This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-809 
entitled 'Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership 
Commitment and an Oversight Framework' which was released on October 
25, 2011. 

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

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security, 
Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

September 2011: 

Preventing Sexual Harassment: 

DOD Needs Greater Leadership Commitment and an Oversight Framework: 

GAO-11-809: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-809, a report to Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Sexual harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination that can 
jeopardize the military’s combat readiness and mission accomplishment 
by weakening interpersonal bonds and eroding unit cohesion. GAO was 
asked to examine the most current available data on sexual harassment 
in the military and to assess the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 
efforts to address this issue. GAO evaluated the extent to which DOD 
(1) has developed and implemented policies and programs to help 
prevent and address incidents of sexual harassment involving 
servicemembers, (2) has visibility over the occurrence of sexual 
harassment involving servicemembers, and (3) provides oversight of its 
policies and programs for addressing incidents of sexual harassment. 
To conduct this review, GAO analyzed DOD and service policies and DOD’
s available sexual harassment complaint data. GAO also conducted small-
group discussions and administered a nongeneralizable survey during 
site visits to six military installations. 

What GAO Found: 

DOD has a long-standing policy aimed at providing an environment that 
is free from sexual harassment, and each of the military services has 
implemented its own polices and a program for addressing sexual 
harassment; however, some aspects of its policy and programs could be 
improved. For example, according to a 2010 DOD survey, while the 
majority of active duty servicemembers indicated that they believe 
that their immediate supervisor makes honest and reasonable efforts to 
stop sexual harassment, an estimated 25 percent of servicemembers 
indicated they did not know whether or did not believe their 
supervisor made such efforts. DOD’s survey also found that an 
estimated 41 percent of servicemembers indicated that in their work 
group people would be able to get away with sexual harassment to some 
extent, even if it were reported. Similarly, GAO’s nongeneralizable 
survey of active duty servicemembers found that 64 of 264 females and 
53 of 319 males did not believe or were unsure of whether their direct 
supervisor created a climate that discourages sexual harassment from 
occurring. GAO also found that DOD has not held commanders accountable 
for completing required assessments of the equal opportunity climates 
in their commands. Further, GAO found that DOD does not have adequate 
guidance on how incidents of sexual harassment should be handled in 
environments wherein two or more of the services are operating 
together, resulting in confusion or reducing servicemembers’ 
satisfaction with how complaints are handled. 

GAO found that DOD has limited visibility over the occurrence of 
sexual harassment because not all military installations and commands 
report sexual harassment complaint data to their respective service-
level sexual harassment program offices and found that the department 
does not have a set of uniform data elements with which to collect 
such data. GAO also found that servicemembers resolve most complaints 
of sexual harassment informally rather than report them formally. 
Estimates from DOD’s survey found that the majority of servicemembers 
who felt they were harassed sexually chose not to formally report the 
incident. Similarly, GAO’s survey found that 82 of 583 servicemembers 
indicated that they had been harassed sexually during the preceding 12 
months; of these, only 4 indicated that they had reported the incident 
formally. GAO found several reasons why servicemembers may choose not 
to report an incident, including the belief that the incident was not 
sufficiently serious to report or that the incident would not be taken 
seriously if reported. 

DOD has established some oversight requirements but has exercised 
little oversight of its policies and programs for addressing incidents 
of sexual harassment. GAO found that the office responsible for 
overseeing DOD’s sexual harassment policies and programs has not 
developed an oversight framework—including clear goals, objectives, 
milestones, and metrics for measuring progress—to guide its efforts. 
For example, although DOD requires the services to provide an annual 
assessment of their programs, including specific data for sexual 
harassment complaints, DOD has not enforced these reporting 
requirements for almost a decade. Moreover, DOD’s resources for 
oversight of this area are limited to one person, who has multiple 
other responsibilities. As a result, decision makers in DOD do not 
have the information they need to provide effective oversight, or 
assess the effectiveness, of the department’s policies and programs. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making a total of five recommendations to improve the 
implementation and oversight of DOD’s sexual harassment policies and 
programs, such as specifying uniform data elements when collecting and 
reporting complaint data and developing an oversight framework to help 
guide the department’s efforts. DOD concurred with GAO’s 
recommendations and noted it will develop an executable plan, 
prioritize actions, and address resourcing for the changes recommended. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-809]. For more 
information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 
farrellb@gao.gov. 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOD Has a Policy and a Program to Prevent and Address Incidents of 
Sexual Harassment Involving Servicemembers, but Opportunities Exist 
for Improvement: 

DOD Has Limited Visibility over the Occurrence of Sexual Harassment 
Involving Active Duty Servicemembers: 

DOD Has Limited Oversight of Its Sexual Harassment Policies and 
Programs: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Responses from Selected Servicemembers to Questions about 
Command Climate and Sexual Harassment: 

Table 2: Number of Selected Servicemembers Who Indicated Experiencing 
Sexual Harassment within the Preceding 12 Months and Action Taken: 

Table 3: Number of Surveys Administered, by Location and Gender: 

Abbreviations: 

DEOCS: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Organizational 
Climate Survey: 

DMDC: Defense Manpower Data Center: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

SHARP: Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 21, 2011: 

The Honorable John F. Tierney: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign 
Operations: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Sexual harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination and is 
fundamentally at odds with the obligation of men and women in uniform 
to treat all with dignity and respect. For members of the military, 
sexual harassment is also contrary to good order and discipline--and 
incidents of sexual harassment can jeopardize combat readiness and 
mission accomplishment by weakening interpersonal bonds and eroding 
unit cohesion. In the aftermath of such high profile scandals as 
Tailhook in the early 1990s,[Footnote 1] the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and the military services issued policies and procedures to try 
to eliminate sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful 
discrimination in the department and address incidents when they do 
occur. However, the results of DOD surveys conducted in 2002 and 2006 
indicated that active duty servicemembers perceived the incidence of 
sexual harassment to be a continuing problem in the military.[Footnote 
2] Moreover, a 2010 DOD survey, the most recent available, found that, 
of the active duty servicemembers who reported experiencing unwanted 
sexual contact during the preceding 12 months,[Footnote 3] about half 
of women and a third of men reported they were also sexually harassed 
or stalked by the alleged offender before or after the incident. 

Since 2006, we have issued a series of reports examining certain 
social factors of the military environment in which men and women 
serve our country. These include reviews of DOD's programs to address 
the incidence of domestic violence in the military, DOD's and the 
Coast Guard's programs to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual 
assault and sexual harassment at the service academies, and DOD's and 
the Coast Guard's programs to prevent and respond to incidents of 
sexual assault in the military. For a list of these reports, see the 
Related GAO Products section at the end of this report. 

