DOD Service Academies: Update on Extent of Sexual Harassment (Letter
Report, 03/31/95, GAO/NSIAD-95-58).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO updated information on sexual
harassment at the three Department of Defense service academies,
focusing on the: (1) extent to which sexual harassment was reported at
the academies in the academic year 1993 to 1994; (2) forms sexual
harassment took; and (3) each sex's views on the consequences of
reporting sexual harassment.
GAO found that: (1) more than 70 percent of academy women reported
experiencing some form of sexual harassment on at least a monthly basis,
while less than 11 percent of men reported such exposure; (2) the
proportion of women at the Naval and Air Force Academies who reported
sexual harassment on a recurring basis significantly increased from the
1990-1991 academic year; (3) the most common forms of sexual harassment
were verbal comments and visual displays; (4) although men perceived an
improvement in the atmosphere and less negative consequences for
reporting sexual harassment, women did not perceive an improvement; (5)
between 36 and 42 percent of the women were subjected at least once
during the year to physical behavior that interfered with their
performance or created a hostile environment; and (6) 11 to 22 percent
of the women reported sexual advances that were tied to their academy
careers.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-95-58
TITLE: DOD Service Academies: Update on Extent of Sexual Harassment
DATE: 03/31/95
SUBJECT: Sexual harassment
Military service academies
Students
Sex discrimination
Women
Surveys
Education or training
Military offenses
Statistical data
Education program evaluation
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
March 1995
DOD SERVICE ACADEMIES - UPDATE ON
EXTENT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
GAO/NSIAD-95-58
DOD Service Academies
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOD - Department of Defense
ABC - about the cruise
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259415
March 31, 1995
The Honorable Strom Thurmond
Chairman
The Honorable Sam Nunn
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable Dan Coats
Chairman
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Personnel
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable John Glenn
United States Senate
On January 31, 1994, we issued a report on sexual harassment at the
three Department of Defense (DOD) service academies as part of a
series of reports originally requested by Senator Nunn and Senator
Glenn.\1 As requested, we updated that previous work, and this report
compares the results of our 1990-91 survey with the extent to which
sexual harassment was reported to have occurred at the academies in
the 1993-94 academic year, the forms it took, and the views of
academy men and women on the consequences of reporting it.
--------------------
\1 DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual
Harassment (GAO/NSIAD-94-6, Jan. 31, 1994).
PREVIOUS FINDINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
We previously reported that between half and three-quarters of
academy women experienced at least one form of sexual harassment on a
recurring basis during academic year 1990-91,\2 whereas the vast
majority of men indicated never having experienced sexual harassment
at the academy. Our surveys inquired about 10 forms of harassment
that were derived from previous surveys conducted among federal
workers by the Merit Systems Protection Board in 1980 and 1987 and a
1988 survey of active duty military personnel conducted by the
Defense Manpower Data Center. We tailored the items somewhat to the
academy environments. The 10 forms of sexual harassment included:
derogatory comments, jokes, or nicknames; comments that standards
have been lowered for women; comments that women do not belong at the
academy; offensive posters, signs, or graffiti; mocking gestures,
whistles, or catcalls; derogatory letters or messages; exclusion from
social activities or informal gatherings; target of unwanted
horseplay or hijinks; unwanted pressure for dates by a more senior
student; and unwanted sexual advances.
The most common forms of harassment academy women reported
experiencing were gender-related verbal comments or visual displays,
as opposed to sexual advances. While students perceived that
reported incidents would be thoroughly investigated and offenders
appropriately disciplined, they also perceived that those reporting
sexual harassment would encounter significant negative consequences.
These negative consequences played a role in the tendency for most
sexual harassment not to be officially reported.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines and subsequent
court decisions have delineated two types of sexual harassment in
work environments: (1) quid pro quo harassment and (2) hostile
environment harassment. Quid pro quo harassment involves the
exchange of employment benefits by a supervisor or employer for
sexual favors from a subordinate employee. Hostile environment
harassment consists of conduct, such as verbal or physical abuse,
that creates an intimidating or offensive working environment.\3
--------------------
\2 We asked respondents to indicate how often they experienced each
of 10 forms of harassment. The response categories were "Never,"
"One or two times a year," "A couple of times a semester," "A couple
of times a month," "A couple of times a week," and "Daily or almost
daily." For presentation purposes, we have combined the last three
categories into one covering "A couple of times a month or more
often," which we see as representing a recurring exposure.
