexual 
harassment and assault has limited the ability of readers of the 
reports to draw conclusions based solely on reported numbers. 

* Academy methods for collecting and reporting informal sexual 
harassment complaints are inconsistent. 
- Our study further found that the academies have different procedures 
for collecting and reporting data concerning informal sexual harassment 
complaints. The Air Force Academy tracks informal complaints, and Air 
Force policy requires academy officials to report these numbers to the 
Air Force military equal opportunity headquarters on a quarterly basis. 
The Military Academy and Coast Guard Academy maintain some data on 
informal complaints but do not report these numbers, and the Naval 
Academy does not track informal harassment complaints at all. Since 
each of the academies encourages students to use the informal approach 
to address sexual harassment issues, the absence of a systematic way of 
tracking such complaints results in reduced visibility over the vast 
majority of incidents. 

All of the DOD academies collect data on formal complaints of sexual 
harassment. The Military Academy and Air Force Academy report these 
data in quarterly military equal opportunity reports to their 
respective service military equal opportunity offices. However, DOD has 
not required the academies to provide sexual harassment incident data 
in the annual sexual harassment and violence report, although the 
reports have included survey and focus groups results on the topic. DOD 
officials began to include data on formal complaints of sexual 
harassment starting with the 2007 annual report on sexual harassment 
and violence at the military academies. 

DOD Has Not Established a Mechanism for Evaluating Academy Data: 

DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and Office of 
Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity have been fulfilling only 
the minimal requirements to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the 
academies' programs because DOD has not established evaluative 
performance measures with which to conduct a comprehensive and 
integrated analysis of sexual harassment and assault incident data, 
survey and focus group results, and information on programs implemented 
at the academies. Our prior work has demonstrated the centrality of 
outcome-focused performance measures to successful program oversight. 
Although we recognize the difficulties in achieving full visibility 
over incidents of sexual harassment and assault and that the problem 
may never be completely eradicated, any attempt to transform the 
culture of an organization like the service academies demands that top 
leadership set implementation goals and a timeline to measure 
progress.[Footnote 41] 

In June 2006, DOD issued guidance for implementing the sexual assault 
prevention and response program directive. DOD Instruction 6495.02, 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, establishes oversight 
responsibilities and states that the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Office is responsible for establishing institutional sexual 
assault program evaluation, as well as quality improvement and 
oversight mechanisms, to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of 
DOD's sexual assault prevention and response programs. In the absence 
of such measures, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office 
officials told us that the office currently determines the 
effectiveness of the sexual assault prevention and response program 
based on how well the services are complying with the program 
implementation and requirements identified by DOD. Officials in DOD's 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office did state that the office 
is working on the development of performance measures to gauge program 
effectiveness and intends to revise its oversight and evaluation 
activities as policy implementation matures. However, they noted during 
our review that the office did not have a timeline for developing these 
performance measures or for developing any program wide assessment tool 
for evaluating sexual harassment and assault programs at the academies. 

DOD Has Not Conducted Its Own Assessment of Academy Sexual Harassment 
and Assault Programs as Part of Its Annual Report to Congress: 

DOD has not performed its own analysis of the information contained in 
the DOD academies' annual reports or provided its assessment of the 
academies' programs before forwarding their reports to Congress, in 
part because it is not explicitly required to include this type of 
assessment in its annual report on the academies. As a result, however, 
it is difficult to gain an understanding of the overall successes, 
challenges, and lessons learned from the academies' sexual harassment 
and assault prevention and response programs in previously issued 
annual reports. Throughout the course of this review, we held 
discussions with officials at DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Office to discuss their oversight responsibilities. The 
officials stated that their statutory reporting requirements are still 
relatively new, acknowledged that their role has been progressing from 
policy implementation to program oversight, and expressed their views 
that their oversight program has not yet matured to the point where it 
needed to be. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office officials 
shared a draft of their most recent academy annual report, which was 
finalized in December 2007. We reviewed the draft report, which 
revealed a more comprehensive assessment of academy sexual harassment 
and assault programs than previous annual reports. For example, the 
draft 2007 annual academies report that we reviewed contained the 
status of each service academy with regard to program implementation, 
an assessment of service academy compliance with DOD program 
requirements, and discussions of the incidence of sexual harassment 
during the 2007 program year at each academy. 

Coast Guard Headquarters Has Not Established an Integrated Oversight 
Framework for the Coast Guard Academy's Sexual Harassment and Assault 
Activities: 

Although Coast Guard headquarters has performed a limited assessment of 
its academy's sexual harassment and assault programs, it has not 
established guidance, program requirements, or other aspects of an 
oversight framework for these programs at the Coast Guard Academy. The 
Coast Guard headquarters oversight of academy sexual assault programs 
is limited to the collection and maintenance of incident data. 

The Coast Guard headquarters' Civil Rights Directorate, which is 
responsible for policy and oversight of the sexual harassment program 
in the Coast Guard, conducts equal opportunity reviews of all units 
within the Coast Guard, including the academy that consists of an 
assessment of the environment through surveys and focus groups and 
interviews with program officials. The directorate conducted its last 
review of the Coast Guard Academy in May 2003 and noted that the Civil 
Rights/Equal Opportunity climate, which includes the sexual harassment 
program, was in very good to excellent condition. 

Coast Guard headquarters recently chartered a task force to assess the 
Coast Guard Academy's effectiveness in instilling Coast Guard core 
values and in producing future officers who employ those values in 
achieving mission excellence. The task force reported its findings in 
February 2007 and noted that while the actual number of sexual 
harassment and assault incidents continues to fluctuate, the proportion 
of incidents to numbers of women at the academy has decreased as the 
number of women enrolled at the Coast Guard Academy has increased. The 
task force also recommended that oversight be established to measure 
the alignment of Coast Guard Academy programs to Coast Guard 
objectives. 

While there is no statutory reporting requirement for the Coast Guard 
Academy, the academy voluntarily participates in DOD's annual reporting 
requirement by submitting data, although in a more limited format, to 
DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, and internally 
administers climate surveys and focus groups on an annual basis. 