Seeking a more complete picture of that environment, and concerned 
about reported increases in rates of sexual harassment among 
servicemembers, you asked us to examine the most current available 
data on sexual harassment in the military and to assess DOD's efforts 
to address this issue. This report focuses on the active components of 
DOD and evaluates the extent to which DOD (1) has developed and 
implemented policies and programs to help prevent and to address 
incidents of sexual harassment involving servicemembers; (2) has 
visibility over the occurrence of sexual harassment involving 
servicemembers; and (3) provides oversight of its policies and 
programs for addressing incidents of sexual harassment. 

To determine the extent to which DOD has developed and implemented 
policies and programs to help prevent and to address incidents 
involving servicemembers, we obtained and analyzed DOD's and each of 
the service's guidance and requirements for the prevention, response, 
and resolution of complaints of sexual harassment involving active 
duty servicemembers, and interviewed knowledgeable officials in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the respective program offices 
for addressing sexual harassment matters in the Army, the Air Force, 
the Navy, and the Marine Corps. We also visited six locations to 
assess implementation of the department's policies and programs where 
we met with program officials,[Footnote 4] military commanders 
(company and field grade officers), senior enlisted servicemembers, 
judge advocates, chaplains, and representatives from local inspector 
general's offices. During our site visits we obtained the perspective 
of servicemembers on the topic of sexual harassment in the military by 
conducting a total of 59 small-group discussions with enlisted 
servicemembers and officers and by administering a short, confidential 
survey to a total of 583 servicemembers during our site visits. The 
locations we visited were selected based on a number of factors, 
including units' missions, the availability of personnel, and recent 
deployment histories. The locations included Camp Victory, Iraq; Fort 
Carson, Colorado; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Marine Corps Base 
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia; and the 
U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-70), a Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier, at Naval 
Air Station North Island, California. Because these locations are not 
representative of all DOD locations, the results from our discussions 
and the comments provided are not generalizable and therefore cannot 
be projected across DOD, a service, or any single location we visited. 
To determine the extent to which DOD has visibility over the 
occurrence of sexual harassment involving servicemembers, in addition 
to reviewing DOD and service guidance and analyzing the results from 
our discussion groups, we reviewed the results of a survey[Footnote 5] 
conducted by DOD in 2010 and the results of our nongeneralizable 
survey. In reviewing the survey documentation provided by DOD, we 
found the survey results to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of our report. We also obtained and analyzed sexual harassment 
complaint data collected and maintained by DOD and the services for 
fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. To assess the reliability of the 
services' complaint data, we reviewed the processes by which each 
service collects complaint data, and the extent to which each data 
element is complete and accurate. We ultimately determined that the 
data we received from the services could not be compared across 
services and therefore were not reliable for the purposes of providing 
departmentwide information because of our concerns about the 
completeness and accuracy of the data, which we discuss in our report. 
To determine the extent to which DOD provides oversight of its 
policies and programs for addressing incidents of sexual harassment, 
we interviewed knowledgeable officials in the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense and the services and obtained and analyzed various 
pertinent documents, including the results of prior studies of sexual 
harassment in the military, in order to obtain a comprehensive 
understanding of the processes, procedures, and controls in place for 
monitoring and overseeing the programs. Further details about our 
scope and methodology can be found in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 through September 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

DOD defines sexual harassment as "a form of sex discrimination that 
involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and 
other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when submission 
to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly as a term or 
condition of a person's job, pay or career, or submission to or 
rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a basis for career or 
employment decisions affecting that person, or such conduct has the 
purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's 
work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive 
environment."[Footnote 6] DOD's definition emphasizes that workplace 
conduct, to be actionable as "abusive work environment" harassment, 
need not result in concrete psychological harm to the victim, but 
rather need only be so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person 
would perceive, and the victim does perceive, the work environment as 
hostile or offensive. Under DOD's definition, "workplace" is an 
expansive term for servicemembers and may include conduct on or off 
duty, 24 hours a day. Any person in a supervisory or command position 
who uses or condones any form of sexual behavior to control, 
influence, or affect the career, pay, or job of a military member or 
civilian employee is engagement in sexual harassment. Similarly, any 
servicemember or civilian employee who makes deliberate or repeated 
unwelcome verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual 
nature in the workplace is also engaging in sexual harassment. 

As a form of sex discrimination, sexual harassment falls under DOD's 
military equal opportunity program, which is aimed at preventing 
unlawful discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin that is not otherwise authorized by law or regulation. 
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has 
responsibility for developing the overall policy for DOD's military 
equal opportunity program and monitoring compliance with the 
department's policy, and has delegated these responsibilities to its 
Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. The secretaries 
of the military departments, in turn, are then responsible for 
developing and implementing policies to prevent unlawful 
discrimination and sexual harassment, establishing both formal and 
informal means for resolving complaints, and ensuring compliance with 
DOD's policy. 

In DOD, the chain of command is the primary and preferred channel for 
identifying and correcting discriminatory practices--including 
resolving servicemembers' complaints of sexual harassment. The 
services encourage servicemembers to resolve any complaints of sexual 
harassment they may have at the lowest possible level first--for 
example, by confronting the harasser and telling him or her that the 
behavior is not appreciated, not welcomed, and that it must stop. For 
servicemembers who wish to report a complaint of sexual harassment, 
DOD provides two complaint options--formal and informal. A formal 
complaint is an allegation of unlawful discrimination or sexual 
harassment that a complainant submits in writing to the authority 
designated for receipt of such complaints in service implementing 
guidance. Formal complaints require specific actions to be taken, are 
subject to timelines, and require documentation of the actions taken, 
in accordance with each service's implementing guidance. In contrast, 
an informal complaint is an allegation of unlawful discrimination or 
sexual harassment, made either orally or in writing, which is not 
submitted as a formal complaint. Informal complaints may be resolved 
directly by the complainant, such as by confronting the individual or 
by involving another individual or the chain of command. 
Servicemembers who elect to resolve their complaints informally may 
submit a formal complaint if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of 
the informal process. 

GAO last reported on DOD's military equal opportunity program in 
January 1996 as part of a review of the services' processes for 
handing equal opportunity complaints.[Footnote 7] At that time, a DOD 
task force had recently completed a review and issued its report of 
the services' equal opportunity programs and discrimination complaints 
processing systems. Specifically, the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Council, a DOD group chartered to advise the Secretary of Defense on 
equal opportunity matters, reviewed the services' discrimination 
complaint systems between 1994 and 1995 and issued its report in May 
1995. In its report,[Footnote 8] entitled Report of the Task Force on 
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, the task force recommended 48 
improvements in the way the services deal with discrimination and 
sexual harassment, including recommending departmentwide standards for 
complaints processing and that steps be taken to provide for the 
oversight and management of these issues. 

DOD Has a Policy and a Program to Prevent and Address Incidents of 
Sexual Harassment Involving Servicemembers, but Opportunities Exist 
for Improvement: 

DOD has a long-standing policy and a program in place aimed at 
providing an environment that is free from sexual harassment and other 
forms of unlawful discrimination. In addition, each of the military 
services has implemented its own policies and program for addressing 
sexual harassment. However, implementation of some aspects of the 
policies and programs could be improved. Specifically, we found that 
support for sexual harassment policies and programs by military 
commanders and senior enlisted servicemembers is not consistently 
strong and that DOD does not have adequate guidance on how incidents 
of sexual harassment should be handled in environments wherein two or 
more of the services are operating together. 