\3 For the most recent holding on what constitutes a hostile
environment, see Harris v. Forklift Systems 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Similar to our previous findings, the majority of academy women
reported experiencing at least one form of sexual harassment on a
recurring basis in academic year 1993-94, while the highest
percentage of men indicating exposure to some form of recurring
sexual harassment was about 11 percent. The proportion of women at
the Naval and Air Force academies who reportedly experienced some
form of sexual harassment a couple of times a month or more often
represented a statistically significant increase from the 1990-91
levels. Again, the most common forms of sexual harassment were
verbal comments and visual displays. The comparison of the 1990-91
and 1994 results appears in appendix I.
In our 1994 followup survey, we added a question on sexual harassment
tailored after the wording of the DOD definition of sexual harassment
issued in 1988. This was suggested at the Senate Armed Services
Committee's hearing\4 on our January 1994 report. This new question
focused on the incidence of more overt, physical forms of sexual
harassment in addition to verbal forms. Responses to this new
question indicated that between 36 percent and 42 percent of the
women at each academy have been subjected at least once or twice over
the year to (1) physical, gender-related behavior that interfered
with their performance or created a hostile environment or (2)
unwelcome, deliberate physical contact of a sexual nature. Also,
from 11 percent to 22 percent of the academy women reported
encountering sexual advances that were tied to some aspect of their
academy careers. Responses to the questions added to the 1994 survey
are shown in appendix II.
Academy men tended to perceive an improvement in the atmosphere for
reporting sexual harassment, with significant declines in the
percentages seeing negative consequences as likely to accrue to those
who report sexual harassment. The responses of academy women,
however, showed no such change in perceived consequences.
--------------------
\4 DOD Service Academies: Further Efforts Needed to Eradicate Sexual
Harassment (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-111, Feb. 3, 1994).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
We administered questionnaires at each of the three academies to
randomly drawn samples of cadets and midshipmen in May 1994. We
statistically compared the resulting data with corresponding
responses from questionnaires administered to comparably drawn
samples of academy students in the 1990-91 academic year. The
maximum sampling errors at the 95-percent confidence level are about
5 percent for male students and about 10 percent for female students
at each academy for each survey year. Where a difference is cited as
significant, it means that there is a 5-percent chance or less that a
difference as large as the one observed between our samples could
have occurred when there was zero difference between the population
figures. A detailed discussion of our survey methodology, including
specific sampling errors for various data splits, appears in appendix
III. Some of the differences may appear to be relatively large and
yet are not cited as statistically significant. The reason for this
is that those differences fall well within the error confidence
interval for a zero difference. For example, if 45 percent of the
women responded in a given way in 1991 and 30 percent responded that
same way in 1994 we cannot definitively say that the two numbers are
different. Since the margin of error for each of the cited
percentages is plus or minus about 10 percentage points, the
45-percent figure could actually be as low as 35 percent, while the
30-percent figure could actually be as high as 40 percent.
We performed our review at the Military Academy at West Point, New
York; the the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland; and the Air Force
Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. We performed our review from
May 1994 to January 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
The service academies and DOD reviewed a draft of this report. Their
informal comments have been incorporated where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 1 day after its issue date. At
that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Defense, the Air
Force, the Army, and the Navy; the superintendents of the three
service academies; and interested congressional committees. We will
also make copies available to other interested parties on request.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, I can
be reached on (202) 512-5140. Major contributors to this report were
William E. Beusse, Rudolpho G. Payan, and Robin Brooks.
Mark E. Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
and Capabilities Issues
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE SERVICE
ACADEMIES DURING THE 1993-94
ACADEMIC YEAR
=========================================================== Appendix I
OVERALL EXTENT OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
The percentage of female academy students indicating they had
experienced at least 1 of the 10 forms of sexual harassment on a
recurring basis was 80 percent at the Military Academy, 70 percent at
the Naval Academy, and 78 percent at the Air Force Academy (fig.
I.1). The percentages for the Naval and Air Force academies were
significantly higher than when we surveyed students in 1990-91.
Figure I.1: Extent of
Recurring Sexual Harassment
Reportedly Experienced by
Academy Women, Academic Years
1990-91 and 1993-94
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Statistically significant difference.
