[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-121]
REPORT OF THE DEFENSE TASK FORCE
ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE
MILITARY SERVICES
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 3, 2010
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-260 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOE WILSON, South Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
David Kildee, Professional Staff Member
Jeanette James, Professional Staff Member
James Weiss, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2010
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010, Report of the Defense Task Force on
Sexual Assault in the Military Services........................ 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010...................................... 23
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010
REPORT OF THE DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
SERVICES
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 2
WITNESSES
Dunbar, Brig. Gen. Sharon K.G., USAF, Member, Defense Task Force
on Sexual Assault in the Military Services..................... 5
Iasiello, Dr. Louis V., Co-Chair, Defense Task Force on Sexual
Assault in the Military Services............................... 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 27
Iasiello, Dr. Louis V., joint with Brig. Gen. Sharon K.G.
Dunbar..................................................... 30
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 29
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
REPORT OF THE DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
SERVICES
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 3, 2010.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:04 p.m., in
room 210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Susan A. Davis
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Davis. Good afternoon. Today the Military Personnel
Subcommittee meets to receive the report of the Defense Task
Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services. The task
force was created by the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2005 as an extension of the Defense Task Force on
Sexual Harassment and Violence at the military service
academies.
We are very pleased that you are here. We are very pleased
that you have completed your report. We know that you got
started a little after that initial 2005 authorization,
certainly not the task force's fault, but we are glad that it
commenced and that you really did the tremendous work that you
did. Thank you so much for that.
Sexual assault is a complex problem that does not lend
itself to a single hearing. Last year we set out to continue
our examination of sexual assault in the military by starting a
series of hearings on individual subjects so that members and
witnesses could have in-depth discussions about various issues
to build towards a comprehensive understanding of the problem.
This in turn will guide our deliberations on what can and
should be done next.
The first two hearings of this series looked at victim
advocacy and support as well as the prevention programs put in
place by the Department of Defense. Our next hearing was to
focus solely on prosecution of sexual assault in the military.
But since the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the
Military Services released their report in December, we have
decided instead to have this hearing to fully examine their
findings and recommendations.
I want to thank the task force co-chairs for the depth, the
breadth, the thoughtfulness and quality of this report. This is
exactly the type of well-researched report we hope for when we
create these task forces in law, complete with comprehensive
and practical recommendations. I certainly cannot promise that
all of your recommendations for Congress will be implemented,
nor that those that are implemented will be done exactly as you
have put forth, but I can assure you that each and every one
will be carefully reviewed and considered by this subcommittee.
I certainly don't want to steal any of the thunder from our
witnesses but there is a recurring theme that needs to be
mentioned from the outset. While the Department has done much
in recent years to address sexual assault in the military, much
more remains to be done. Thankfully, due to the work of this
task force and others, we have a much clearer understanding of
the problem. It is important that we make some significant
improvements to how the Department deals with sexual assault
and that we all do what we can to avoid inadvertently making
things worse in the process.
Sexual assault within the ranks is antithetical to the
trust and camaraderie that defines military culture. Any sexual
assault undermines the moral foundation of our Armed Forces and
does irreparable harm to unit cohesion. Hopefully, today's
hearing will help us chart a legislative course to make
progress in our goal to eliminate sexual assaults in the
military.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]
Mrs. Davis. We have with us two distinguished members of
the task force. Rear Admiral Iasiello is a former Chief of Navy
Chaplains and served as one of the task force co-chairs.
Brigadier General Dunbar is a director of force management
policy for the Air Force and served as a senior military member
of the task force. We certainly welcome you to be here.
I wanted to mention that I would ask unanimous consent that
Mr. Turner be allowed to participate in today's hearing and be
able to ask questions after the subcommittee members have had
an opportunity to do that.
I now turn to Mr. Wilson for any of his comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I join you in welcoming
our witnesses and thank them and the other task force members
and staff for the excellent work and report concerning a very
difficult, important, and challenging set of issues. This
report is comprehensive, detailed, and highly insightful as to
how much yet needs to be done to ensure that the military
culture adequately, appropriately, and effectively addresses
the issues related to sexual assault.
Certainly the report cites many instances of best practices
by the military services to illustrate that progress has been
made and is being made. Among those best practices are the
efforts at Fort Jackson, which is in the Second District of
South Carolina that I represent, the Army's largest gender-
integrated, initial-entry training center where sexual assault
is addressed within the first two days of training. Overall,
however, the report cites serious shortcomings in the strategic
direction, prevention, and training, response to victims, and
accountability efforts of the Department of Defense [DOD] and
the military services. Furthermore, the report is critical of
the well-intentioned effort by Congress to create a new
comprehensive article 120 of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice, UCMJ. Practitioners see it as cumbersome, confusing,
and a barrier in some cases to convictions. Also, significant
issues have evolved related to the article's constitutionality.
Finally, the report touches on implementation challenges of
DOD policies and practices during deployed joint operations
overseas and in joint-basing situations in the United States.
It is sad that nearly 65 years after World War II
demonstrated the military necessity to expand the roles for
women in the military and continuous efforts by Congress to
facilitate the integration and assimilation of women into the
military, we are here today to receive yet another report that
clearly indicates so much still needs to be done. I believe the
authors of this report provide most of the answers to my
question. I quote: ``The task force believes that culture
change is essential for military services to improve how they
prevent and address sexual assault.''
The lesson we should take away from this report is that
culture change is hard, difficult, and neither smooth nor
quick. It is a process requiring enduring commitment to change
over the long term. In that vein, I am sure this subcommittee
will energetically pursue and support the task force
recommendations.
But I would also caution that as the subcommittee begins to
address other issues that will require significant military
cultural changes that I have seen in my 31 years of Army
National Guard service, such change will not be easy or quick
and, like the efforts to change military culture with regard to
assimilation and integration of women, likely to be disruptive
and difficult for many years, not withstanding the assurances
to the contrary of some advocates for change.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. I look
forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
Mrs. Davis. Dr. Iasiello, would you like to proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS V. IASIELLO, CO-CHAIR, DEFENSE TASK
FORCE ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY SERVICES
Dr. Iasiello. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and
other distinguished members, thank you for this opportunity to
present the work of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in
the Military Services. As co-chairs we are honored to be here
to discuss the recommendations and findings of the task force
membership and staff. Given the fact that our formal statements
have been forwarded to you, we will keep our opening comments
very, very brief.