Conclusions: 

The Military, Air Force, Naval, and Coast Guard academies are expected 
to provide a safe academic environment for their students. In addition, 
the academies strive to produce leaders of character and integrity who 
will help guide servicemen and servicewomen. Sexual harassment and 
assault, however, are fundamentally at odds with the obligation of men 
and women in uniform to treat all with dignity and respect. While each 
of the academies has taken positive steps to prevent, respond to, and 
resolve incidents of sexual harassment and assault, the fact that 
current data collection instruments suggest that incidents of sexual 
harassment and assault may be underreported points to the need for 
enhanced oversight. Because of the difficulty in eradicating sexual 
harassment and assault, appropriate and effective oversight is 
critical. 

In the absence of common data, standard terminology, and performance 
measures with which to evaluate results, DOD is unable to make crucial 
analyses and associated adjustments to its programs to ensure that the 
academies are doing their utmost to ensure the health and welfare of 
their students. Moreover, it is difficult to determine if its efforts 
have improved the situation at the academies. DOD has not previously 
provided Congress with its own assessment of academy programs in its 
annual reports and has missed opportunities to assess the overall 
successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the academy's 
harassment and assault program initiatives. It does however, appear 
that the department is beginning to formally take steps to analyze and 
assess the effectiveness of academy programs, but until these changes 
are formalized, DOD will not be in a position to provide congressional 
decision makers with meaningful information. 

Although the Coast Guard Academy has taken the initiative to establish 
a sexual harassment and assault prevention program, despite not being 
statutorily required to do so, Coast Guard headquarters lacks a 
comprehensive framework to oversee the academy's efforts. Until Coast 
Guard headquarters establishes data collection, maintenance, and 
reporting requirements and develops goals, performance measures, and 
milestones for the Coast Guard Academy's program to strive toward, it 
will not be able to assess the effectiveness of its program. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Congress may wish to consider requiring the Coast Guard Academy to 
submit sexual harassment and assault incident and program data for the 
annual report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military 
Academies and to participate in surveys and appropriate qualitative 
methods that produce results that are methodologically comparable to 
those required of and administered by DOD. Including the Coast Guard 
Academy in these annual reports and reviews will provide Congress with 
a more comprehensive integrated and uniform assessment of sexual 
harassment and assault programs at all of the U.S. military academies. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve visibility and oversight of reported incidents of sexual 
harassment and assault at the DOD service academies, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness to take the following three actions: 

* Clearly articulate data reporting requirements to include common 
terminology. 

* Establish evaluative performance measures that effectively assess 
academy sexual harassment and assault programs. 

* Provide Congress with a comprehensive integrated assessment of the 
successes, challenges, and lessons learned from academy sexual 
harassment and assault programs in future annual academy sexual 
harassment and violence reports. 

To improve Coast Guard headquarters' oversight of reported incidents of 
sexual harassment and assault at the Coast Guard Academy, we recommend 
that the Commandant of the Coast Guard establish a management oversight 
framework for the Coast Guard Academy to include data collection, 
maintenance, and reporting requirements, management goals, performance 
measures, and milestones to evaluate progress made toward addressing 
the incidence of sexual harassment and assault. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred or 
partially concurred with our recommendations to improve the oversight 
of sexual harassment and assault programs at the DOD academies and to 
ensure consistent capturing and reporting of data. DOD also provided 
technical comments and we have incorporated them in the report as 
appropriate. DOD's official and supplemental comments are reprinted in 
appendix II. In its written comments on a draft of this report, the 
Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to improve oversight and 
establish a management framework to address the incidence of sexual 
harassment and assault. The Coast Guard provided technical comments and 
we have incorporated them into the report as appropriate. The Coast 
Guard's formal comments are reprinted in appendix III. 

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness to clearly articulate data-reporting requirements, to include 
common terminology. DOD agreed that there are challenges with 
maintaining consistent terminology in the data reporting-process, and 
added that it has initiatives under way to address this matter. The 
department acknowledged our report's reference to the lack of a common 
definition for the term substantiated in its annual academy sexual 
harassment and violence reports, and stated that it has contracted with 
the RAND Corporation to research this issue and to increase data 
collection standardization. DOD also asserted in its comments that case 
disposition data that DOD reports are consistent across the military 
services. We question this assertion because it is difficult to 
determine if disposition data are used consistently across the 
academies without first ensuring that the academies are applying common 
terminology. We specifically highlighted the inconsistent use of the 
term substantiated, given that Congress used this in the National 
Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2004 and 2007. In order for 
DOD to provide a uniform message to Congress, we continue to believe 
that it is critical that data-reporting requirements are clearly 
articulated and that all terminology related to reporting requirements 
is consistently defined. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
establish evaluative performance measures that effectively assess 
academy sexual assault and harassment programs. The department stated 
that this is an important issue and that it is in the initial stages of 
creating servicewide performance metrics for the Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response programs, to include the U.S. military service 
academies, and has identified the establishment of these metrics as a 
priority item for the upcoming year. DOD also noted that it will share 
this task with the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity 
so that sexual harassment and sexual assault are evaluated in like 
manner. 

DOD partially concurred with the recommendation in our draft report 
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness to provide Congress with a comprehensive, 
integrated assessment of the health of academy sexual harassment and 
assault programs in future annual academy sexual harassment and 
violence reports. Specifically, DOD requested clarification of the term 
health, asserting that the term does not clearly define what is to be 
assessed. Through this recommendation, we are expressing our finding 
that DOD, at the departmentwide level, has been missing the opportunity 
to provide its own assessment of the successes, challenges, and lessons 
learned from the academies' sexual harassment and assault programs. We 
changed our recommendation to reflect this language. DOD also expressed 
concerns about our finding that the department was only minimally 
addressing congressional interest in academy programs, stating, 
correctly, that the department has complied with congressional 
requirements. DOD added that it completed a comprehensive, integrated 
assessment of the academies and included its findings in the annual 
academy sexual harassment and violence report, which it submitted to 
Congress on December 7, 2007. While we recognize that DOD has complied 
with congressional requirements, we continue to believe that the 
department should have taken steps to conduct its own assessment of the 
academies' sexual harassment and assault programs beyond the 
requirements established by Congress. We recognize, and note in this 
report, that DOD does perform specific analyses of academy programs 
that include surveys and focus groups to assess student perceptions of 
academy sexual harassment and assault programs, and that DOD's most 
recent report to Congress presents additional steps taken by the 
department to improve its analyses of academy data and programs. 
However, we also note that this has been a long-standing issue. As we 
stated in our report, incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault 
at the service academies are not a new concern. In addition, Congress 
has directed the department to take certain actions through various 
pieces of legislation to address these issues. While we recognize that 
DOD has recently begun to provide more comprehensive analyses, we 
continue to believe that these efforts will not fully capture, nor 
accurately portray, the condition of academy sexual harassment and 
assault programs until the uniform reporting requirements and 
performance metrics, called for in our previous recommendations, are 
established. A comprehensive, departmentwide, integrated assessment of 
academy sexual harassment and assault programs will provide 
congressional decision makers with better assurances that they are 
being provided high-quality information. 