DOD Has a Long-standing Policy and a Program: 

DOD has had a long-standing policy in place, as part of its military 
equal opportunity program, aimed at helping to prevent and to address 
incidents of sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful 
discrimination. DOD's policy, which is contained in DOD Directive 
1350.2, establishes such things as a departmentwide definition of 
sexual harassment; departmentwide standards for complaint processing 
and resolution; and requirements that military commanders periodically 
assess their organizational equal opportunity climate and that 
servicemembers receive periodic training on the prevention of sexual 
harassment. Under DOD's policy, the services are then responsible for 
developing service-specific policies to prevent sexual harassment and 
unlawful discrimination and complaint procedures. 

In accordance with DOD's directive, each of the services has 
implemented its own policies and a program for addressing sexual 
harassment in that service.[Footnote 9] The services' policies 
generally contain similar program elements--for example, formal and 
informal complaint procedures and timelines for reporting and 
processing complaints; requirements that military commanders 
periodically assess their organizational equal opportunity climate; 
requirements that servicemembers receive periodic training on the 
prevention of sexual harassment; and requirements that allegations of 
sexual harassment against senior leaders be investigated by their 
respective inspectors general's. 

The services' programs also differ in some key ways, however. 
Specifically, while the Navy's and Marine Corps' efforts to prevent 
and address incidents of sexual harassment fall under their respective 
military equal opportunity programs, the Army and Air Force have 
integrated their efforts to prevent and address incidents of sexual 
harassment with other programs. With respect to the Army and Air Force: 

* In 2009, the Army began integrating its efforts to prevent and 
respond to incidents of sexual harassment with its efforts to prevent 
and respond to incidents of sexual assault. Under its new program-- 
known as Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP)--
the Army's sexual harassment and sexual assault policies--as well as 
its training, prevention strategies, and strategic communications--are 
integrated. 

* Also in 2009, the Air Force integrated its military equal 
opportunity program with its equal employment opportunity complaints 
program for civilians, in order to form a single program supporting 
both military and civilian personnel. Under the Air Force's new equal 
opportunity program, program management for military equal opportunity 
and civilian equal employment opportunity complaints matters are 
integrated while the complaint processes remain separate and distinct. 
[Footnote 10] 

Servicemembers Have Mixed Views about Their Leaders' Support for DOD's 
Sexual Harassment Policies and Programs: 

DOD Directive 1350.2 states that it is DOD policy to use the chain of 
command to promote, support, and enforce the military equal 
opportunity program, which includes the department's sexual harassment 
policies. However, concerns exist that DOD is not holding individuals 
in positions of leadership accountable for supporting the department's 
sexual harassment policies and programs. Under DOD's policy, the chain 
of command is the primary and preferred channel for identifying and 
correcting discriminatory practices and is responsible for processing 
and resolving complaints of sexual harassment and ensuring that equal 
opportunity and human relations matters are taken seriously and acted 
upon as necessary. Based on estimates from DOD's 2010 Workplace and 
Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, we found that 
servicemembers have mixed perceptions of whether their leaders are 
supportive of the department's sexual harassment policies and 
programs. DOD's survey found that an estimated 76 percent of 
servicemembers--or, an estimated 67 percent of women and 77 percent of 
men--believe that the senior leadership of their installation or ship 
"makes honest and reasonable efforts to stop sexual harassment, 
regardless of what is said officially." Similarly, DOD's survey found 
that an estimated 69 percent of women and 77 percent of men believe 
that their immediate supervisor "makes honest and reasonable efforts 
to stop sexual harassment, regardless of what is said officially." 
While DOD's survey results indicate that servicemembers generally 
perceive their leaders to be supportive of the department's sexual 
harassment policies and programs, we also note that they indicate that 
an estimated 25 percent of servicemembers--or, an estimated 31 percent 
of women and 23 percent of men--did not believe or were unsure of 
whether their immediate supervisor "makes honest and reasonable 
efforts to stop sexual harassment, regardless of what is said 
officially." Further, we note that DOD's survey also found that an 
estimated 41 percent or servicemembers--or, an estimated 52 percent of 
women and 38 percent of men--indicated that in their work group people 
would be able to get away with sexual harassment to some extent, even 
if it were reported. 

Similarly, our nongeneralizeable survey found that servicemembers had 
mixed perceptions of whether their direct supervisor creates a climate 
that discouraged sexual harassment from occurring. For example, at the 
six locations where we administered our survey, 64 of 264 female 
servicemembers and 53 of 319 male servicemembers indicated that they 
did not think or were unsure of whether their direct supervisor 
created a climate that discourages sexual harassment from occurring. 
Table 1 shows both female and male servicemember responses to 
questions about command climate and sexual harassment that we included 
in our survey. 

Table 1: Responses from Selected Servicemembers to Questions about 
Command Climate and Sexual Harassment: 

GAO survey question: At your current location, do you think your 
direct supervisor (military or civilian) creates a climate that 
discourages sexual harassment from occurring? 
Gender: Female: 
Number responding: Yes: 198; 
Number responding: No: 31; 
Number responding: Not sure: 33;
Gender: Male: 
Number responding: Yes: 257; 
Number responding: No: 25; 
Number responding: Not sure: 28. 

GAO survey question: If sexual harassment should occur at your current 
location, do you think your direct supervisor (military or civilian) 
would address it? 
Gender: Female: 
Number responding: Yes: 236; 
Number responding: No: 12; 
Number responding: Not sure: 15;
Gender: Male: 
Number responding: Yes: 287; 
Number responding: No: 6; 
Number responding: Not sure: 22. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Some servicemembers did not respond to all questions. Therefore, 
the number of servicemember respondents who indicated "yes," "no," and 
Not sure may not sum to the total of female (264) and male (319) 
servicemembers who responded to our survey. 

[End of table] 

Our site visits also revealed that servicemembers have mixed 
perceptions of their leaders' support for DOD's sexual harassment 
policies and programs. For example, during our interviews we 
frequently heard that there was "zero tolerance" when it came to 
sexual harassment and that leaders enforced the department's sexual 
harassment policies and programs by taking such steps as issuing 
statements against sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful 
discrimination, or regularly speaking to servicemembers about sexual 
harassment. However, our site visits also revealed that some leaders 
may not consistently set a strong tone discouraging sexual harassment 
from occurring. Examples include: 

* At four of the locations we visited, military personnel told us that 
incidents of sexual harassment were sometimes ignored by leaders or 
"swept under the rug." A military chaplain told us that some leaders 
are reluctant to forward complaints of sexual harassment outside their 
command out of fear that those complaints may reflect badly on their 
leadership or hurt their chances of promotion. Similarly, at one 
location we visited, program officials told us that some commanders 
withhold controversial information from sexual harassment complaints 
because they think certain information could make their command look 
bad. 