As regards to the task force authority, as the Chairwoman
has already mentioned, the Congress directed the task force to
be established in 2005 by the Defense Authorization Act and it
was established by the Secretary of Defense in August of 2008.
The task force employed an extensive methodology, employing
both quantitative and qualitative measures.
Over a period of 15 months, we have visited more than 60
military installations, CONUS [continental United States],
OCONUS [outside the continental United States], and in the AOR
[area of responsibility]. We have interviewed more than 3,500
individuals, 61 victims of sexual assault, senior military and
civilian DOD leadership, sexual assault response coordinators
[SARCs], victim advocates and, of course, their supervisors.
We have interviewed the first responders to sexual assault,
the doctors, the lawyers, the chaplains, the military police,
the DOD Criminal Investigative Services. We have reviewed
hundreds of their criminal investigative reports as well as all
prior reports on sexual assault leading up to our work. And at
the completion of our work, we submitted our report to the
Secretary of Defense December 1 of 2009.
The task force focused its work in three distinct yet
interrelated areas: victim response, prevention and training,
accountability and strategic oversight.
First off, the report recognizes the progress made by the
Department of Defense in the area of victim response since the
inauguration of the SAPR [sexual assault prevention and
response] program in 2005. We believe that the recommendations
contained in our report will significantly improve these
programs in this critical area of victim response.
Next, in the area of strategic direction, the task force
recommends that the Deputy Secretary of Defense take
responsibility for the SAPRO [sexual assault prevention and
response office] for a period of at least one year and until
the Secretary of Defense apprises Congress that the SAPR
program is meeting its established goals. We further recommend
that the SAPR program be given a more permanent complexion. The
Department of Defense needs to communicate the message that the
SAPR program is here to stay and illustrate that resolve
through designated funding for SAPR funding in its DOD POM
[program objective memorandum] or budgeting process.
The task force recommends that the organizational design,
personnel, and mission of the DOD SAPRO Office be revised to
strategically lead in this critical area.
We recommend the establishment of a uniform SAPR
terminology and core structure to be implemented across service
lines. The task force recommends the professionalization of
victim advocates to ensure qualified personnel with national
certification, and we recommend that SARCs, the sexual assault
response coordinators, be either DOD personnel or uniform
personnel.
The task force recommends the development of program
standards and subsequent metrics which will enable the DOD to
more accurately measure the health of the SAPR programs.
And finally, in the area of strategic direction, the task
force is strongly recommending funding for SAPR research in
collaboration with civilian experts throughout our country such
as those found in the world of academia, advocacy groups, and
other Federal agencies.
[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Iasiello and General
Dunbar can be found in the Appendix on page 30.]
Dr. Iasiello. And now I would like to turn the microphone
over to my esteemed colleague, General Sharon Dunbar.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. SHARON K.G. DUNBAR, USAF, MEMBER,
DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY SERVICES
General Dunbar. Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson, other
distinguished members, as a senior uniformed member of the task
force, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you to talk
about the findings and recommendations of our report.
Based upon the 15-month review that we had, several themes
clearly emerged. First, prevention in sexual assault should be
the number one goal to prevent the devastating impact sexual
assault has on member, his or her unit, the readiness of his or
her unit, as well as the undermining effects sexual assault has
had on the reputation of our Armed Forces.
Second, there needs to be greater consistency among each of
the services because of the jointness which we see in our
operations today, joint basing as well as the deployed
operations taking place.
There are also distinct differences between our components,
Active and Reserve. We do not have time to fully address these
differences, which is why we recommend DOD undertake a separate
review of this. The availability and the consistency of data
also remains a concern for us.
Finally, in the area of response, a notable improvement in
that area, but additional improvements as we have discussed are
clearly needed.
In the realm of prevention and training, prevention if we
accept it as a top priority in addition to providing support
for victim advocates and being key to combating sexual assault,
we would say that the SAPRO Office needs to establish a very
clear overarching prevention strategy. That was not clear
during our review. We understand that they have since developed
an overarching prevention strategy, and so its implementation
will be key to the success of the Sexual Assault Prevention
Response program.
In addition, that overarching prevention strategy will
allow greater consistency among the services and drive them
into having uniform terms and conditions, positions, and
approaches for addressing this particular issue. Under that
prevention strategy, by-stander intervention is a very clear
area where the Department of Defense and military services have
made tremendous strides.
But we would argue that the overarching prevention strategy
entails much more. It encompasses assessment of a community's
physical environment from the terms of safety, facility
location, issues that we saw in the AOR. It is also
encompassing of community awareness, leadership emphasis and
involvement. To a certain extent we have seen that where the
leadership is involved, the success of the program is much more
effective, stemming from looking at the senior leadership of
the military services, holding annual summits addressing sexual
assault prevention and response to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff's video, which we saw when we traveled over
into the AOR, to even at the lowest unit level commanders who
are very actively engaged in addressing the issue of sexual
assault prevention and response. The leadership sets the tone.
We also would say that sexual assault from the standpoint
of prevention, the strategy that we would like to see will
guide initiatives, process, the training and the public
outreach that is required to address the issue, which would
also enable the military services and the Department of Defense
to better leverage and partner with outside experts in
addressing the issue. That affects not just those who are
serving in the military services but all of our society as
well.
In the training arena, we would argue that in order to be
effective, the training that is currently conducted must be
more tailored and developmental in nature. Tailored to both
military and civilian personnel over the course of their
service, tailored to maturity levels, leadership levels, and
skill levels.
Improving awareness should be one of the key aspects of
training, addressing the frequency of incidents, addressing
victim and perpetrator risk factors from age, alcohol,
location, acquaintance versus stranger, garrison versus
deployed, and risky behavior in general.