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
No more than about 11 percent of the men at any of the academies
indicated that they had experienced any form of sexual harassment on
a recurring basis, and the average percentage of men citing recurring
levels of sexual harassment across all 10 categories was 3 percent to
4 percent.
MILITARY ACADEMY WOMEN
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1
While the percentages of women reporting recurring exposure to sexual
harassment at the Military Academy appeared lower in 1994 for 7 of
the 10 forms, none of the differences was statistically significant.
As in 1990-91, the most common forms of sexual harassment were verbal
or visual (such as posters and graffiti) (fig. I.2).
Figure I.2: Percentage of
Military Academy Women
Indicating They Experienced
Recurring Sexual Harassment in
Academic Years 1990-91 and
1993-94
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
NAVAL ACADEMY WOMEN
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2
While the percentages of women reporting recurring exposure to sexual
harassment at the Naval Academy appeared higher in a majority of
areas, the only statistically significant change was the increased
percentage of women reporting derogatory comments, nicknames, and
jokes, etc. As was the case in 1990-91, the primary forms of sexual
harassment were verbal and visual (fig. I.3).
Figure I.3: Percentage of
Naval Academy Women Indicating
They Experienced Recurring
Sexual Harassment in Academic
Years 1990-91 and 1993-94
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Statistically significant difference.
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY WOMEN
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3
While the percentages of women reporting recurring exposure to sexual
harassment at the Air Force Academy appeared higher in a majority of
areas, none of the differences was statistically significant. As in
1990-91, the most common forms of sexual harassment were verbal or
visual
(fig. I.4).
Figure I.4: Percentage of Air
Force Academy Women Indicating
They Experienced Recurring
Sexual Harassment in Academic
Years 1990-91 and 1993-94
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
EXAMPLES OF THE KINDS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT ACADEMY WOMEN
REPORTED ENCOUNTERING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
Write-in comments indicate some of the kinds of sexual harassment
reported to have occurred at the academies over the 1993-94 academic
year.
"I was assaulted and I am very displeased with the actions
taken. The guy is still here and I wish people would do
something even if it is just my word against his." (USAFA cadet)
"People must wake up and realize there are many problems here.
I hope I can help it change." (USAFA cadet)
"Guys in my company specifically tell me girls shouldn't be in
the military. On our class boards are our class pictures and
all the females have pinholes through our picture or were `X'ed
out. I can't express an opinion without being interrupted or I
may just be scoffed at whatever was said." (USNA midshipman)
"I've been called so many names that sometimes it doesn't even
register that they are inappropriate. The lack of respect that
the men have here for women is appalling and challenging their
actions only ostracizes women from the unit." (USNA midshipman)
"I feel sexually harassed daily and feel I have nowhere to go
and no one to tell. I get poor military grades from officers
and cadets due to my gender. It makes me sick what I have to go
through every day and I think about quitting all the time."
(USMA cadet)
"For instance, a professor's comment that `guys should find
themselves a girlfriend so that they have someone to cook, clean
and wash clothes' or to another male cadet that he likes running
in the fast group because `there are no women there' would never
be complained about because it would not change anything." (USMA
cadet)
MEN PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENT IN
THE ATMOSPHERE FOR REPORTING
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
Male students had a general tendency to perceive improvement in the
atmosphere for reporting sexual harassment at the academies. Figure
I.5 shows the perceptions of men regarding the likelihood of positive
consequences resulting from reporting sexual harassment. At the
Military Academy, there were statistically significant increases in
the percentages of men indicating that reported incidents would be
thoroughly investigated and that a victim who reported sexual
harassment would be supported by classmates and companymates. There
was also an increase among Air Force Academy men in the perceived
likelihood that a victim would be supported by squadronmates.
However, the percentages of Naval Academy men who perceived that a
victim would be supported by classmates and companymates both
declined significantly.
Figure I.5: Male Student
Perceptions of Positive
Consequences of reporting
Sexual Harassment
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Legend
NA = Naval Academy
MA = Military Academy
AFA = Air Force Academy
\a Statistically significant difference.
\b While the percentage perceiving that a sexual harassment victim
would be supported by companymates remained the same, there was a
statistically significant shift of responses from the "not sure"
category to the two "unlikely" categories.