* At three of the locations we visited, program officials told us that 
some leaders viewed sexual harassment matters as a priority only when 
a major incident occurred, or that incidents of sexual harassment had 
to occur multiple times in a command before leaders addressed them. 
According to one individual we spoke with, sometimes incidents of 
sexual harassment have to happen multiple times or to multiple people 
before leaders take them seriously and servicemembers get the message 
that such behavior is inappropriate. 

* Program officials at four locations we visited told us that they did 
not always feel they had the support of their leaders. At one location 
we heard concerns that some commanders perpetuate negative perceptions 
of military equal opportunity programs, which can negatively affect a 
command's climate with regard to sexual harassment matters. Similarly, 
at three locations program officials told us that they felt their 
commanders avoided them. Servicemembers who had deployed overseas to 
support the department's sexual harassment programs also shared these 
perceptions. One individual told us that during his deployment he felt 
he had to sell the program to his commander and that the commanders 
with whom he interacted were not proactive in trying to address sexual 
harassment matters during the deployment. 

* At one location we visited, program officials told us that some 
commanders select individuals to serve as equal opportunity advisors 
just to fill billets, without assessing the skills they possess or 
their willingness to perform the required duties. According to these 
individuals, servicemembers who are selected to be equal opportunity 
advisors in this manner may be unwilling to fulfill their duties and 
are less likely to take their responsibilities seriously. 

During our site visits we were also told that some leaders do not back 
up their words with actions. At each of the six locations we visited, 
we heard concerns that some leaders did not enforce their command's 
policies or did not address incidents of sexual harassment when they 
occurred. Program officials at one location told us that some commands 
publicly claim to have zero tolerance for sexual harassment but in 
fact do tolerate behavior that could constitute sexual harassment on a 
day-to-day basis. According to the individuals we interviewed, such 
behavior needs to be corrected on the spot or it will continue. 
Program officials at another location described inaction by leadership 
as a sign of condoning sexual harassment. At five of the six locations 
we visited we were told that leaders could take actions to better show 
their support for the department's programs, such as by attending 
their units' prevention of sexual harassment training or by speaking 
more frequently to their personnel about sexual harassment. 

According to program officials and servicemembers with whom we spoke, 
leaders who do not support or do not show their support for the 
department's sexual harassment policies effectively hinder 
implementation of the department's programs. For example, program 
officials told us that servicemembers are less likely to take the 
department's policies and programs seriously if they see that their 
leaders do not take the programs seriously. Similarly, senior enlisted 
servicemembers at one location we visited told us that if leaders do 
not emphasize the importance of these types of programs it would be 
unrealistic to expect the programs to be effective. A senior enlisted 
servicemember told us that a commander who ignores sexual harassment 
matters reinforces negative behaviors in the command that could 
"encourage" sexual harassment. 

Similarly, we heard that by not taking sexual harassment matters 
seriously, commanders and other leaders can negatively affect unit 
morale and cohesion. Program officials at one location told us that 
units that take sexual harassment matters seriously are more likely to 
have good morale and be close-knit. According to these individuals, 
personnel run the risk of being ostracized from the unit for reporting 
an incident of sexual harassment if their unit is not close-knit. As 
another example, a military chaplain told us that incidents of sexual 
harassment can negatively impact morale if servicemembers feel they 
cannot trust others in their unit or their chain of command, 
particularly when the chain of command is aware of the harassment and 
does not step in to address it. The effect incidents of sexual 
harassment have on unit morale and cohesion was also discussed during 
our discussions with servicemembers. For example, female senior 
officers observed that sexual harassment can have a negative impact on 
the unit at every level unless it is addressed quickly and 
effectively. A mid-level enlisted female commented, "Why would you 
stick your neck out for someone who doesn't respect you?" 

Required Climate Assessments Are Not Always Conducted: 

As part of the department's efforts to prevent and address incidents 
of sexual harassment, DOD and the services require that military 
commanders determine their organizational health and functioning 
effectiveness by periodically assessing their equal opportunity 
climate.[Footnote 11] However, we found that the required climate 
assessments are not always conducted. Moreover, at the locations we 
visited, we found few mechanisms by which to hold commanders 
accountable for conducting the required climate assessments. Climate 
assessments may be accomplished by such methods as conducting 
interviews, administering surveys or questionnaires, or reviewing 
records. Further, our site visits revealed that program officials and 
commanders viewed these assessments as important in helping commanders 
understand the extent to which issues like sexual harassment might be 
perceived as a problem in their units. For example, a senior level 
official at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute noted 
that command climate may influence servicemembers' perceptions about 
whether sexual harassment or other acts of discrimination are 
perceived as acceptable behavior, and these perceptions influence the 
likelihood that those servicemembers will engage in sexual harassment. 
A commander with whom we met described conducting climate assessments 
as essential to a commander's ability to understand his or her 
soldiers. Similarly, a program official told us that such assessments 
provide commanders with an invaluable tool for gauging the level of 
sexual harassment that occurs within their unit. 

However, at three of the locations we visited, program officials told 
us of meeting with resistance from some commanders when attempting to 
conduct the required assessments. Further, at two of the locations we 
visited we found evidence that commanders had not conducted the 
required assessments. At the first location we found that different 
commanders had not conducted the required assessments for a variety of 
reasons, including their concerns over a high operating tempo or the 
timing of the assessments. We also found that they did not conduct the 
assessments because the commanders did not respond to program 
officials' requests to conduct them. At the other location, we found 
that the command did not have an equal opportunity advisor at the time 
the assessment should have been conducted. 

The services, too, have identified challenges related to conducting 
required climate assessments. For example, Marine Corps officials told 
us that they did not have visibility over which Marine Corps 
commanders had completed the required assessments and which had not, 
and noted that some commanders may not have been aware that the 
assessments are required. As another example, the Navy in 2010 
identified problems with climate assessments as one of several 
systemic issues with its program. The Navy found that, when performed, 
such assessments lacked analysis, an action plan, and feedback. The 
Navy also found that executive summaries of assessments did not match 
the results of surveys that were conducted or were sanitized by 
leadership. Such problems are not new. For example, in 1996 we 
reported that while some commanders appeared to be using the results 
of their equal opportunity assessments to help manage their equal 
opportunity programs, in other instances, commanders did not conduct 
the required assessments or, if they did, failed to act on them. 
[Footnote 12] 

According to DOD's directive, commanders are to be held accountable 
for the equal opportunity climates in their commands. However, at the 
locations we visited, we found few mechanisms by which to hold 
commanders accountable for conducting the required climate 
assessments. The results of a commander's climate assessment are 
generally confidential and not reported up the chain of command, 
although information from the assessments may be made available to 
others for analysis. For example, higher level headquarters, commands, 
and researchers at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 
have access to servicemembers' responses to the Defense Equal 
Opportunity Management Institute Organizational Climate Survey 
(DEOCS), which is one of the climate assessment mechanisms in wide use 
across DOD.[Footnote 13] In some instances, we found that compliance 
with the department's requirements may be verified--for example, 
during a local equal opportunity inspection or other command 
inspection. However, we also found that with the exception of the Army 
and the Navy, neither DOD nor the other services verify commanders' 
compliance with the department's requirements to conduct climate 
assessments. When commanders fail to assess their equal opportunity 
climate and address any concerns they find, commanders run the risk of 
not identifying the extent to which their personnel perceive issues 
like sexual harassment to be a problem that can affect their morale 
and welfare. Further, without verifying or tracking commanders' 
compliance with the department's requirements, DOD and the services do 
not have a mechanism by which to hold commanders accountable for 
identifying issues like sexual harassment and taking the actions 
necessary to address them. 