The training should address myths, the very myths that are
out there that are prevalent and accepted by members of society
as well as members of our military services. And we would also
argue that the training needs to be less nearly focused on
women because that makes it all the more difficult for male
victims to come forward. We all know that the ability of male
victims to report is much less. It is very difficult for any
victim of sexual assault to come forward. But currently the
training tends to be more geared towards females than
encompassing any individual who might become a victim of sexual
assault.
We would also argue that the training needs to be more
specialized and recurring: first responders and SARCs; victim
advocates specific to the gender of the victim; as well as
investigators and prosecutors in order for us to be able to be
improve successful prosecution of sexual assault; as well as
specialized training for leadership, as I mentioned, at all
levels of service.
In the victim response area, as we have said, much has been
done in order to improve what we are doing there, but some of
the areas where we see additional improvement is in providing
the immediate victim support from the first responders, the
community-based support and victim advocacy, as well as just
from general safer access, the contact numbers and
accessibility. All of those are very key for a victim to know
in a standardized way if they are anywhere serving, whether it
is CONUS, OCONUS, or in a deployed environment, exactly who
they go to, where they can go in order to receive the care and
treatment that they need.
We have heard consistently that the victims are
dissatisfied with the treatment that they received during the
investigative process, and we make a number of recommendations
in order to improve how these victims are treated in order to
ensure that they are able to receive support from a certified,
very well-trained victim advocate, to being able to get advice
from a qualified military attorney, to also providing them with
privileged communication which we see as necessary in order to
encourage more victims to come forward.
And longer-term support is something, obviously, that we
need to be looking at beyond an individual's service in the
military. We did not fully address this particular area, but we
would offer that as an area to further explore.
In accountability, we took a look at the system
accountability as well as offender accountability and found
that we need improvements in terms of the database, in terms of
the reliability and the validity of the data as submitted to
Congress in the annual report. We have concern over the
sufficiency of the funding in order to ensure timely delivery
of the much-needed database and the service's ability, in order
to provide the data to be integrated into a database which
allows the opportunity for Members of Congress as well as the
Department of Defense to do trend analysis in sexual assault.
In the accountability area we would also address leadership
accountability, the need for commanders to address more openly
the issue of sexual assault at the unit level. As I mentioned,
we have seen it addressed at the senior levels of the services
to include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we
have seen it very successfully addressed at some unit
locations, but we would argue that much more needs to be done
in this area.
Routine discussion of sexual assault by unit commanders
helps to continue to increase awareness, reinforce a
commander's stance on no tolerance of sexual assault in the
unit, and it instills confidence in the system in the attention
that it is given to it.
We outlined a number of best practices. Fifteen are listed.
No doubt there are many more best practices that are out there
beyond the locations we were able to visit. There is much that
is going on that is very positive within the DOD and the
military services, and I think that the SAPRO Office needs to
take a look at what all those best practices are and integrate
those into the prevention strategy it is currently addressing.
In closing, I would say that on behalf of the task force
members, some of whom have been addressing the issue of sexual
assault for decades now, we thank you for your leadership on
this issue, your concern, and the invitation to speak before
you today.
Dr. Iasiello and I stand by to take any questions you may
have.
[The joint prepared statement of General Dunbar and Dr.
Iasiello can be found in the Appendix on page 30.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
thoughtfulness throughout this.
One of the recommendations you have had, especially as we
move forward, is to place a sexual assault prevention and
response office under the Deputy Secretary of Defense for at
least a year. And you thought that that would give them a
chance to kind of apprise what is happening. Our experience has
been that they just aren't really in a position to be able to
do that, that it is not the staff--they are not designed for
that kind of oversight.
I am wondering if you have had any additional thoughts
about that, if you feel that you looked at that and felt that
that was the only way to give this the kind of stature,
perhaps, that we are looking for. How can we look at that?
There is a concern that they are just not ready to do that.
We had an experience as well with oversight of the process
at Walter Reed, and, you know, there is just a lot of question
whether that is really the best place to put this additional
responsibility for oversight.
Dr. Iasiello. It was our thought as we put forward that
recommendation, that after 2005 each of the services took off
in their own direction trying to answer this issue and trying
to confront this issue in the best way possible, and we applaud
that initiative that each of the services took in sort of
taking this forward. But I think I speak for the task force
membership when I say that we really would like to see a
strategic leadership role taken by the SAPRO Office at the DOD
that would help to bring together these incredible efforts that
we see now from the leadership of the different services, the I
Am Strong Program in the Army being just one of the many
examples that are out there; and especially, as the General
mentioned, as far as the comprehensive prevention strategy that
we are talking about, someone really needs to take the lead on
that. Someone needs to be able to be liaison and to partner
with the intellects that are out there in the civilian society
and to capitalize on the great ideas that are part of our
American culture.
And so we felt that by placing the office, at least
temporarily, under the Deputy Secretary of Defense, that we
expect, of course, a lot to be done in a very short period of
time. We felt that that added support, added attention, would,
in fact, help them to realize their goals.
Mrs. Davis. I think you would stand by that statement.
I think what we are just wondering is if a decision was
made that perhaps they don't have the ability now, the capacity
to actually provide the kind of oversight that we are really
seeking here. Were there some other thoughts about how this
might be done?
I think what I hear you saying very strongly is that you
want to have more authority, more oversight, and certainly
raise the level of--I am not sure that the word is
``competency,'' I think it is the capacity to deal better and
to be seen as an office that really means exactly what it says
here. And we are struggling a little bit to sort of define that
better.
General Dunbar. Yes, ma'am. I think the intent behind the
recommendation is to provide higher oversight, and I think that
there are a number of ways to do that. The recommendation was
geared to highlight the fact that that oversight is necessary,
and so that is one recommendation. But there are clearly other
ways of doing that. And we indicated in the report, one of the
areas that we found a shortcoming was just in the staffing
alone of the SAPRO Office in order for it to be able to do what
is required. And I think when you look at some of the issues
that drove that recommendation, it stemmed from the under
resourced nature in terms of staffing of the office that,
frankly, you go back to the inception of the office, it was
geared more towards response and it now needs to expand into
prevention and training and other areas. And in order to do
that higher oversight at a level, whether it is the level
recommended in the report or elsewhere, we believe is prudent.