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
The responses of men, particularly at the Military and Air Force
academies, tended to show decreases in the percentage who saw
negative consequences as a likely outcome of reporting sexual
harassment (fig. I.6). Among men at the Military and Air Force
academies, there were significant declines in the percentages who
indicated that a victim who reported sexual harassment would be
viewed as a crybaby, be shunned by others, be viewed less favorably
by either the student or officer chains of command, or receive lower
military grades or additional duties. At the Military Academy, there
was also a decrease in the percentages who perceived that nothing
would be done or that harassment incidents would be swept under the
rug. Among men at the Naval Academy, there was a decrease in the
percentages who thought that a victim who reported sexual harassment
would receive lower military grades or that nothing would be done,
but an increase in the perceived likelihood that a complaining victim
would receive additional duties. Men at all three academies showed
an increase in the percentage who thought it was likely that a sexual
Figure I.6: Male Student
Perceptions of Negative
Consequences of Reporting
Sexual Harassment
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Statistically significant difference.
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
WOMEN SEE NO IMPROVEMENT IN THE
ATMOSPHERE FOR REPORTING SEXUAL
HARASSMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
The responses of women students at the three academies generally
showed no statistically significant changes in the perceived
likelihood of positive consequences accruing from reporting sexual
harassment (fig. I.7). The actual percentages perceiving positive
consequences appeared generally lower, although the only
statistically significant decline occurred in the case of Air Force
Academy women's perception of the likelihood that offenders would be
appropriately disciplined, which went from 68 percent in 1991 to 44
percent in 1994.
Figure I.7: Female Student
Perceptions of Positive
Consequences of Reporting
Sexual Harassment
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Statistically significant difference.
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
In general, among women at the three academies, there were no
significant changes in the percentage who saw negative consequences
as likely to accrue to those who reported sexual harassment (fig.
I.8). The one exception was an increase in the percentage of women
at the Naval Academy who thought that a
Figure I.8: Female Student
Perceptions of Negative
Consequences of Reporting
Sexual Harassment
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Statistically significant difference.
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
MANY WOMEN CONTINUE TO INDICATE
FEAR OF REPRISAL FOR REPORTING
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5
The percentage of women who indicated that they would hesitate to
report an incident of sexual harassment for fear of reprisal was 60
percent at the Military Academy, 41 percent at the Naval Academy, and
40 percent at the Air Force Academy. These figures indicate no
significant change from 1991 (fig. I.9).
Figure I.9: Views of Academy
Women Regarding Fear of
Reprisal for Reporting Sexual
Harassment, Academic Years
1990-91 and 1993-94
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
Given that there has been no apparent change in the perceptions of
women regarding the negative consequences of reporting harassment, it
is likely that sexual harassment will continue to be underreported.
Narrative comments also seem to support this conclusion:
"I feel reporting sexual harassment is a 2-edged sword. Some of
it is crying wolf and relatively innocent people get slammed for
things that aren't sexual harassment, it just so happens that
the 2 people involved are of the opposite sex. But the Academy
is so afraid of appearances that the male gets slammed hard. I
think everyone would have a much better attitude towards
reporting it and eliminating harassment if they knew it would be
investigated fairly and punished or exonerated accordingly. As
it is now, if someone cries sexual harassment the male is always
punished." (USMA cadet)
"I think that sexual harassment problems arise from the fact
that male cadets are too immature to realize how rude, vulgar,
offensive and mean they can be. However, women (especially
cadets) have become accustomed to this `harassment' (as some
would call it), so we don't see a need to report it. No matter
what anyone complains about, the verbal harassment won't go away
because you can't change 17-23 year old guys into polite
gentlemen. The only harassment that I would ever report would
be sexual assault (physical). I think this is pretty much an
accurate description of the feelings of many female cadets."
(USMA cadet)
"I know there have been cases of sexual harassment by both
cadets and officers directed toward cadets of the opposite sex.
. . . and the reasons I was told by these individuals as to
why they failed to report it were (1) fear of putting themselves
in a position of being unaccepted by peers and officers or (2)
they decided to tell themselves it was really not that big of a
deal. Also, I think sexual harassment is accepted because
little is done to let people know what sexual harassment
actually encompasses." (USMA cadet)
"The negative perception that many cadets have regarding turning
in gender-related violations is that many times a trivial matter
that could and should have been handled on a 1 vs. 1 basis has
been blown out of proportion with disproportionate
consequences." (USAFA cadet)
"As a general rule, any sort of harassment based on race or
gender will go unreported at USNA. `On the strength of one link
in the cable dependeth the might of the chain. . . .' is
drilled into our heads plebe summer. . . The general
consensus, unfortunately, is that someone who would report such
an offense is the `weak link', or a `bilge' [informant]. Nobody
wants to be a `bilge'." (USNA midshipman)
"A `p' [professor] is proven to have made a sexist comment in
class, but only gets a slap on the wrist - has to read 2 books
to get `sensitized.' These are personal experiences, not made
up. But they went unpunished and I got bad grades. Do
something, because I got shunned and ridiculed when I did."