DOD provided additional written comments to supplement its official 
response to our recommendations. Specifically, DOD raised concerns that 
in our Results in Brief section, we had implied that no action was 
taken against 117 subjects who had been identified by the military 
criminal investigative organizations in sexual assault cases. We did 
not mean to imply that no action was taken. Rather, our report states 
simply that these individuals were not formally charged with sexual 
assault. As DOD's comments point out, we do discuss other disposition 
options in the body of this report. DOD also raised concerns about our 
statement that the DOD academies' military equal opportunity offices 
and the Coast Guard Office of Civil Rights investigate formal 
complaints of sexual harassment. The department's primary concern was 
that military equal opportunity offices are not empowered to conduct 
formal investigations. DOD provided a suggested change, which we 
accepted. Additionally, DOD commented on the challenges associated with 
the fact that data collected by military criminal investigative 
organizations are incident based while data provided by sexual assault 
response coordinators are victim based. We recognize this dilemma and 
the reasons for it, and did, in fact, discuss this point in our report. 
However, we found that the department's reliance on different units of 
measurement for purposes of the annual academy report does not provide 
clarity and can be confusing to the recipients of the report. DOD also 
noted that sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes in 
America, due in part to the nature of the offense, and given that most 
sexual assaults are not reported, stated that the use of the number of 
reports of sexual assault as a metric would not be a reliable or valid 
measure of program effectiveness. We acknowledge in our report that it 
is hard to know the total number of sexual assault incidents. However, 
we also stated that the fact that current data collection instruments 
suggest that incidents of sexual harassment and assault may be 
underreported points to the need for enhanced oversight. Finally, DOD 
commented on our statement that there is lack of a shared definition 
for what constitutes an incident, saying that our statement is 
incorrect and that definitions are in place. We note in our report that 
different definitions are in place and the reasons why, but continue to 
believe that a common definition for purposes of the annual academies' 
reports would, as previously stated, provide clarity for the readers of 
these reports. 

The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to improve its 
oversight of reported incidents of sexual harassment and assault at the 
Coast Guard Academy and establish a management framework for the 
academy to include data collection, maintenance, and reporting 
requirements, goals, performance measures, and milestones to evaluate 
progress made toward addressing the incidence of sexual harassment and 
assault. The Coast Guard noted that the academy has made strides in 
recent years by internally administering climate surveys, and that its 
Coast Guard Commandant Instruction on the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Program (SAPRP), dated December 20, 2007, will provide the 
necessary framework and oversight recommended in our report. We 
reviewed this instruction and it addresses many of our concerns. The 
Coast Guard also noted its willingness to work with the DOD Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office to ensure that standardized 
definitions, metrics, and performance measures are developed and 
reported to Congress annually through the annual academy sexual 
harassment and violence report. 

As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the 
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it 
until 30 days from its date. We will then send copies to other 
interested congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, 
Homeland Security, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard. We will also make copies available to 
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please 
contact me 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 report. The GAO staff members who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Brenda S. Farrell: 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

In order to assess the sexual harassment and assault programs as the 
service academies, we visited each of the service academies: the United 
States Military Academy (Military Academy) at West Point, New York; the 
United States Naval Academy (Naval Academy) in Annapolis, Maryland; the 
United States Air Force Academy (Air Force Academy) in Colorado 
Springs, Colorado; and the United States Coast Guard Academy (Coast 
Guard Academy) in New London, Connecticut. 

To evaluate the extent to which academies' programs address the 
prevention, response, and resolution of sexual harassment and assault 
cases, we reviewed legislative requirements and current Department of 
Defense (DOD), service, and academy policies, regulations, and 
procedures regarding sexual harassment and assault. We also reviewed 
the academies' training and response programs. We examined relevant 
reports, studies, and surveys that included previous findings and 
recommendations related to sexual harassment and assault at the 
academies. We also interviewed DOD, service headquarters, and academy 
officials responsible for the programs and reviewed how each academy 
defines sexual harassment and assault. We conducted one-on-one 
structured interviews with students at the academies to assess student 
perceptions on sexual harassment and assault issues. We interviewed a 
total of 70 students at the academies (approximately 17 students at 
each academy). These include 36 male and 34 female students. Working 
with academy officials, we randomly selected this nongeneralizable 
sample of students with more than 1 year at the academy from lists of 
students who were available between academic commitments during our 
site visits. Our questions did not address specific incidents of 
alleged sexual harassment or assault at the academies. We also 
interviewed nationally recognized individuals in the area of sexual 
harassment and assault to determine their views on the elements of an 
effective sexual harassment and assault program. 

To evaluate the academies' visibility over sexual harassment and 
assault incidents, we reviewed and analyzed data collected from the 
academies, service headquarters, and DOD on reported incidents of 
sexual harassment and assault occurring at the academies between 
academy program years 2003 and 2006. We assessed the reliability of the 
academies' sexual harassment and assault data by interviewing 
knowledgeable officials and comparing data collected from different 
sources, and found inconsistencies. When we found discrepancies with 
the data, we followed up with academy officials to attempt to reconcile 
these differences. We did not analyze sexual harassment and assault 
data prior to academy program year 2003 because the data were either 
unavailable or we determined that they were not reliable. We included 
all incidents reported to academy officials involving students as 
victims, subjects, or both. We interviewed academy officials to 
determine how the academies collect and maintain data on sexual 
harassment and assault and compared these practices with statutory and 
programmatic requirements. For the DOD service academies, we also 
compared the reported incidents with information provided by students 
on surveys and focus groups, administered by the Defense Manpower Data 
Center, to identify information gaps between sexual harassment and 
assault incidents reported by the academies and what is reported 
anonymously by students in climate surveys. The Defense Manpower Data 
Center administered the climate survey to students of all three DOD 
military academies in March and April 2006. The sampling frame included 
all students in class years 2006 through 2009 stratified by academy, 
gender, and class year. Males were sampled based on a single-stage, 
nonproportional stratified random procedure; the entire population of 
female students was selected for the survey. The overall weighted 
response rate for eligible respondents was 86 percent. Data obtained 
from the survey results were weighted to reflect each academy's 
population as of March 2006. Estimates presented are based on responses 
to the following climate survey questions. 