Dr. Iasiello. And if I may, we see it as critically
important that there be uniformed members as part of that
staff, people in uniform and people that have had the
experience of leading and understand.
We also are asking for a seasoned JAG [Judge Advocate
General] officer from one of the military services to be part
of that staff and to have a designated victim advocate on staff
with the expertise to handle the issues at that strategic
level.
Mrs. Davis. I was going to ask if there are professionals,
and you mentioned the JAG officer, experience level or
educational level that you feel would contribute greatly to
that kind of stature and authority that it would have. Is there
anything in addition to that?
General Dunbar. Principally the leadership of the office
and the recommendation that we make is that it be led by a
general flag officer or a civilian-level equivalent.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
General and Doctor, thank you very much for being here. I
notice behind you, you have a very distinguished JAG officer
with you. I am a former JAG myself, so I appreciate your
service.
However you want to answer in whichever order, you cite
there are implementation difficulties with JAG, with article
120 of the UCMJ, in your report and recommend a review by
military justice experts as to its effectiveness. Are these
difficulties related to the fact that the law only went into
effect for offenses committed on or after October 1, 2007, and
lawyers are simply not familiar with how to use the new
provision; or are there serious issues with article 120 and on
what particular issues should the review focus?
General Dunbar. Congressman Wilson, I believe that from
practitioners what we have heard is that article 120, as it is
currently outlined is, as you used the word, ``cumbersome.'' It
is complicated and confusing. It is confusing for those who are
trying to prosecute, but it is confusing for individuals who
are hearing the cases in order to look into the types of
charges. It encompasses far more, and I think as a result of
that, it is very difficult for individuals sitting on a jury in
order to be able to come to a conclusion. The concern is
because of the broad nature of it, that there may be
individuals that, as a result, may be acquitted. And that is
why we would just ask for a review of it. Those who are
implementing it, the JAG officers, know better than we do, and
I think that that dialogue is important.
Mr. Wilson. And in line with your concern about acquittals,
I have the same concern. Your report suggests the view that the
military is aggressive in prosecuting sexual assault. However,
you note that the pursuit of prosecution in court-martial
cases, where evidence is not as strong as it might be, leads to
pure convictions. This is also an obstacle for obtaining court-
martial convictions.
What recommendations would you give to the military
prosecutor for increasing court-martial convictions? What role
can nonjudicial measures, such as article 15s and
administrative actions, have in the effort to prevent and to
punish sexual offenders?
General Dunbar. As a former commander, I think that this is
an area that everybody struggles with from the standpoint of
wanting to prosecute cases to looking at what is prosecutable,
and I think in the end you want to provide justice for the
victim.
What we would recommend and we do, in fact, recommend for
prosecutors as well as investigators, is additional training,
because sexual assault, the incidence level of it spread across
all the installations, across all the JAGs who have to try the
cases, their ability to have familiarity with trying sexual
assault cases is not as extensive as one would think. So if you
establish a cadre of individuals who are well-trained in order
to be able to prosecute those cases--the Army is doing that--or
you bring on additional investigators, as the Air Force and
other services are doing, and you provide specific training to
sexual assault, we are hoping that that leads to increased
success in prosecution.
To your reference as far as nonjudicial punishment, we
would argue that certainly when we are looking at cases and the
ability to prosecute successfully those cases, that the JAG and
the commander need to have that discussion and need to look at
the tools that are there in order to be able to provide justice
for the victim. At the same time, it probably merits including
the victim in some of the consultative process there, and we
have addressed that issue as well.
Mr. Wilson. Another concern I have that your report hits
on, indicates victims often jeopardize their option for
restricted reporting because they share information with the
assault about a friend, family member, or superior. But you
note it is natural for a victim to want to tell someone they
trust about the assault. You recommend for a victim to have the
right to make a restricted report despite disclosing to a third
party. However, you exclude the direct chain of command or law
enforcement from the third parties.
Why shouldn't a victim have the right to choose restricted
or unrestricted reporting regardless of who may be aware of the
assault?
General Dunbar. That recommendation was essentially one
step in the direction of trying to afford the victims with a
little more latitude as to who they can turn to in order to
discuss their situation. Right now, as you know, they could
confide in a peer, and it may not guarantee them
confidentiality.
Again, kind of harkening back to having been a commander
and having the opportunity to speak to the commanders, for the
victim to talk to a commander about being sexually assaulted,
it puts the commander in a very difficult position because the
commander is going to want to seek justice, and having that
information and not being able to act upon that information is,
I think, problematic. Hence, the restrictive reporting as we
have currently set up we believe works very well. But expanding
the opportunity for a victim to be able to confide to peers,
friends, as research indicates they are more inclined to do, as
opposed to go to authorities that they know, even offer them
confidence--chaplains as being one of them--we believe provides
a support network for the victims which, in the end, one of the
objectives is for us to ensure that military victims of sexual
assault come forward to receive the care and treatment that
they need; and that is an option that allows that, while at the
same time enabling the commanders to kind of have that law in
order for them to be able to seek the prosecution of the
offenders.
Mr. Wilson. I again thank both of you for your efforts.
This is such an important issue for the young people serving in
our military and the great opportunity that they have to serve
that they should serve without fear of sexual assault.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
General Dunbar, would you give me your 15-second summary--I
know it wasn't your all's fault, but why there was such a delay
between the time of passage until you all went to work?
General Dunbar. Sir, I honestly can't comment on that
because I was busy doing my job, just waiting for us to
convene; so the machinations behind it, I couldn't comment on
it.
Dr. Snyder. Do you ----
Dr. Iasiello. I can't speak to the decision, but what I can
speak to is the fact that when members were asked, it was an
immediate yes. They saw the opportunity to help men and women
in uniform, and they aggressively pursued this task, not in a
ceremonial fashion, but actually giving up a year of their
lives to the work of the task force. So we really can't speak
to the question of why, but we can speak to the fact that, when
asked, everyone responded in a magnificent way.
Dr. Snyder. General Dunbar, when you look at the
differences between how you view the challenges at a military
base domestically versus overseas in a war zone, do you see
those as being qualitatively different, or can they be
basically the same approach in all three places?