DOD Does Not Have Adequate Guidance on How Incidents of Sexual 
Harassment Should Be Handled in Joint Environments: 

We also found that DOD does not have adequate guidance on how 
incidents of sexual harassment should be handled in environments 
wherein two or more of the services are operating together. According 
to commanders with whom we spoke, addressing incidents of sexual 
harassment in such environments poses unique challenges. The commander 
of a mission support group told us that having different sexual 
harassment policies and programs across the services sometimes could 
lead to perceptions among servicemembers that the military has 
inconsistent standards in place to address incidents of sexual 
harassment. Similarly, battalion commanders told us that the services 
did not have a consistent understanding of which behaviors constituted 
sexual harassment. 

Program officials we met said that there was confusion at times due to 
the absence of guidance regarding how to respond to complaints of 
sexual harassment involving members of another service. For example, 
at one location we visited, program officials said that they did not 
have clear policy and guidance specifying how complaints of sexual 
harassment involving members of another service should be handled. At 
another location, a representative from an inspectors general's office 
said that his office had received a complaint of sexual harassment 
from a member of another service, but it did not have guidance 
specifying to whom it should refer complainants. Similarly, military 
personnel told us that the absence of guidance made it challenging for 
complainants to obtain information--such as the results of any 
investigations conducted of their complaint, or any actions taken 
against the accused harasser--if the complaint was made against a 
member of another service. According to program officials with whom we 
spoke, such confusion can slow down the processing of a complaint, 
which can reduce a complainant's satisfaction with the disposition of 
his or her complaint or affect his or her confidence in the command's 
ability to handle such complaints. 

DOD's directive assigns responsibility to the secretaries of the 
military departments for ensuring that the department's sexual 
harassment policies and programs are understood and executed at all 
levels. However, we found that only the Air Force has taken specific 
steps--such as by issuing guidance--to ensure that the department's 
policies and programs are understood in environments wherein two or 
more of the services are operating together. Specifically, in October 
2010, the Air Force issued new guidance[Footnote 14] for its program 
requiring, among other things, that when operating in joint 
environments or with other DOD activities, the Air Force must 
establish a memorandum of agreement with each agency or the host 
military service responsible for implementing and administering the 
department's military equal opportunity programs; that individuals 
from other services be afforded the opportunity to use their own 
service's military equal opportunity complaint and counseling systems; 
and that steps must be taken to publicize, display, and ensure 
understanding and execution of all pertinent DOD and service-specific 
policies and programs. 

In discussing the absence of DOD guidance on this issue with program 
officials in DOD's Office of Diversity Management and Equal 
Opportunity--which is responsible for developing the department's 
overall military equal opportunity policy--officials concurred that 
the department did not have adequate guidance. One senior level 
program official with the office told us that the department's 
policies on how to handle complaints of sexual harassment in joint 
environments were unclear and that the department lacked a model for 
establishing such programs. According to this official, the absence of 
guidance was hindering implementation of the department's programs. 
For example, in some instances, the office observed that the preferred 
practice is to transfer sexual harassment complainants from their unit 
rather than to investigate their complaint. 

We previously reported that the absence of guidance regarding how to 
implement DOD programs in certain environments can hinder 
implementation of the program or result in confusion. However, we have 
also reported that such problems can be successfully addressed by 
issuing clarifying guidance. For example, in 2008, we reported that 
DOD's guidance for its sexual assault prevention and response program 
did not adequately address some important issues, such as how to 
implement the program when operating in a deployed environment or in 
joint environments.[Footnote 15] In that report we recommended that 
DOD review and evaluate its policies for preventing and responding to 
incidents of sexual assault to ensure that adequate guidance was 
provided to effectively implement its program in such environments. 
Subsequently, in 2010, we reported that to address our recommendation 
DOD established a working group to review and evaluate the adequacy of 
the department's policies for preventing and responding to incidents 
of sexual assault in joint and deployed environments.[Footnote 16] 
Based on the working group's findings, DOD issued interim guidance to 
support the implementation of its sexual assault prevention and 
response program in joint and deployed environments until new guidance 
was approved. 

DOD Has Limited Visibility over the Occurrence of Sexual Harassment 
Involving Active Duty Servicemembers: 

We found that not all military installations and commands report 
sexual harassment complaint data to their respective service-level 
sexual harassment program offices and that DOD does not have a set of 
uniform data elements with which to collect such data. We recognize 
that the precise number of incidents of sexual harassment involving 
servicemembers is not possible to determine. Nevertheless, our 
findings indicate that the majority of servicemembers choose not to 
formally report such incidents for a variety of reasons including the 
belief that the incident was not important enough to report or that 
the incident would not be taken seriously if reported. 

DOD's Available Data for Complaints of Sexual Harassment is Incomplete 
and Inconsistent: 

Based on our analysis of DOD's available complaint data, we found that 
DOD has limited visibility over the occurrence of sexual harassment 
involving active duty servicemembers. For example we found that the 
services' respective sexual harassment program offices may not receive 
complaint data from all military installations and commands. Although 
the Army requires commanders to submit formal sexual harassment 
complaint data to the SHARP Program quarterly, Army officials told us 
that currently the Army cannot accurately track sexual harassment 
reports. Air Force officials told us that installation-level program 
officials are not informed of all command actions and cannot control 
whether or not commanders elect to inform them of such actions. 
Therefore, the system the Air Force uses to track sexual harassment 
complaints only includes data for complaints made to the installation- 
level program officials or complaints that the installation-level 
program officials are made aware of. Further, Marine Corps officials 
told us that if an equal opportunity advisor does not report an 
incident to the Marine Corps' Equal Opportunity and Diversity 
Management Branch, their office has no visibility over the incident. 
Similarly, Navy equal opportunity advisors with whom we met indicated 
that some sexual harassment complaints may be investigated and 
disposed of by a commander without being reported to the Navy Equal 
Opportunity Office. 