(USMA cadet)
DOD DEFINITION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT
========================================================== Appendix II
In our 1994 followup survey, we added a question on sexual harassment
tailored after the wording of the DOD definition of sexual
harassment. That definition was issued on July 20, 1988, in a
memorandum from the Secretary of Defense directing the services to
incorporate the definition of sexual harassment into their
regulations. The DOD definition states:
"Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that involves
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other
verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
(1) submission to or rejection of such conduct is made either
explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person's job,
pay, or career, or
(2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is
used as a basis for career employment decisions affecting that
person, or
(3) such conduct interferes with an individual's performance or
creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.
Any person in a supervisory or command position who uses or
condones implicit or explicit sexual behavior to control,
influence, or affect the career, pay, or job of a military
member or civilian employee is engaging in sexual harassment.
Similarly, any military member or civilian employee who makes
deliberate or repeated unwelcome verbal comments, gestures, or
physical contact of a sexual nature is also engaging in sexual
harassment."
Figure II.1 addresses the reported frequency of exposure to
"repeated, unwelcome verbal comments" related to gender cited in the
last sentence of the definition. Figure II.2 presents responses
regarding verbal conduct, and figure II.3 presents responses
regarding physical conduct that "interferes with an individual's
performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment," as cited in section (3) of the definition. Figure II.4
addresses the reported frequency of "physical contact of a sexual
nature" cited in the last sentence of the definition. Figure II.5
addresses responses concerning exposure to explicit or implicit
indications that some aspect of the respondent's academy career would
be affected by submission to or rejection of unwelcome sexual
advances, as cited in sections (1) and (2) of the definition.
REPEATED, UNWELCOME VERBAL
COMMENTS RELATED TO GENDER
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
Between 60 percent and 71 percent of the women reported at least some
exposure to repeated, unwelcome verbal comments related to their
gender, with from 21 percent to 36 percent citing a frequency of a
couple of times a month or more (fig. II.1).
Figure II.1: Reported
Frequency That Academy Women
Experienced Repeated, Unwelcome
Verbal Comments Related to
Their Gender
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
VERBAL CONDUCT THAT INTERFERED
WITH PERFORMANCE OR CREATED AN
INTIMIDATING, HOSTILE, OR
OFFENSIVE ENVIRONMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Between 62 percent and 72 percent of the women reported at least some
exposure to verbal conduct, related to their gender, that interfered
with their performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment, with from 17 percent to 28 percent citing a
recurring level (fig. II.2).
Figure II.2: Reported
Frequency That Academy Women
Experienced Gender- Related
Verbal Conduct That Interfered
With Their Performance or
Created an Intimidating,
Hostile, or Offensive
Environment
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
The two questions concerning verbal comments and conduct (figs. II.1
and II.2) show basically similar patterns and percentages, indicating
that negative gender-related comments appear to rise to the level of
harassment in the minds of most academy women. However, there were a
number of write-in comments that indicated that not all such comments
were considered harassment:
"The jokes made to me are the good humor of friends. I have not
witnessed or heard of any deliberate name-calling or derogatory
statements made to people on sporadic or a continuous basis.
People would not stand for it. What goes on mainly goes on
between friends and it is a fun nature on both sides." (USMA
cadet)
"When I say I hear gender based comments all the time, that
doesn't mean I am necessarily offended by them or that they are
meant maliciously. Most of the guys here are very good about
it, and there are few who actually feel that way." (USAFA cadet)
"Some derogatory comments are meant in playful terms but stem
from college immaturity." (USAFA cadet)
"My friends and I tease each other all the time with no offense
given or taken."