General Dunbar. I believe that there are qualitative
differences. We are looking at OCONUS versus CONUS. One of the
issues that we saw OCONUS overseas was the need to ensure that
we are providing our civilian members, the DOD, civilian
personnel, with the support that they require because they are
overseas in a different environment. From a military member
standpoint, OCONUS to CONUS, probably not that much different.
In the AOR compared to CONUS or OCONUS, certainly differences.
You have individuals who are moving in and out of theater very
quickly, out of bases very quickly. You have individuals that
are dispersed over the area, and that need for accountability,
the importance of having individuals know exactly who it is
that they can go to, is paramount given the circumstances of
just operations in the deployed theater in general. So there
are differences.
Dr. Snyder. One of your recommendations deals with the
issue of letting victims of sexual assault know what the
results of formal military disciplinary reaction is. That is
not a problem just for sexual assault, though, is it? I mean
you could have victims of other crimes, breaking into their
home, destroying--vandalize their favorite trophy, who knows
what it is--all kinds of things can happen--beat up their kid.
That is a problem not just with regard to sexual assault; is
that correct.
Dr. Iasiello. If I may, obviously the investment that a
victim makes in the whole legal process is a very emotional
one, a very draining one. And also the way that things are
handled and keeping the rumor mill under control and so on
within a command is extremely important, obviously, for the
morale and welfare of the members of a unit. And I guess the
point we were getting at or trying to get at was the fact that
too often we interviewed victims or we met with focus groups,
and people were absolutely unaware of what happened, why
someone was acquitted, why charges were dropped or whatever. So
the information chain is critically important not only for the
victim, but also for the members of the unit in order to have a
more transparent look at what is going on. That is why the
recommendation was made.
Dr. Snyder. My question is that is not just a problem--I
understand you--that is not just a problem with sexual assault,
that the disciplinary process may not inform, you know,
whether--I mean certainly it is qualitatively different, but
people who go down and file charges and testify or make
complaints may not hear what the results are in other areas
too, not just sexual assault; is that accurate.
General Dunbar. Yes, that would be the case.
Dr. Snyder. Your recommendation that the SARCs need to
specifically be either DOD civilian or DOD military. Would you
amplify that about why--I don't know--a military spouse who is
not DOD, may not be a civilian, maybe a volunteer or somebody
from the community, a community organization--why that breaks
down so strongly that you feel that it--you make that strong
recommendation?
Dr. Iasiello. It is one of the recommendations we all felt
very strongly about. And the reason why, Congressman, was the
fact that it is really access to the commander, a person's
ability to be able to access their commander. And what we found
with contractors is sometimes they are placed under other
organizations, like family advocacy groups or community
services and so on, and there may be a two- or three-tiered
chain of command between them and the commander.
We feel for a SARC to be effective, there needs to be this
immediacy of presence with their commanders not only to keep
them informed but to have that access when necessary.
So the membership, as we were talking about ways to make
things better, we felt that making the SARC a member of the DOD
team as far as a DOD employee or, as the Air Force has done in
some locations, making them uniformed members and giving them
that SARC responsibility, we saw a great improvement in the
areas where that was happening. So that is why we made the
recommendation.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again
for having this hearing. As you know, I have been working on
this issue for a while and I am very interested to hear--and I
have read the report with respect in particular to the article
120 comments, and I would like to say some of the comments in
there were red herrings, and I have a different view of it. But
also some of them were due to, I think, just the nature of law-
making. I mean the initial change to article 120 that I
proposed was different, and when I look at cumbersome pieces of
it, those pieces actually came from the Secretary's Office. So
I would love a chance to go back, Madam Chair, and be able to
redo, if we have to, article 120, because I think it is that
important for us to bring it into today's world.
In the military report, you had a case-by-case synopsis of
all sexual assault cases reported, and when I looked over the
number of cases where an individual would be convicted of rape
or aggravated sexual assault, but then they would merely
receive an administrative action or be demoted, or in many
cases no action was taken at all, there were quite a few of
those.
And since one of the reasons we made the effort to change
article 120 was so that we could get prosecutions--and now we
have prosecutions, we have convictions--and so I am wondering
why is it that individuals who were clearly convicted of sexual
assault are getting away with mere demotions or administrative
action? And I have to tell you that that, when I read that,
unless you can clarify that for me, pretty much really angered
me. So it is my understanding that most of the investigation
and adjudication of the allegations of sexual assault fall
under the commander's jurisdiction. And so that is why I added
language to the fiscal year 2010 NDAA, requiring the
Comptroller General to provide the congressional defense
committees with a report on the capacity of each service's
infrastructure for the investigation and the adjudication of
allegations of sexual assault.
So what are the barriers that exist in the sense that--to
facilitate a fair and effective investigation, to adjudicate
the sexual assault cases to the full extent of the UCMJ, and
why are so many individuals committing these crimes, getting
convicted, and getting minor sentences or demotions?
Dr. Iasiello. I am not sure how appropriate it would be,
but we have some great legal minds with us who have studied
this for the last 15 months and have pored over a lot of cases.
And if it would be appropriate to allow Colonel Grant, who is a
member, who is also one of our legal experts, to maybe address
that question for Congresswoman Sanchez?
Mrs. Davis. Any objection?
Hearing none, please go ahead.
Colonel Grant. Ma'am, as far as your initial statement, I
believe you were referring to the reports at the end of the
SAPR report?
Ms. Sanchez. Yes.
Colonel Grant. The way that those are written is, the
allegation is rape or aggravated assault, and one of the
problems that we know in the report itself is there is
frequently not a discussion of what the actual ----
Ms. Sanchez. Conviction to ----
Colonel Grant. So it is the allegation. I am sure in
reading our report, we are very critical of the way that that
information is related because it really doesn't provide you
good information at all. And that is why a lot of our
recommendations deal with improving the report, so you get a
clear picture as to what really happened in each individual
case.
Ms. Sanchez. So, in other words, what you are saying is
someone alleged rape and then it went to be prosecuted and we
received a conviction; we don't know what that person was
really convicted of under the report.