Unwanted Gender-Related Experiences[Footnote 42] 

Question 19: In this question you are asked about sex/gender related 
talk and/or behavior that was unwanted, uninvited, and in which you did 
not participate willingly. How often since June 2005 have you been in 
situations involving persons assigned to your Academy, including 
students and military/civilian personnel, where one or more of these 
individuals (of either gender) . . . Mark one answer in each row. 

Response Categories: 

* Indicate the frequency (e.g. very often, often, sometimes, once or 
twice, or never) for each situation below: 

- Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you? 

- Referred to people of your gender in insulting or offensive terms? 

- Made unwelcome attempts to draw you into a discussion of sexual 
matters (e.g., attempted to discuss or comment on your sex life)? 

- Treated you "differently" because of your gender (e.g., mistreated, 
slighted, or ignored you)? 

- Made offensive remarks about your appearance, body, or sexual 
activities? 

- Made gestures or used body language of a sexual nature that 
embarrassed or offended you? 

- Made offensive sexist remarks (e.g., suggesting that people of your 
gender are not suited for the kind of work you do)? 

- Put you down or was condescending to you because of your gender? 

- Continued to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though you 
said "No"? 

- Made you feel threatened with some sort of retaliation for not being 
sexually cooperative? 

- Touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable? 

- Intentionally cornered you or leaned over you in a sexual way? 

- Treated you badly for refusing to have sex? 

- Made unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual relationship 
with you despite your efforts to discourage it? 

- Implied better leadership positions or better treatment if you were 
sexually cooperative? 

- Made sexually suggestive comments, gestures, or looks (e.g., stared 
at your body)? 

- Made you feel like you were being bribed with some sort of reward or 
special treatment to engage in sexual behavior? 

- Attempted to have sex with you without your consent or against your 
will, but was not successful? 

- Had sex with you without your consent or against your will? 

- Other unwanted gender-related behavior? 

Unwanted Sexual Contact: 

Question 32: Since June 2005, have you experienced any of the following 
sexual contacts that were against your will or occurred when you did 
not or could not consent where someone: 

* Sexually touched you (e.g., intentional touching of genitalia, 
breasts, or buttocks) or made you sexually touch them? 

* Attempted to make you have sexual intercourse, but was not 
successful? 

* Made you have sexual intercourse (e.g., sex, anal sex, or penetration 
by a finger or object), but was not successful? 

* Made you perform or receive oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a 
finger or object? 

Response Categories: 

* Yes, once: 

* Yes, multiple times: 

* No: 

If "Yes" to Question 32: 

Question 34: Where did the incident, that had the greatest effect on 
you, take place? (Mark One): 

Response Categories: 

* On academy grounds, in dorm/barracks/living and sleeping area: 

* On academy grounds, not in dorm/barracks/living and sleeping area: 

* Off academy grounds, at an academy-sponsored event: 

* Off academy grounds, not at an academy-sponsored event: 

If "Yes" to Question 32: 

Question 37: Was the offender(s)? (Mark One): 

Response Categories: 

* One person (a male): 

* One person (a female): 

* More than one person (all males): 

* More than one person (all females): 

* More than one person (both males and females): 

* Not sure: 

The U.S. Coast Guard 2006 Cadet Human Relations Survey was administered 
in October 2006. The sampling frame included all students in class 
years 2006 through 2009. The entire population of cadets was surveyed. 
Approximately 793 of 996 cadets completed questionnaires for an overall 
response rate of 80 percent. Results shown are counts based on 
unweighted survey responses. Results presented are based on responses 
to the following question: 

Question: In the last 12 months (upperclass) or since reporting to CGA 
(4th class), have you been subjected to sexual harassment or sexual 
assault? 

Response Categories: 

* Yes: 

* No: 

Each academy has a preparatory school. However, we did not collect or 
assess sexual harassment and assault data for these schools because the 
DOD academies do not include data on these schools in their annual 
reports to Congress. 

To evaluate DOD's and the Coast Guards' oversight of academy sexual 
harassment and assault programs, we interviewed DOD and Coast Guard 
officials and examined their oversight policies and programs. We 
assessed the extent to which the oversight policies and programs exist 
and have been implemented. We interviewed DOD and Coast Guard officials 
responsible for the programs about how they oversee the programs, how 
they compare performance with expectations, and what actions they take 
when performance does not match expectations. We obtained and reviewed 
applicable oversight reports and assessed the extent to which the 
reports included key data, trends, and discussion of any performance 
concerns. We also reviewed prior studies related to sexual harassment 
and assault at the academies and examined DOD and Coast Guards' 
responses to any recommendations pertaining to oversight resulting from 
these studies. Additionally, we examined DOD's response to recent 
legislation requiring DOD to annually report on incidents of sexual 
assault, and policies, procedures, and processes implemented in 
response to sexual harassment and assault at the academies. We also 
interviewed DOD and Coast Guard officials responsible for the programs 
on any adverse consequences that may result from failure to exercise 
appropriate oversight of the academies' sexual harassment and assault 
programs. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2007 through November 
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Personnel And Readiness: 
4000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000: 

December 31, 2007: 

Ms. Brenda S. Farrell: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Farrell: 

This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO draft 
report. GAO-08-296, "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", dated December 
3, 2007 (GAO Code 350993). I appreciate the opportunity to review and 
comment on the draft GAO report. 

The Department concurs with the overall draft report. However, specific 
responses for each of the three recommendations have been provided to 
support each position and for your consideration. 