(USNA midshipman)
"I think there is a BIG difference between an intentional insult
and a joking one, and mids [midshipmen], on the whole,
understand the difference. For this reasons I answered never to
Question 19 [the question that asked about whether respondents
had experienced any of 10 forms of harassment]." (USNA
midshipman)
PHYSICAL CONDUCT THAT
INTERFERED WITH PERFORMANCE OR
CREATED AN INTIMIDATING,
HOSTILE, OR OFFENSIVE
ENVIRONMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
The percentage of women who reported being exposed at least one or
two times a year to physical, gender-related conduct that interfered
with their performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment ranged from 39 percent to 42 percent, with 2
percent to 13 percent indicating recurring exposure (fig. II.3).
Figure II.3: Reported
Frequency That Academy Women
Experienced Gender-Related
Physical Conduct That
Interfered With Their
Performance or Created an
Intimidating, Hostile, or
Offensive Environment
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
UNWELCOME, DELIBERATE PHYSICAL
CONTACT OF A SEXUAL NATURE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
As shown in figure II.4, the percentage of women at each academy who
reported being exposed at least one or two times a year to
"unwelcome, deliberate physical contact of a sexual nature (e.g.,
groping, patting, fondling, kissing, hugging, etc.)" ranged from 36
percent to 42 percent, with 2 percent to 6 percent indicating that it
happened a couple of times a month or more often.
Figure II.4: Reported
Frequency That Academy Women
Experienced Unwelcome,
Deliberate Physical Contact of
a Sexual Nature (e.g., groping,
patting, fondling, kissing,
hugging, etc.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
SEXUAL ADVANCES BEING
IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY TIED
TO SOME ASPECT OF THEIR ACADEMY
CAREERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
Figure II.5 shows the responses of academy women regarding what is
generally referred to as "quid pro quo" sexual harassment. We asked
respondents whether, during the 1993-94 academic year, they had
experienced any explicit or implicit indications that some aspect of
their academy careers (e.g., grades, performance ratings,
disciplinary actions, duty assignments, etc.) would be affected by
their acceptance or rejection of sexual advances. While the
overwhelming majority of women at each academy (79 percent to 89
percent) reported that they had not encountered this form of sexual
harassment, from 11 percent to 22 percent indicated that it had
happened to them at least once during the year, with 1 percent to 4
percent citing a frequency of at least a couple of times a month.
Figure II.5: Reported
Frequency That Academy Women
Experienced Explicit or
Implicit Indications That Some
Aspect of Their Academy Careers
Would Be Affected by Their
Acceptance or Rejection of
Sexual Advances
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Responses to GAO questionnaires.
DESCRIPTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE
METHODOLOGY
========================================================= Appendix III
The purpose of this appendix is to set forth our questionnaire
development process, our sampling approach, the response rates, the
weighing of the data, the processing of completed questionnaires, the
sampling error, and other methodological issues.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
We originally developed an omnibus questionnaire in 1990-91 to
address the full scope of the broader review.\1 The 1994 version of
the questionnaire was shortened by omitting most of the items that
did not pertain to the honor and conduct systems or the issue of
sexual harassment. The wording of items repeated in the 1994 survey
was identical to their wording in the 1990-91 version. In addition,
the 1994 survey included a new question tailored after the wording of
the DOD definition of sexual harassment (see app. II).
--------------------
\1 A more detailed description of the questionnaire development
process and the 1990-91 survey administration can be found in DOD
Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual
Harassment (GAO/NSIAD-94-6, Jan. 31, 1994).
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SURVEYS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
To ensure that an adequate number of women would be included, we used
a stratified random sample design, which allowed us to oversample
women. We used the last digit of the social security number to
randomly select respondents from each strata.\2 We selected one final
digit for all cadets and midshipmen and an additional final digit for
women.
The 1994 questionnaires were administered at all three academies in
May 1994. The original administration of the academy student
questionnaires occurred in December 1990 at the Naval Academy and in
March 1991 at the Military and Air Force academies.
The questionnaires were mass-administered to the academy students.
Those selected for the sample were notified through academy channels
to report to rooms designated for the questionnaire administration.
The questionnaires were administered by our staff during what would
otherwise be free time for the respondents. Respondents were assured
of anonymity. There was a make-up session for Air Force Academy
cadets and Naval Academy midshipmen who had scheduling conflicts.
Our survey administration time at the Military Academy conflicted
with a scheduled academic placement exam for a portion of the Class
of 1995. To ensure that this would not have an impact on the
representativeness of our sample, those cadets scheduled for the
placement exam were subtracted from the population before the random
sample selection was made.