Colonel Grant. I do not believe that the reports actually
have that information in there, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sanchez. But we do have that information, and if we
figured out a way to get that information, we would have better
information to tell us what they are being convicted of and
why. Because, again, I saw mere dismissals and changing to
other units, et cetera, et cetera, which if that is the case,
that is not the intent of what we had in mind.
Colonel Grant. Absolutely. But what happens is they go and
they report to the investigators and they say, I was raped. And
then the investigation occurs and there is any number of
different conclusions that can be reached after the course of
that investigation. There is a gap in the report as to that
particular process. Maybe there is an unknown perpetrator. She
was raped but we don't know who did it. She was raped by a
civilian, not a military person. She recanted, it really didn't
happen. She thought she was raped but after we figured out what
the facts were, it wasn't technically, legally, rape. There are
any number of reasons but----
Ms. Sanchez. But again there were convictions, so we didn't
find the perpetrator, we don't know who he is. I mean, you
wouldn't convict somebody.
Colonel Grant. Yes, there are convictions in certain cases,
I would agree with that. But some of the information where you
are saying is--I can't remember exactly what the punishment
was, but it was not consistent with a conviction. There are
situations where, if there are convictions and they are just
like demoted in rank, it is possible that the thing they were
found guilty of, it was not actually rape or aggravated
assault.
Ms. Sanchez. I understand. I guess it goes back to the
whole issue of we need to have the right information so we can
find out whether we are really getting convictions or whether
the culture is still one where the commandant or whoever, the
commanding person, is still leery of, you know, ruining
somebody's, you know, whatever.
I mean, we have had so many stories of people being sent
off to other places, et cetera. We need to get to the bottom of
what is a conviction and why are there dismissals going on.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. I am going to move on
so we can get at least a question in before we have to break
for votes.
Ms. Sanchez. Yes. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. I think the discussion has been having the
results of disciplinary actions, having more transparency
around those, and trying to figure out what is the best way to
get to that place so that we are even able to see that in the
context of the discussion today. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you for your testimony and your report. I found
it very interesting, a very serious effort to address the great
challenge of sexual assault in the military. We know there is
much more to be done, just from anecdotal stories from people
who have experienced sexual assault, who tell us how that they
feel they are not particularly taken care of. And one of the
issues I think we keep coming back to is the role of the
commander in making the decision over whether or not a case
goes to court martial.
The 1999 decision of U.S. versus Gammons in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces stated, quote:
``One of the hallmarks of the military justice system is a
broad discussion vested in commanders to choose the appropriate
disposition of alleged offenses.'' And we know that the
military is a unique place with unique requirements.
The Department of Defense general counsel also analogized
the role of a commander to be similar--and we had a meeting
with the gentleman to sort of walk us through some of the
issues there--to be similar to that of a prosecuting attorney
in the event of a reported assault. He or she has full
discretion over whether or not to take a case to court. The
commander may get advice from a judge advocate general on the
merits of the case, but ultimately it is the commander who
makes the final decision.
My question is: What existing mechanisms does DOD have in
place for third-party oversight of review of these decisions or
a commander's decisions regarding how to proceed on a sexual
assault case appealable? If so, what are the steps needed to be
taken to appeal such a decision, and does the lack of such a
process, do you think, pose a problem?
And the other question I would have is really the oversight
around the JAG officer. If the commander is depending very much
on the JAG officer's recommendations, how can we engage in sort
of questioning the JAG officer's role in advising the
commander?
General Dunbar. Those are all very good questions. From the
JAG officer, taking the last first, the JAG officer has
reachback authority back to the commands--higher level
commands, if the individual is feeling as if they do not have
all the data points, all the advice, all the support that they
need in order to provide the commander with the advice,
considering the circumstances.
I believe that most commanders when they are talking with
JAGs, they know that the JAGs are providing advice. The
commanders ultimately make the decision as to what they want to
do, where they want to go in terms of judicial, nonjudicial
measures. And if the commander is dissatisfied with the advice
the JAG has made, the commander likewise has higher-level
command authorities supporting major command in order to be
able to elevate the issue in order to seek to get some
additional guidance.
From an oversight perspective, I will tell you that our
task force did not feel that additional oversight was
necessary. I mean the review through the investigative files
indicated that where information was available, where you were
actually able to make a determination of having sufficient
evidence to prosecute a case, that the commanders as well as
their JAGs sought to prosecute the case.
The concern, as Congresswoman Sanchez raised, is that it is
very difficult to ascertain that information just based upon
the report, and that level of data collection and offender
accountability needs to be built into the system accountability
so you can see exactly what is taking place.
But from the standpoint of oversight, I personally do not
see that as being necessary, and I would defer to Dr. Iasiello
if he has a difference of opinion.
Dr. Iasiello. Not at all. I would like to add they were
great questions, Congresswoman, very important questions.
One of the things we did see as we went around these many
locations was we met with the courts martial convening
authority everyplace we went, and we saw a desire there to
aggressively pursue and to step forward wherever they thought
it was possible. And I say that, knowing that as we went in and
conducted our interest interviews with these commanders and
with these courts martial convening authorities at even flag
levels, they knew why we were there; but I really sensed from
them the intent was to aggressively pursue, wherever and
whenever possible, any sort of a perpetrator of sexual assault.
And, of course, they know that they set the tone; the
commanders set the tone. And they send messages within the
command as to whether or not they do pursue and aggressively
pursue these perpetrators or alleged perpetrators. So I think
the intent is there.
You know, we have added recommendations such as to
recognize the special nature of prosecuting these cases and the
need for more training for our JAGs and those involved in the
judicial process. And I think with that added training, with
these specialized prosecutors, and with the intent of
commanders to eradicate this crime from their midst, knowing
its impact on morale and welfare of their troops, I think we
are stepping in the right direction.
Ms. Tsongas. I have just about run out of time. But did you
see many instances in which a commander's decision not to
prosecute as it went up a chain of command was overturned, that
a higher-up in the chain, somebody said no, that case we really
have to pursue it?
Dr. Iasiello. Ma'am, I have been informed we didn't see
anything like that.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
We have the first of five votes and then this will be the
last votes for the day. So I beg your patience and we will
return in--it is probably going to be close to a half hour.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much for your patience and
waiting for us to return. We may be joined by one or two
members, but I think I am going to start off again and then we
will see if others arrive.