There was one technical change noted by Air Force that was forwarded 
separately to the GAO staff. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

for David S. C. Chu: 

Enclosure: As stated: 

GAO Draft Report ï¿½ Dated December 3, 2007: 
GAO Code 350993/GAO-08-296: 

"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" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to 
clearly articulate data reporting requirements to include common 
terminology. 

DOD Response: 

DoD partially-concurs. The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Office (SAPRO) agrees that there are challenges with maintaining 
consistent terminology in the data reporting process. The SAPRO has 
initiatives underway to address this matter. The term "substantiated" 
in particular, may differ in usage among law enforcement agencies. The 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office has contracted with the 
RAND Corporation to research this very issue to increase data 
collection standardization across Military Services. However, the case 
disposition data that DoD reports are consistent across the Military 
Services because cases that do proceed to disposition are 
differentiated from cases that do not proceed to disposition. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to 
establish evaluative performance measures that effectively assess 
academy sexual harassment and assault programs. 

DOD Response: 

DoD concurs. This is an important issue. The Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Response Office is in the initial stages of identifying/creating 
service-wide performance metrics for the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response programs, to include the U. S. Military Service Academies. The 
Sexual Assault Advisory Council Research Subcommittee has established 
performance metrics as a priority item to be addressed in the upcoming 
year. The subcommittee is comprised of representatives from a number of 
federal agencies with a great deal of experience in program evaluation 
research (National Institute of Justice, Center for Disease Control. 
National Institutes of Health, among others), as well as members of the 
DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. DoD will share this 
task with the Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity Office so that 
Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault are evaluated in like manner. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to 
provide Congress with a comprehensive integrated assessment of the 
health of academy sexual harassment and assault programs in future 
annual academy sexual harassment and violence reports. 

DOD Response: 

DoD partially-concurs. DoD requests clarification of the term "health" 
as it does not clearly define what is being assessed in the programs. 
This recommendation needs to be clarified. 

DoD has concerns about the following language on page 7, "Moreover, DoD 
has been only minimally addressing Congressional interest in academy 
programs because it has not been conducting a comprehensive and 
integrated analysis of the information contained in the DoD academies' 
annual reports, or a meaningful assessment of the academies' programs 
before forwarding the academies' reports to Congress." And, "DoD has 
very recently taken steps to address these concerns." 

DoD has complied with all Congressional requirements. Academic Program 
Year 2006 - 2007 (June 1, 2006 ï¿½ May 31, 2007) was the first year in 
which the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) and 
the Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity Office were mandated to 
conduct an integrated assessment of the Military Service academies. 
Ironically, DoD and GAO were simultaneously conducting assessments. 
This report was delivered to Congress on December 7. 2007, and has been 
officially released to the public. There is no need for additional 
legislation or programming in this area, as the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 requires a process that
comprehensively evaluates the academies with alternating strategies. In 
academic program years beginning with an odd number, DoD conducts an 
anonymous climate survey that is supplemented with an academy report of 
self-assessment. In academic program years beginning with an even 
number, DoD follows the process it did this year (an on-site program 
assessment by DoD combined with cadet focus groups). DoD's Assessment 
Team consists of DoD SAPRO staff, a Diversity Management and Equal 
Opportunity representative, and Defense Manpower Data Center staff. DoD 
reported on its assessment of the effectiveness of' the Military 
Service academies' policies, training, and procedures with respect to 
sexual harassment and violence involving cadets and midshipmen. 

Qualitative analysis was based on the following: (1) results of cadets 
and midshipmen focus groups; (2) academy personnel perceptions of the 
program and climate; policy implementation and compliance; program 
effectiveness; (3) review of investigative and Judge Advocate General 
case files; and (4) DoD related surveys. The assessment team also 
examined progress made in implementing congressionally mandated 
recommendations from previous reports. 

A comprehensive, integrated assessment of the academies was performed 
and a report was delivered to Congress on December 7, 2007. DoD 
recommends that GAO update its report to reflect the results of the 
most recent DoD assessment. 

DOD Additional Comments On Gao Draft Report: 

Page 5 - The report states, "Nine of the subjects identified in the 
unrestricted reports of sexual assault that we reviewed from the DoD 
and Coast Guard military criminal investigative organizations in 
academy program years 2003 - 2006 proceeded to a court-martial and, of 
those tried, two subjects were acquitted and seven were indicted. The 
remaining 117 subjects identified by the military criminal 
investigative organizations were not formally charged with sexual 
assault because the evidence was unsubstantiated, unfounded, or 
insufficient as determined by the academies' staff judge advocates." 
This language implies that no action at all was taken against those 117 
subjects. DoD recommends and respectfully requests that the explanation 
of other options for punishment which is contained on page 20, be 
repeated here in order to give a complete and accurate explanation of 
these cases. 

Page 19 - second paragraph, [now on p. 19, first paragraph] describing 
procedures for filing a formal sexual harassment complaint, recommend 
the words "begin an investigation" and "investigative" be deleted from 
the third sentence. The revised sentence would then read as follows, 
"If a student chooses to file a formal complaint, the DoD academies' 
military equal opportunity offices (and the Coast Guard Academy's Civil 
Rights Office) will interview any witnesses, collect data, and create a 
report with findings and recommended actions." The reason for this 
recommendation is to prevent the perception that military equal 
opportunity offices "investigate" complaints. Military equal 
opportunity offices gather the relevant facts, provide that information 
to the appropriate commanding officer, and the commanding officer 
determines whether an investigation should occur. Following 
investigations of formal complaints, military equal opportunity offices 
provide an equal opportunity technical review (similar to a review for 
legal sufficiency) to ensure all aspects of the alleged offense are 
addressed. The words "investigation" and "investigative" imply the 
formal procedures of an appointed officer, sworn testimony, and legal 
review. 

Page 25 [now on p. 24] - The unit of measurement for the Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Office annual report to Congress is "reports of 
sexual assault." Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault, which are 
incident based, arc collected by the Military Criminal Investigative 
Organizations. Unrestricted reports ultimately provide the number of 
subjects and victims involved in sexual assault reports investigated by 
the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations, as well as the 
number of cases proceeding through prosecution and other forms of 
disposition. If these reports were victim-based, DoD would not be able 
to adequately track subject disposition, as offenders can have more 
than one victim per incident. Counting victim-based reports could lead 
to duplicate reporting for the same reason. Restricted Reports, being 
confidential. can only be provided by the Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinator and is a victim-based report. Since the Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator's job is to coordinate care for the victim, the 
Sexual Assault Response Coordinator cannot accurately collect/report 
data on the criminal justice or legal system. The Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Office discusses these reports separately, only 
giving a "grand total" of "reports" -- otherwise a combined total is 
not discussed. It appears that the basis for this misunderstanding is 
that the unit of measure for the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Office is "report," while GAO is looking as the unit of measure as an 
"incident." 