--------------------
\2 The last four digits of social security numbers are essentially a
random field based on the order in which individual social security
offices process the applications they receive. Selecting one final
digit could be expected to yield a sample of about 10 percent.
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES
AND WEIGHING OF DATA
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3
Completed questionnaires were received from 430 Military Academy
cadets (a response rate of about 92 percent), 470 Naval Academy
midshipmen (a response rate of about 90 percent), and 428 Air Force
Academy cadets (a response rate of about 77 percent).
Since we oversampled the women, we needed to apply weights to the
responses to allow them to represent the total academy population.
Raw weights were computed by dividing the number of subgroup
responses into the subgroup population. However, applying raw
weights would artificially increase the number of cases and inflate
tests of statistical significance. To avoid such inflation, we used
the raw weights to compute constrained weights, which when applied to
the data make the number of weighted cases equal to the number of
unweighted cases.\3 Weights applied in this manner yield data that
represent the total population without distorting significance tests.
--------------------
\3 SPSS-X User's Guide, 3rd edition, Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc., 1988.
PROCESSING COMPLETED
QUESTIONNAIRES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4
We reviewed and edited each returned questionnaire. Responses were
double-keyed, creating two files for each completed questionnaire.
The two files were then compared for consistency, and corrections
were made as necessary. We checked the overall accuracy of the keyed
data by verifying every 10th record back to the responses in the
completed questionnaire. None of the three sets of questionnaires
reached an error level of 1 percent.
SAMPLING ERROR
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5
Since we surveyed samples of cadets and midshipmen rather than the
entire populations, the results we obtained were subject to some
degree of uncertainty, or sampling error. Sampling errors represent
the expected difference between our sample results and the results we
would have obtained had we surveyed the entire populations. Sampling
errors are smallest when the percentage split responding to a
particular question is highly skewed, such as 5 percent responding
"yes" and 95 percent responding "no" and greatest when there is about
a 50-50 percentage split in responses.
Based on our response rates, we estimate that our results can be
generalized to the cadet and midshipman populations at the 95-percent
confidence level, with a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.6
percent at the Military Academy, 4.4 percent at the Naval Academy,
and 4.6 percent at the Air Force Academy.
The sampling errors for various subgroups for which data are cited in
this report appear in table II.1. The decimal figures in the table
are the sampling errors that correspond to various percentages of
respondents selecting a particular response alternative. For
example, if we state that 15 percent of Military Academy cadets
responded in a given way, the table shows a sampling error of 3.3
percent corresponding to "all cadets" and a 15-percent to 85-percent
response split. This means that we can be 95-percent confident that
the percentage of cadets responding that way in the population would
be within 15 percent plus or minus 3.3 percent, or between 11.7
percent and 18.3 percent.
Table II.1
Sampling Errors for Various Academy
Subgroups
Subg Populati Samp 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
roup on le 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50%
---- -------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Military Academy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 3,638 430 2.4 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6
cad
ets
Male 3,232 341 2.8 3.5 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.2
s
Fema 406 79 6.6 7.9 8.8 9.5 9.9 10.2 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.6
les
Naval Academy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 4,049 470 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4
mid
shi
pme
n
Male 3,564 382 2.6 3.3 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9
s
Fema 485 88 6.4 7.5 8.3 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.9 10.0 10.1
les
Air Force Academy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 4,012 428 2.5 3.1 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6
cad
ets
Male 3,495 338 2.8 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2
s
Fema 517 90 6.3 7.4 8.3 8.9 9.3 9.6 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.0
les
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES OF
ERROR
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6
In order to encourage candid responses, our methodology for
administering the 1994 surveys, as well as the 1990-91 surveys, did
not permit us to identify those students who failed to attend the
group administration sessions. As a result, we are unable to
evaluate how, if at all, the percentages cited in this report might
change if these nonrespondents had provided responses. In some
cases, respondents failed to answer some of the questions they were
asked to respond to. The nonresponse rates for each of the questions
in our surveys ranged from 0.2 percent to 1.4 percent.
A variety of factors also temper our ability to make clear
comparisons about the respondents from the 1990-91 period and the
1994 period. Our percentages represent the results for two
different, but partially overlapping, cohorts of students. Members
of the class of 1994 at each academy, although not necessarily the
same students, participated in both surveys. The data cited,
therefore, may mask individual changes in perceptions and reported
experiences.