Mr. Wilson and I are very happy to have you here and to
continue with our conversation. I wanted to try and get in a
little more depth about the privileged communication and how
you see the changes that you are recommending. You wanted to
enact a comprehensive military justice privilege for
communication between a victim advocate and a victim of sexual
assault. It is interesting, because I think some of the more
emotional testimony that I have heard, just more privately as
people have talked to us about that, is how frustrating that
has been. And perhaps you can share with us if this is one of
the areas where you really did feel quite a bit of passion on
the part of the people you spoke to about trying to define that
better, what can we do to make sure that that works.
Are you aware of any time that a victim advocate has
actually testified in a court martial?
General Dunbar. I am personally not aware of any specific
incident, but I know that in the review that we did of the
cases, that there have been instances where they were called to
testify, which goes back to why we believe that this is very
important. And I think that when we first established victim
advocates, the intent was to allow victims to have somebody to
talk to, somebody who was trained; and it is pretty extensive
training, 40 hours of training. But I don't think folks thought
about the unintended consequence of an individual confiding in
somebody who ultimately would be called to testify against
them.
And it goes back to what is the intent of why it is that we
address sexual assault response, prevention. We want
individuals to be able to come forward so that we can help
them. And if they know that the individual that is designated,
who is very well trained, who can help them, ultimately can
also testify against them, many of the victims are loath to
come forward and, as a result of that, do not receive the care
and the treatment that they need.
Mrs. Davis. Are there other effects that you see as well in
terms of that relationship if, in fact, that person did have to
testify? I think in some cases perhaps it would be a positive
thing that they would testify as well. Does it go both ways?
Dr. Iasiello. Madam Chairwoman, as far as what the General
has already said, I can think of no instance of that being
reported. But even just the threat that something could be used
against someone--and as someone who enjoyed that privilege as a
chaplain in my former life and having that sort of sacred trust
of having someone walk in my office and know that whatever was
discussed would never be discussed outside of those four walls,
that sort of comfort that you give to someone at a moment of
extreme pain, personal pain in their lives, is so critical. And
we don't make this recommendation lightly. We know that
extending this military justice privilege is really stretching
things. But we feel that for the sake of the victim, it is so
important to know that. And not all victims feel comfortable
going to their chaplain. And to have that outlet of having
someone else not within the command structure, but somebody in
the proximity of them that they can go to and share this
incredible pain with, begin the catharsis, begin the healing,
we feel is so critical. But even the threat they could be
called in some way to testify and to break that seal that
others enjoy, that is why we felt strongly about making that
recommendation.
Mrs. Davis. Does that belief also go to--that it be a
uniformed advocate and a uniformed victim?
Dr. Iasiello. Ma'am, we were looking at whoever fulfills
that role of victim advocate. And that is why we see the
professionalization of that role and the national certification
as extremely important. Because along with the privilege comes
a great responsibility that needs to be understood and needs to
be put in context. So the extension of the privilege is really
contingent upon the training and the certification of those
individuals.
Mrs. Davis. Did you have any concerns about the capacity of
the system to bring forth individuals who are willing to go to
that extent to become a victim advocate? Did you sense a lot of
willingness for people to be far better trained? And what kinds
of benefits might they have to be in that highly professional
position?
General Dunbar. Madam Chair, we actually have a number of
victim advocates who are volunteers across the services. And
that is actually one of the things that we focus on. We have
probably far too many victim advocates, and, as a result, their
ability to actually provide support doesn't occur very often,
because you may have 80 victim advocates on any one
installation and the frequency of sexual assaults is that maybe
one or two might actually have some experience. So there is
extensive training, the investment of training to keep people
refreshed on the skill, to keep them aware of what is going on.
And then folks are doing this as a second collateral duty,
additional duty.
So what we are recommending is actually narrowing down and
professionalizing the victim advocates so that you may have a
full-time victim advocate that could be a civilian social
worker type. But then you also need to have military victim
advocates because those victim advocates need to deploy. While
civilians do deploy in our services, typically that is a
military member. It is a combination of both. It is a smaller
group of people, some of whom will be volunteers at a more
senior level as opposed to some of the junior levels that we
have seen. And through the training, the professionalization,
we would be able to ensure that they are able to provide the
level of support that we would want for the victims, to include
being able to have that level of maturity for the
confidentiality.
Mrs. Davis. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, do you want to go on? And maybe we will come
back.
Mr. Wilson. Well, actually in conclusion, I just want to
thank both of you. And, General Dunbar, your background here,
serving as a congressional fellow, Senate fellow, is well
appreciated. And just thank you for your service in this
regard.
And, Admiral, I was so happy to find out your background as
a chaplain. And I am very grateful that the Joint Chaplain
School is located at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. So we look
forward to a long history of working with the chaplains and
your service as chaplain in the Marine Corps. I represent
Parris Island too, the Marine Corps Air Station, so your
service with the Navy. So thank both of you. It is certainly
encouraging to me and it certainly maintains my high regard,
with four sons serving in the military, for the persons who are
serving in the military it is a great opportunity of service
where people want the best for the young people who are serving
our country. So thank you for what you have done to look out
for the young people of our country so that they have the best
opportunities to serve in a most fulfilling way. Thank you very
much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. One of the other
recommendations in the report is for Congress to enact a law
that would exempt federal medical personnel from state
provisions requiring them to report sexual assaults to civilian
law enforcement and to ensure that all service members have the
restricted reporting option. So how do you see that working
exactly? What sort of concerns would you have about that?
General Dunbar. Currently we only have a few states that
fall in that category. And it is problematic if we are trying
to ensure that military members at installations in those
states are afforded the same opportunity to be able to make a
restricted report. There are agreements that can be made with
the local officials, but for the most part one would think that
you should not have to do that. So that is the purpose of the
recommendation that we make for congressional action.
Mrs. Davis. Are there other federal agencies that would be
in that same position?
General Dunbar. Ma'am, I am not familiar with that.
Mrs. Davis. California and Illinois, are they problematic
in this regard?