Page 32 [now on p. 31] ï¿½ Sexual assault is one of the most under-
reported crimes in America, due in part to the nature of the offense. 
Therefore, DoD know that a substantial number of victims will never 
come forward, regardless of their trust in or awareness of the services 
available from the system. The most recent 2007 National Institute of 
Justice study tracking over 2000 college women found that only 12 
percent of women who had experienced a sexual assault reported the 
crime to authorities. Consequently, an effective sexual assault 
response program strives at best to remove barriers to reporting and 
make care for victims easier to access. Given that most sexual assaults 
are not reported due to factors that are non-modifiable by policy, the 
use of the number of reports of sexual assault as a metric would not be 
a reliable or valid measure of program effectiveness. 

Page 34 [now on p. 32] ï¿½ The statement "lack of a shared definition for 
what constitutes an incident" is incorrect. There are definitions in 
place. Unrestricted and Restricted Reports will, by nature, differ. 
Although Unrestricted Reports can have more than one subject or victim, 
DoD tracks the subjects and victims separately in another section of 
the report ï¿½ Unrestricted Reports are incident based. However, 
Restricted Reports must be victim-based since it is confidentially 
reported by a victim and cannot be supplemented with investigative 
activity. Each Restricted Report is a single "report", which is the 
unit of measurement. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528: 

January 9, 2008: 

Ms Brenda S. Farrell:
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms Farrell: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report GAO-08-296 entitled 
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. Technical comments have been forwarded 
under separate cover. 

Sexual harassment and assault violates the Coast Guard's core values of 
Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty, and are not tolerated. The Coast 
Guard has focused renewed efforts to ensure that these types of 
violations are prevented and when not, are addressed by leadership 
fairly and swiftly. Within the past month, a revised Coast Guard 
Commandant Instruction, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, 
was signed and promulgated providing guidance in the event of sexual 
assault. This instruction encompasses the entire Coast Guard, including 
the Coast Guard Academy (CGA). As noted in the report, the Coast Guard 
Academy has had a Superintendent Instruction in place since May 2006. 
This instruction is expected to be updated based upon the latest CG 
Headquarters Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program 
instruction, particularly in the areas of restricted reporting and 
monitoring. The Coast Guard plans to work closely with the Department 
of Defense (DOD) Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) 
to ensure standardized report metrics, goals, performance measures, and 
milestones are developed in order to meet the intent of the report to 
provide congressional decision makers with meaningful information as 
well as allow the Coast Guard to assess the effectiveness of its 
program and make improvements alongside DOD. 

The draft report's fourth recommendation is directed to the Coast 
Guard. The Coast Guard's response to this recommendation is as follows: 

Recommendation: To improve Coast Guard Headquarters' oversight of 
reported incidents of sexual harassment and assault at the Coast Guard 
Academy, we recommend that the Commandant of the Coast Guard establish 
a management oversight framework for the Coast Guard Academy to include 
data collection, maintenance and reporting requirements, goals, 
performance measures, and milestones to evaluate progress made toward 
addressing the incidence of sexual harassment and assault. 

Response: Agree. The Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Academy appreciate 
the need to improve programmatic oversight of the Sexual Harassment and 
Assault Prevention activities service-wide and at the Coast Guard 
Academy. Although the Coast Guard Academy has made strides in recent 
years as noted by its internal climate surveys, the recently released 
Coast Guard Commandant Instruction, Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Program, will provide the necessary framework and oversight 
recommended in this report for a more robust education, reporting and 
tracking system in the Coast Guard. A copy of that instruction has been 
provided under separate cover. In addition, the Coast Guard will work 
with the DOD SAPRO to ensure standardized definitions, metric, and 
performance measures are developed and reported to Congress annually 
through the SAPRO report. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report and 
we look forward to working with you on future homeland security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director: 
Departmental Audit Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Commissions and Initiatives to Study Sexual Harassment and 
Assault: 

The summaries below detail numerous congressional and DOD initiatives 
examining sexual harassment and assault issues in DOD since the early 
1990s. 

Congressional Initiatives: 

October 1997. Hearing on the Department of the Army's reports on and 
corrective actions related to recent cases of sexual misconduct and 
related matters: 
The hearing took place before the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 
House Committee on National Security. 

June 1999. Academy's Panel on Military Investigative Practices: 
Congress directed the National Academy of Public Administration to 
conduct a study to examine felony sex crime investigations within DOD. 
The panel examined sex crime issues, competencies and deficiencies of 
military criminal investigative organizations policies and practices, 
and actions the military criminal investigative organizations, DOD, and 
Congress can implement to improve their ability to address the 
investigation and management of sex crimes cases. The Academy's Panel 
on Military Investigative Practices recommended major changes in DOD's 
policies, practices, and organizations to improve the conduct of sex 
crime investigations in its report Adapting Military Sex Crime 
Investigations to Changing Times. The recommendations made by the panel 
apply most directly to the military criminal investigative 
organizations. 

July 30, 1999. Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-
Related Issues: 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. 
No. 105-85, established a Commission on Military Training and Gender-
Related Issues to review requirements and restrictions regarding cross-
gender relationship of members of the Armed Forces, to review the basic 
training programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and 
to make recommendations on improvements to those programs, 
requirements, and restrictions. The commission was composed of 10 
members selected among private citizens. The final report was issued in 
four volumes that included findings and recommendations, transcripts 
and legal consultants' reports, research projects, reports, and 
studies. 