We also found that while each of the services does collect information 
on complaints that are made formally--for example, on whether or not a 
complaint was substantiated--after analyzing each of the services' 
sexual harassment complaint data for fiscal years 2008 through 2010 we 
identified inconsistencies with data that the services collect. For 
example, we found that the services do not collect the same 
demographic information for formal complaints, such as data on the 
rank and pay grade on the individuals involved. Also, while the data 
from the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps provide specific 
information on the type of action taken against the alleged offender 
for substantiated complaints, we found that the data provided by the 
Army specifies only whether or not a complaint was substantiated. Data 
from the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps also show that some 
complaints involve multiple alleged offenders, complainants, or both, 
but data provided to us by the Army does not. Because of our concerns 
over the completeness and consistency of the services' sexual 
harassment complaint data, we determined that meaningful comparisons 
cannot be made. Further, DOD cannot accurately compare formal sexual 
harassment complaint data across the services, and DOD leadership is 
limited in its ability to identify specific problem areas and trends 
or initiate corrective action. 

In 1995, DOD's task force noted that enhanced data collection and 
reporting could help improve the department's visibility over the 
occurrence of sexual harassment and consequently recommended that the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense establish uniform data elements and 
require that the services use those data elements in reporting. 
Further, in 1996, while undertaking a review of the services' 
processes for handling equal opportunity complaints, we reported that 
DOD was taking steps to address the task force's 
recommendations.[Footnote 17] However, over 15 years later, the 1995 
task force's recommendation to establish uniform data elements has not 
yet been implemented because DOD has not made this issue a priority. 
Consequently, DOD's visibility over the occurrence of sexual 
harassment continues to be limited. 

Servicemembers Are More Likely to Resolve Sexual Harassment Complaints 
Informally: 

Based on our analysis of the results of our nongeneralizable survey 
and servicemembers' responses to DOD's 2010 survey, we also found that 
servicemembers responded more frequently that they resolved complaints 
informally than reported them formally. At the six locations where we 
administered our survey, 60 of 264 female servicemembers and 22 of 319 
male servicemembers in our sample indicated that they had been 
harassed sexually during the preceding 12 months, or a total of 82 
servicemembers. Of these, the vast majority (77) indicated that they 
had elected to resolve the incident informally or not to report it at 
all. Table 3 provides more detailed information on the number of 
servicemember respondents to our survey who indicated experiencing 
sexual harassment within the preceding 12 months. 

Table 2: Number of Selected Servicemembers Who Indicated Experiencing 
Sexual Harassment within the Preceding 12 Months and Action Taken: 

Action taken: Filed formal complaint through the equal opportunity 
representative; 
Female: 4; 
Male: 0; 
Total: 4. 

Action taken: Reported incident to equal opportunity representative 
without filing a formal complaint; 
Female: 6; 
Male: 2; 
Total: 8. 

Action taken: Reported incident to supervisor/superior without filing 
a formal complaint; 
Female: 14; 
Male: 4; 
Total: 18. 

Action taken: Confronted individual about the incident without filing 
a formal complaint; 
Female: 23; 
Male: 8; 
Total: 31. 

Action taken: Did not report the incident to anyone; 
Female: 14; 
Male: 6; 
Total: 20. 

Action taken: Total; 
Female: 61; 
Male: 20; 
Total: 81. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Totals in this table do not correspond with the number of 
servicemember respondents in our sample who indicated that they had 
been harassed sexually during the preceding 12 months because some 
servicemembers indicated that they took more than one action following 
an incident and are represented in the table more than once. Also, 
some servicemembers did not respond to all questions. 

[End of table] 

DOD's 2010 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty 
Members also found that an estimated 21 percent of women and 3 percent 
of men indicated that they had been harassed sexually during the 
preceding 12 months. Further, DOD's survey found that of the 
servicemembers who indicated experiencing unwanted gender-related 
behavior, including sexual harassment, during the preceding 12 months, 
the majority (an estimated 80 percent of women and 90 percent of men) 
chose not to report the incident.[Footnote 18] The most frequently 
cited reasons servicemembers gave for not reporting the incident were: 

* Was not important enough to report (61 percent women, 55 percent 
men). 

* Took care of the problem themselves (62 percent women, 47 percent 
men). 

* Afraid of negative professional outcomes (35 percent women, 23 
percent men). 

* Felt uncomfortable making a report (33 percent women, 22 percent 
men). 

* Did not think anything would be done (33 percent women, 27 percent 
men). 

* Thought they would be labeled a troublemaker (33 percent women, 22 
percent men). 

Our site visits revealed similar reasons why servicemembers who feel 
sexually harassed may choose not to report the incident. For example, 
reasons cited by servicemembers at the locations we visited included 
the belief that the incident was not sufficiently serious to report, 
the belief that it would not be taken seriously if reported, and the 
fear of being subject to social or professional retaliation if the 
incident were reported. During our small-group discussions, 
servicemembers elaborated on reasons why individuals who feel they 
have been sexually harassed may choose not to report the incident. For 
example: 

* A senior enlisted female observed that people want results 
immediately, and there is a process that has to be followed for filing 
a formal sexual harassment claim, and that the reporting process can 
take time which may turn some people off from reporting an incident. 

* A mid-level enlisted male observed that some male servicemembers 
would be reluctant to file a sexual harassment complaint for fear of 
being viewed as weak or unable to handle the problem on their own. 
Female servicemembers may not file a sexual harassment complaint 
because they fear being ostracized from their unit. 

* A senior officer male commented that "whistleblowers do not have a 
good track record in the military" and that by reporting something 
like sexual harassment "you're setting yourself up to be viewed as a 
whistle blower. Or, you might worry how you'll be perceived by the 
other members of your unit." 

* Several servicemembers observed that reporting an incident of sexual 
harassment is perceived as something that can ruin your reputation. A 
junior enlisted female observed that if you report sexual harassment, 
you won't get promoted. A junior officer female commented that some 
people choose not to report that they have been sexually harassed 
because they don't want the incident to go public. Others fear that if 
they make a complaint, they will be retaliated against. 

* A junior enlisted female observed that she did not report a sergeant 
in her unit, whom she perceived made sexual comments about women, 
because she felt "things would just get ugly." 

* A mid-level enlisted female observed that complaints of sexual 
harassment are not always taken seriously regardless of who reports 
them, commenting that "when servicemembers feel that the higher ups do 
not get the same punishment, they will likely not report an incident 
when it occurs." 

DOD Has Limited Oversight of Its Sexual Harassment Policies and 
Programs: 

DOD's directive charges the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness with responsibility for developing the 
department's overall military equal opportunity policy and for 
monitoring the services' compliance with DOD's policy.[Footnote 19] 
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness, in turn, has delegated these responsibilities to its Office 
of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. However, according to a 
senior level program official with the office, that office's oversight 
of sexual harassment issues is primarily reactive rather than 
proactive and is generally limited to responding to requests for 
information. For example, according to this official, about 70 percent 
of the office's oversight activities consist of responding to requests 
for information by Congress, DOD leadership, or the media. Moreover, 
according to officials in the Office of Diversity Management and Equal 
Opportunity, the office has limited dedicated staff to oversee the 
department's efforts, such as to review the services' military equal 
opportunity programs. Specifically, according to officials, since 2008 
the program manager for the department's military equal opportunity 
program has simultaneously served in multiple other roles, including 
as acting and deputy director of the Office of Diversity Management 
and Equal Opportunity, and as liaison to the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Management Institute. Although program officials told us that the 
Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity also holds 
quarterly meetings with the services, the officials stated that sexual 
harassment is not a topic regularly addressed at these meetings. 