General Dunbar. Yes, those would be the two states.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And what about sexual assaults that
don't take place on federal installations? Does that provide
any different obligation in terms of reporting?
General Dunbar. Our recommendation, I believe, was largely
focused on those assaults that take place with military
jurisdiction.
Mrs. Davis. Only in military jurisdiction. Thank you.
One of the other concerns that we talked about in hearings
prior to this is the accountability of commanders. And the
issue was raised whether or not we are certain that the case
dispositions under that commander are well-known when it comes
to career advancement.
Did you have a chance to look at where this might really
resonate in terms of how people are evaluated for their
advancement? Do you think that it exists? Is it part of the
evaluation today? Is there a way that it could be more
transparent in terms of incidents that happen under an
individual's command?
General Dunbar. Currently, commanders are assessed on their
performance, obviously, in command and the technical specialty,
as well as how well it is that they take care of the men and
women in their charge. So I think that it is indirectly
assessed, as are so many other issues that run into areas of
domestic violence, suicide, workplace violence, et cetera.
And I think that to specifically categorize the response to
sexual assault, again given the infrequency that it occurs
during the course of command--and when I say infrequency, I
don't mean to dismiss the fact that sexual assault does occur
in the military. For instance, when I was in wing command, it
occurred one time, the allegation of sexual assault. And we did
what we needed in order to provide the support to the
individual. In two other commands, it did not occur at all. So
if you are to separate in a performance report a specific area
that addresses sexual assault, given the fact that it does not
occur that often, I think that that would be problematic. And I
do think that there is such a focus on taking care of people
that it is sufficiently addressed as it is.
Mrs. Davis. Doctor, any comment?
Dr. Iasiello. I think the General has stated it very well;
that first and foremost, of course, is the completion of
mission and making sure that the troops are ready to do what
they need to do for their country, but being so involved with
the morale and welfare of their troops in every aspect,
including family life, interrelationships and so on. I would
say that specifying this in a way that would identify it as
something special from all the other responsibilities would
certainly, as the General said, would be problematic.
Mrs. Davis. One of the concerns throughout the report is
that the strategies in place have been to some extent, with the
exception of best practices that you witnessed and wrote about
in the report, that we just haven't had the kind of strategies
that really have an evaluation process in place to be able to
go back and understand.
Now as we move forward, trying to incorporate many of your
considerations in this report, what should that look like? What
would you really like to see? And I guess the other counter to
that would be you would feel like all this effort was for
naught if you didn't see something in place that really stood
out in terms of these strategies.
General Dunbar. One of the recommendations that we make is
worded as a metric. But it really gets to coming up with a way
to measure the effectiveness, the efficacy of the strategies.
And in this area, we believe it would be very beneficial for us
to work with others who are dealing with these issues. There
are colleges and universities that are addressing the same
youth population; federal, state and local areas that are
support providers who have some strategies that they believe
might work.
We did a lot of research and we could not find any
particular way to measure the effectiveness of existing
strategies. And that is one area where we believe that Congress
could assist, because I think that there needs to be some
research that would benefit everybody who is addressing a major
social issue.
Mrs. Davis. And this authority would lie in a more
expanded, more--tighter authority in the SAPRO Office? Is that
what you think over time?
General Dunbar. I believe that part of this is actually
funding the research that would enable us to better understand
what strategies are effective. But certainly the SAPRO Office,
as it is setting up its overarching strategy, needs to do
assessments in working with the services so that they can
determine how it is that you are having an effect on training,
how it is that you are having an effect on prevention.
Part of it is attitudinal. Certainly part of it is
behavior. It is understanding. We do a number of surveys, the
gender relation surveys every four years. We advocate doing it
every two years in order to see maybe the impact of some of the
strategies. But I think as we ask some of the questions in the
surveys, they need to be specifically drawn back to some of the
strategies we have in place to have a better understanding.
That is just one example of being able to do it.
But, again, there are colleges and universities that have
strategies in place and they don't have any kind of measures of
effectiveness. And we were hoping that we might be able to
learn from them. It is an area that requires some further
study, we believe.
Dr. Iasiello. Ma'am, you have identified an area that for
us we all feel passionate about. We would love to see the
metrics there, but you can't develop the metrics until you have
developed the standards on which to measure. We see that as an
incredible void in not only helping us to identify the health
of our programs, but also the way ahead, to be able to identify
and give granularity to the numbers so that we can begin to
identify trends, so that we can begin to address issues
proactively. So we all feel rather passionate about its
membership.
Mrs. Davis. Just as we are finishing up, is there any
interview or discussion that you had that just really stands
out that, I think, inspires you or inspired the task force in
their work that you would like us to know about?
General Dunbar. I think there are a lot of compelling
instances where we have seen the remarkable difference of how
involvement and how leadership, how awareness has improved the
situation in terms of prevention and response.
At the same time, we have seen a lot of compelling cases
where it has for us unearthed the fact that this has been a
longstanding issue that needs to be addressed, that affects not
just females who are serving in the military, but males as
well.
And I think as we have done the research and we have
realized that others are in communities--and I keep hearkening
back to colleges and universities because that is primarily the
age group of those who are most at risk--that there is
tremendous opportunity for collaboration in terms of coming up
with some solutions to address a societal issue.
Dr. Iasiello. I have to be very careful this doesn't turn
into a sermon. But dealing with such a heinous crime could be
something that could take the wind out of your sail pretty
easily. But for us, going to all of these installations and
seeing the caliber of our young men and women in uniform, for
us it is always an incredibly uplifting experience. I wouldn't
go to one area and one command and say this was a very special
event, but I would look at all of them and say that our
interaction with our young men and women have energized us
again, and they have left us with a very positive and
optimistic attitude, no matter how big the issue or how big the
crime or how big the obstacle to overcome, that it will be
overcome because of the caliber of our young men and women. So
that for us has been extremely important in this process.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Our
young men and women serving our country inspire us every day as
well. I appreciate that. I certainly hope that you will feel
and believe that your efforts have been well taken and that we
will continue to move forward, and hope that many of those
recommendations are put in place and that we can even have a
reporting mechanism in place in the near future. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 3, 2010
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 3, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]