September 2003. Fowler Panel: 
Section 501 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-11 (2003)) required DOD to establish a panel to 
review sexual misconduct allegations at the Air Force Academy. The 
first meeting was held in June 2003, and the Report of the Panel to 
Review Sexual Misconduct Allegations at the U.S. Air Force Academy was 
released in September 2003. The panel was chaired by former 
Congresswoman Tillie K. Fowler. The statute requires the panel to study 
the policies, management, and organization practices and cultural 
elements of the academy that were conducive to allowing sexual 
misconduct, including sexual assaults and rape, at the academy. The 
panel made recommendations, including a review of the accountability of 
the academy and Air Force leadership, and implementation of new 
policies, plans, and legislative proposals to improve oversight at the 
academy, among other things. 

December 2004. Department of Defense Inspector General Report: 
In February 2003, recognizing that the Secretary of the Air Force had 
"launched an investigation," the Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services requested that the DOD Inspector General review the work 
conducted by the Air Force and provide findings and conclusions. The 
Inspector General report evaluated the quality and timeliness of 
criminal investigations of attempts of sexual assault since 1993, the 
impact of the Fowler Panel's work on the Air Force Working Group, and 
findings associated with individual responsibility for sexual assault. 
The work resulted in the release of the Inspector General report, The 
Evaluation of Sexual Assault, Reprisal, and Related Leadership 
Challenges at the United States Air Force Academy in December 2004. 

June 2005. Department of Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and 
Violence at the Military Service Academies: 
Section 526 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-136 (2003)) directed the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a DOD task force to examine matters relating to sexual 
harassment and violence at the Military Academy and the Naval Academy. 
The task force consisted of six member from the four branches of the 
armed forces and six members from the civilian community. The task 
force addressed the prevention of sexual harassment and violence and 
made recommendations to improve prevention and response at the 
academies. The task force issued the Report of the Defense Task Force 
on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies in 
June 2005. 

DOD and Service Initiatives: 

May 1995. Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment: 
The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense requested that the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness co-chair a task force to review the military 
services' discrimination complaint systems, and recommend 
departmentwide standards for discrimination complaint processing, where 
necessary, to ensure the fair and prompt resolution of complaints. The 
Report of the Defense Equal Opportunity Council Task Force on 
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment was released in May 1995 and made 
48 recommendations to address discrimination and harassment. 

July 1997. The Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual 
Harassment: 
The Secretary of the Army directed that a Senior Review Panel on Sexual 
Harassment be established to conduct a review of the Army's policies on 
sexual harassment and processes currently in place, to recommend 
changes needed to improve the human relations environment with the 
specific goal of eradicating sexual harassment, and to evaluate how 
Army leaders view and exercise their responsibility to prevent sexual 
harassment. Over 40 military and civilian personnel conducted an 
extensive policy review, collected data at 59 military installations 
worldwide, and analyzed the data. The Secretary of the Army's Senior 
Review Panel Report on Sexual Harassment was released in July 1997. 

December 1997. Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training 
and Related Issues: 
The Secretary of Defense announced in June 1997 the appointment of the 
Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related 
Issues to evaluate and determine how to best train the gender-
integrated, all-volunteer forces of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marine Corps. The panel explored and made recommendations covering the 
full training cycle, including recruitment, basic, and advanced 
training. 

March 2003. Walker Working Group: 
In 2003, the Secretary of the Air Force instructed Mary L. Walker, the 
General Counsel of the Air Force, to establish the Working Group 
Concerning the Deterrence of and Response to Incidents of Sexual 
Assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy. The main objective of the Walker 
Working Group was to investigate cadet complaints. Based on the 
preliminary work of the working group, the Secretary of the Air Force 
and the Air Force Chief of Staff issued An Agenda for Change in March 
2003. 

April 2004. Embrey Task Force: 
In February 2004, the Secretary of Defense directed the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to undertake a 90-day review of 
sexual assault policies and programs, and make recommendations to 
increase prevention, promote reporting, and enhance the quality and 
support provided to victims, especially within combat theaters. The 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness established an 8-
member task force to undertake the task. The Director of the Embrey 
Task Force was Ellen P. Embrey. The findings and recommendations were 
released in April 2004 in the Task Force Report on Care for Victims of 
Sexual Assault. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or [email protected]: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, David Moser, Assistant 
Director; Sara Cradic; Susan Ditto; Nicole Harms; Susannah Hawthorne; 
Suzanne Heimbach; Ron La Due Lake; Kimberly Mayo; Kathia Niewiadomski; 
and Sharon Reid made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Military Education: Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at 
the Military Academies. GAO-03-1001. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 
2003. 

Military Education: DOD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals and Measures 
to Improve Oversight of the Military Academies. GAO-03-1000. 
Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2003. 

Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' 
Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance 
Goals. GAO-03-1017. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2003. 

DOD Service Academies: Comparison of Honor and Conduct Adjudicatory 
Processes. GAO/NSIAD-95-49. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 1995. 

DOD Service Academies: Academic Review Processes. GAO/NSIAD-95-57. 
Washington, D.C.: April 5, 1995. 

DOD Service Academies: Update on Extent of Sexual Harassment. GAO/ 
NSIAD-95-58. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 1995. 

Military Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-94-95. 
Washington, D.C.: March 17, 1994. 

DOD Service Academies: Further Efforts Needed to Eradicate Sexual 
Harassment. GAO/T-NSIAD-94-111. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 1994. 

DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual 
Harassment. GAO/NSIAD-94-6. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 1994. 

Air Force Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-244. 
Washington, D.C.: September 24, 1993. 

Military Education: Information on Service Academies and Schools. GAO/ 
NSIAD-93-264BR. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 1993. 

Naval Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-54. 
Washington, D.C.: April 30, 1993. 

DOD Service Academies: Status Report on Reviews of Student Treatment. 
GAO/T-NSIAD-92-41. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1992. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 108-136, ï¿½ 527 (2003). In Section 532 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 
Congress revised and codified the requirements for the establishment of 
policies, programs, and procedures, annual reports, and yearly 
assessments, and directed that the assessments should be completed by 
conducting surveys of academy students in odd-numbered years and focus 
groups for any year when surveys are not required. 

[2] "Academy personnel" refers to academy students, faculty, staff, and 
permanent party personnel. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 108-136, ï¿½ 526 (2003). 

[4] In a second report that will be released later in 2008, we will 
examine sexual assault in the military services, including the Coast 
Guard. That report will also address incidents occurring during 
overseas deployments. 