We found that the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity 
has not established a framework to guide its oversight of the 
department's programs for addressing incidents of sexual harassment. 
While we recognize that sexual harassment is only one component of the 
department's military equal opportunity program, a senior level 
program official with the office told us that the office does not have 
a formal process or plan for monitoring and overseeing the 
department's efforts to help prevent and to address incidents of 
sexual harassment involving servicemembers. Our prior work on DOD's 
programs to address the incidence of domestic violence in the military 
and sexual assault has demonstrated the importance of establishing an 
oversight framework and has shown that having an effective plan for 
implementing programs and measuring progress can help decision makers 
determine whether initiatives are achieving the desired results. 
[Footnote 20] Successful program oversight requires clearly defining a 
program's mission and establishing performance goals, objectives, 
milestones, and metrics to measure progress towards them. Further, we 
have developed a body of work to assist agencies in implementing a 
strategic planning and reporting framework to help make their programs 
results-oriented.[Footnote 21] For example, we have reported that an 
effective plan for implementing a results-oriented oversight framework 
requires agencies to clearly establish performance goals for which 
they will be held accountable, measure progress toward those goals, 
determine strategies and resources to effectively accomplish those 
goals, use performance information to make programmatic decisions 
necessary to improve performance, and formally communicate results in 
performance reports. However, we found that DOD has opportunities for 
improvement in all four components of a results-oriented oversight 
framework. Examples include: 

Establish a clear mission and performance goals, and measure progress. 
The Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity has not 
clearly defined a role for providing oversight or established 
performance goals or metrics for measuring progress in the 
department's sexual harassment programs. According to a senior level 
program official with the office, senior DOD officials have not 
communicated their expectations of the office, and it is unclear 
whether the role of the office is advisory, service-focused, or policy 
centered. Further, officials also said that the role of the Office of 
Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity role is unclear. 

Determine strategies and resources needed to accomplish goals. DOD has 
not identified the resources it needs to carry out its oversight 
responsibilities. According to officials in the Office of Diversity 
Management and Equal Opportunity, funding, resource and staffing 
requirements for the office change depending on the direction of the 
administration and political leaders. For example, according to 
officials, in 1994 the Secretary of Defense assigned a political 
appointee to address specific equal opportunity and sexual harassment 
concerns within DOD, but in 2000, the incoming administration did not 
assign a political appointee to the same position. As noted above, 
since 2008, the program manager for DOD's military equal opportunity 
program has also served in multiple other roles. 

Use performance information to make decisions for improvement. Office 
of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity officials said they use 
the results of DOD surveys, such as DOD's 2010 Workplace and Gender 
Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, to inform their decision- 
making and make policy changes. The officials said they analyze the 
results of the surveys to identify forms of sexual harassment 
incidents that occur, servicemembers' perceptions of leadership 
support for the department's policies and programs, and 
servicemembers' satisfaction with the department's prevention of 
sexual harassment training and sexual harassment complaint processes. 
They said the office then uses this information to make policy changes 
when appropriate. However, at the time of our review, the Office of 
Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity did not provide us with 
requested documentation of any analysis of DOD's survey data, or how 
any such analyses of the survey results have resulted in policy 
changes. 

Communicate Results. DOD has not communicated its results because, at 
the time of our review, it had not conducted a departmentwide 
evaluation of the effectiveness of its sexual harassment policies and 
programs. Further, an Office of Diversity Management and Equal 
Opportunity official told us that an annual reporting requirement 
established in DOD's policy has not been enforced for almost a decade, 
resulting in little oversight of the department's sexual harassment 
policies and programs. Specifically, DOD Directive 1350.2 requires 
that the services provide the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness with an annual assessment of their 
efforts, and that the assessments include specific quantitative data 
for complaints of sexual harassment. However, the Office of Diversity 
Management and Equal Opportunity has not enforced this reporting 
requirement since 2002, according to the official. When asked why the 
services were not providing these reports, a senior level program 
official with the office stated this reporting requirement was 
discontinued primarily as a result of changes to the definitions of 
race and ethnicity data collection categories by the Office of 
Management and Budget. Further, the official stated that the reports 
were not needed. 

Without an established framework for oversight, decision makers in DOD 
do not have the information they need to effectively oversee the 
department's sexual harassment policies and programs or to determine 
whether the programs, as currently implemented, are helping to prevent 
the occurrence of sexual harassment. Moreover, active duty 
servicemembers cannot be assured that the department is addressing the 
issue of sexual harassment as fully as necessary. 

Conclusions: 

Occurrences of sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful 
discrimination can jeopardize the military's combat readiness and 
ability to accomplish its mission and, according to DOD, must be 
eliminated from the department. As part of its military equal 
opportunity program, DOD has taken steps in an effort to help prevent 
and to address incidents of sexual harassment. However, simply 
instituting a policy and a program is not enough. For individuals in 
positions of leadership, support for DOD's sexual harassment policies 
and programs must be unequivocal--those who do not take the issue of 
sexual harassment seriously or who do not address incidents when they 
occur can undermine the department's efforts. Commanders who do not 
comply with DOD's requirements to conduct climate assessments 
potentially risk failing to identify and address sexual harassment 
issues before they escalate. Similarly, while DOD recognizes that its 
guidance for addressing incidents of sexual harassment in certain 
environments is inadequate, the department has not taken steps to fix 
it leading to potential confusion, undermining servicemembers' 
confidence in its programs, and decreasing the likelihood that 
sevicemembers will turn to the programs if needed. Further, without 
more complete and accurate data that can be compared across the 
services, decision makers do not have the information needed to better 
assess the occurrence of sexual harassment, identify specific problem 
areas or trends, and initiate corrective action. Overarching is, the 
absence of an oversight framework--including performance goals, 
objectives, milestones, and metrics--that limits the ability of 
decision makers to assess the effectiveness of the department's 
policies and programs for addressing incidents of sexual harassment. 
These problems are not new to the department, but DOD has not 
demonstrated the commitment necessary to effectively address them. We 
believe that successfully addressing these issues will require 
committed DOD leadership and involvement over time. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following five 
actions: 

To improve leadership's commitment to preventing and responding to 
incidents of sexual harassment, direct the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness to develop a strategy for holding 
individuals in positions of leadership accountable for promoting, 
supporting, and enforcing the department's sexual harassment policies 
and programs. 