[5] DMDC is a support organization within DOD that reports to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. DMDC's mission is to 
deliver timely and high-quality support to its customers and to ensure 
that the data it receives from different sources are consistent, 
accurate, and appropriate when used to respond to inquiries. DMDC 
customers include DOD organizations such as the armed forces, the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Staff, as well as 
external organizations, such as Congress. These organizations rely on 
data supplied by DMDC to help them in making decisions about the 
military. 

[6] "Subject" refers to the alleged perpetrator in a sexual harassment 
or assault case. 

[7] The overall weighted response rate for the most recent survey was 
86 percent; indicating that 5,275 of the 6,049 students who were asked 
to participate responded. 

[8] See 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 4361 for requirements applicable to the Military 
Academy, 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 6980 for requirements applicable to the Naval 
Academy, and 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 9361 for requirements applicable to the Air 
Force Academy. 

[9] DOD's military equal opportunity offices are required to collect, 
maintain, and report data on formal complaints of sexual harassment to 
DOD's Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. 

[10] The Sexual Assault Response Coordinators are required to collect, 
maintain, and report data on restricted reports of sexual assault to 
DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. 

[11] The military criminal investigative organizations are required to 
collect, maintain, and report data on unrestricted reports of sexual 
assault to DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. 

[12] Pub. L. No. 94-106, ï¿½ 803 (1975). 

[13] Department of Defense Directive 1350.2, Department of Defense 
Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program (Aug. 18, 1995). Workplace is 
an expansive term for military members and academy students and may 
include conduct on or off duty, 24 hours a day. 

[14] Pub. L. No. 108-375, ï¿½ 577 (2004). 

[15] Department of Defense Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Response (SAPR) Program (Oct.6, 2005). 

[16] Pub. L. No. 108-136, ï¿½ 527 (2003). 

[17] Pub. L. No. 109-364, ï¿½ 532 (2006). See 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 4361 for 
requirements applicable to the Military Academy, 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 6980 for 
requirements applicable to the Naval Academy, and 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 9361 for 
requirements applicable to the Air Force Academy. See the note 
following 10 U.S.C ï¿½ 4361 for information regarding focus groups. 

[18] GAO, DOD Service Academies: Status Report on Reviews of Student 
Treatment, GAO/T-NSIAD-92-41 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1992). 

[19] GAO, DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate 
Sexual Harassment, GAO/NSIAD-94-6 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 1994). 

[20] GAO, DOD Service Academies: Further Efforts Needed to Eradicate 
Sexual Harassment, GAO/T-NSIAD-94-111 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 1994). 

[21] GAO, DOD Service Academies: Update on Extent of Sexual Harassment, 
GAO/NSIAD-95-58 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 1995). 

[22] GAO, Military Education: Student and Faculty Perceptions of 
Student Life at the Military Academies, GAO-03-1001 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 12, 2003). 

[23] Department of Defense Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Program Procedures (June 23, 2006). 

[24] See 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 4361 for requirements applicable to the Military 
Academy, 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 6980 for requirements applicable to the Naval 
Academy, and 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 9361 for requirements applicable to the Air 
Force Academy. 

[25] Department of Defense Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Response (SAPR) Program (Oct. 6, 2005). 

[26] Department of Defense Directive 1030.01, Victim and Witness 
Assistance (Apr. 23, 2007). 

[27] In this report, we state that DOD reported 96 incidents of sexual 
assault from academy program years 2003 to 2006. The number used here, 
108, is the 96 unrestricted DOD cases of sexual assault in addition to 
the 12 Coast Guard Academy cases of sexual assault, for a total of 108. 
In those 108 unrestricted cases, we identified 126 subjects because 
some cases contain multiple subjects. 

[28] DOD's military departments are required to report data on formal 
complaints of sexual harassment to DOD's Office of Diversity Management 
and Equal Opportunity. 

[29] The Sexual Assault Response Coordinators are required to report 
data on restricted reports of sexual assault to DOD's Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Office. 

[30] The military criminal investigative organizations are required to 
collect, maintain, and report data on unrestricted reports of sexual 
assault to DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. 

[31] See 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 4361 for requirements applicable to the Military 
Academy, 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 6980 for requirements applicable to the Naval 
Academy, and 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 9361 for requirements applicable to the Air 
Force Academy. 

[32] An academy program year corresponds to an academic year as well as 
the summer training period that precedes it and is defined by DOD as 
June 1 through May 31. 

[33] The 2005 Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military 
Service Academies was compiled by the Joint Task Force on Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response. The Joint Task Force on Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response transitioned into a permanent office on October 
1, 2005, and became the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. 

[34] The estimates for the three military academies are for the 
Military Academy, 10.5 percent of females and 1 percent of males; the 
Naval Academy, 8.2 percent of females and 1.4 percent of males; and the 
Air Force Academy, 9.5 percent of females and 1.2 percent of males. 
These estimates from DMDC's surveys are based on a 95 percent 
confidence level with a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percent. 

[35] This approximate number of females and males is based on the 
academy populations at the time of DMDC's survey: the Military Academy, 
596 females and 3,444 males; the Naval Academy, 753 females and 3,555 
males; and the Air Force Academy, 744 females, and 3,428 males. 

[36] These estimates from DMDC's surveys are based on a 95 percent 
confidence level with a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percent. 

[37] In analyzing survey results, the Defense Manpower Data Center 
defines sexual harassment as crude or offensive behavior, unwanted 
sexual attention, and sexual coercion. 

[38] The estimates for the three military academies are for the 
Military Academy, 60 percent of females and 8 percent of males; the 
Naval Academy, 52 percent of females and 12 percent of males; and the 
Air Force Academy, 51 percent of females and 12 percent of males. These 
estimates from DMDC's surveys are based on a 95 percent confidence 
level with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent. 

[39] The Coast Guard Academy administered the 2006 Cadet Human 
Relations and Climate Survey to cadets in October 2006 and received 
approximately 793 completed questionnaires out of 996. For more details 
about the Coast Guard Academy Survey, see app. I. 

[40] Department of Defense Instruction 1350.3, Affirmative Action 
Planning and Assessment Process (Feb. 29, 1988). 

[41] GAO, Results Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, 
D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

[42] "Unwanted Gender-Related Experiences" includes a measure of sexual 
harassment. 

[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: 

Gloria Jarmon, 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. ***