To improve implementation of the department's sexual harassment 
policies and programs: 

* Direct the service secretaries to verify or track military 
commanders' compliance with existing requirements that commanders 
periodically determine their organizational health and functioning 
effectiveness by periodically assessing their equal opportunity 
climate through "command climate" assessments. 

* Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
develop guidance on how incidents of sexual harassment should be 
handled in environments wherein two or more of the services are 
operating together. 

To improve DOD's visibility over formal sexual harassment complaints 
involving active duty servicemembers, direct the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take steps to ensure that the 
services' complaint data are complete and accurate and establish 
reporting requirements specifying uniform data elements that the 
services should use when collecting and reporting information on 
formal sexual harassment complaints. 

To enhance oversight of the department's program to help prevent and 
to address incidents of sexual harassment involving servicemembers, 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
ensure that the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity 
develops and aggressively implements an oversight framework to help 
guide the department's efforts. At a minimum, such a framework should 
contain long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; strategies to 
accomplish goals; criteria for measuring progress; and results-
oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the 
department's sexual harassment policies and programs. Such a framework 
should also identify and include a plan for ensuring that adequate 
resources are available to carry out the office's oversight 
responsibilities. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with each of 
our recommendations. Further, DOD stated that the department will 
develop an executable plan, prioritize actions, and address resourcing 
for the changes recommended. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix 
II. DOD also provided technical comments, which we considered and 
incorporated where appropriate. 

In concurring with our first recommendation, that the department 
develop a strategy for holding individuals in positions of leadership 
accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing the department's 
sexual harassment policies and programs, DOD stated that leadership 
accountability is essential to the success of the department's efforts 
to prevent sexual harassment. To address our recommendation, DOD 
stated that it will develop an overarching strategy of holding leaders 
at appropriate levels in the organization accountable for promoting, 
supporting, and enforcing the department's sexual harassment policies 
and programs and will include this strategy in revised guidance--to be 
published in fiscal year 2012--for DOD's military equal opportunity 
program. We commend the department for committing to develop and 
implement such a strategy. 

In concurring with our recommendations aimed at improving 
implementation of the department's sexual harassment policies and 
programs--specifically, that the department (1) verify or track 
military commanders' compliance with existing requirements to 
periodically assess their equal opportunity climate through "command 
climate" assessments and (2) develop guidance on how incidents of 
sexual harassment should be handled in environments wherein two or 
more of the services are operating together--DOD stated that it will 
address these issues as part of its revised guidance discussed above. 
For example, DOD noted that the department will collaborate with the 
services and the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute in 
preparing this guidance to ensure that service structures, missions, 
resources, and operational needs are considered. We also believe that 
it is important for the department to work collaboratively in 
developing any new guidance in addressing these issues. 

In its concurrence with our recommendation that the department should 
take steps to ensure that the services' complaint data are complete 
and accurate and establish reporting requirements specifying uniform 
data elements that the services should use when collecting and 
reporting information on formal sexual harassment complaints, DOD 
stated that it will review the services' existing systems and explore 
alternatives for establishing reporting requirements by the end of 
fiscal year 2012. We commend the department for committing to take 
steps to ensure that the services' complaint data are more complete 
and accurate. 

Finally, in its concurrence with our recommendation that the 
department develop and aggressively implement an oversight framework 
to help guide its efforts, DOD stated that a proposal is in place that 
could help "strengthen and institutionalize the responsibilities and 
authorities needed for successful implementation" of the department's 
efforts to address sexual harassment. We agree that successfully 
addressing these issues will require committed DOD leadership and 
involvement over time. However, as noted in our report, we also 
believe that successful program oversight requires clearly defining a 
program's mission and establishing performance goals, objectives, 
milestones, and metrics to measure progress toward them. Establishing 
a comprehensive plan that includes such things as performance goals, 
objectives, milestones, and metrics will be critical to helping ensure 
that DOD leadership and decision makers have the information they need 
to effectively oversee the department's sexual harassment policies and 
programs. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to other 
interested congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the 
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's 
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has 
developed and implemented policies and programs to prevent and respond 
to incidents of sexual harassment involving servicemembers, we 
obtained and analyzed DOD's and each of the military service's 
guidance and requirements for the prevention, response, and resolution 
of complaints of sexual harassment involving active duty 
servicemembers.[Footnote 22] We also interviewed knowledgeable 
officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the respective 
program offices for addressing sexual harassment matters in the Army, 
the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. In addition, we 
conducted site visits to select locations to assess implementation of 
the department's sexual harassment policies and programs. The 
locations we visited were selected based on a number of factors, 
including units' missions; the availability of personnel; and recent 
deployment histories. The locations we visited included Camp Victory, 
Iraq; Fort Carson, Colorado; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Marine 
Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Naval Station Norfolk, 
Virginia; and the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-70), a Nimitz-class Aircraft 
Carrier, at Naval Air Station North Island, California. During our 
site visits we met with program officials, judge advocates, chaplains, 
and representatives from local inspector general's offices. We also 
met with military commanders (company and field grade officers) and 
senior enlisted servicemembers to discuss the steps they have taken to 
establish a command climate that discourages sexual harassment from 
occurring, as well as their personal experiences resolving complaints 
of sexual harassment in their units. In addition, we obtained 
servicemembers' perspectives on issues such as command climate, 
prevention of sexual harassment training, and personal experiences 
with sexual harassment in the military by conducting a total of 59 
small-group discussions with enlisted servicemembers and officers and 
by administering a short, confidential survey to a total of 583 
servicemembers during our site visits. 

To determine the extent to which DOD has visibility over the 
occurrence of sexual harassment involving servicemembers, we obtained 
and analyzed the services' available sexual harassment complaint data 
for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. To assess the reliability of 
the data, we discussed these data with officials in Office of the 
Secretary of Defense and the services to gain an understanding of the 
processes and databases used to collect and record data and to 
understand existing data quality control procedures and known 
limitations of the data. We compared the data collected from the 
different services and found inconsistencies. When we found 
inconsistencies with the data, we followed up with service officials 
to attempt to reconcile these differences. We ultimately determined 
that the data we received from the services could not be compared 
across services and therefore were not reliable for the purposes of 
providing departmentwide information because of our concerns about the 
completeness and accuracy of the data, which we discuss in our report. 
As a result, these data were not included in this report. We also 
reviewed the results of the Defense Manpower Data Center's (DMDC) 2010 
Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members. We 
assessed the reliability of the 2010 survey by reviewing survey 
documentation provided by DMDC and discussing the survey data with 
officials at DMDC. Based on our review and discussions, we determined 
that DMDC's survey data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 
our report. All percentage estimates we report from DMDC's survey have 
margins of error at the 95 percent confidence level of plus or minus 2 
percentage points or less. To understand why servicemembers may not 
report incidents of sexual harassment, we obtained servicemembers' 
perspectives on a variety of sexual harassment matters through our 
small-group discussions and by administering a nongeneralizeable 
survey to selected servicemembers. 

To determine the extent to which DOD provides oversight of its 
policies and programs for addressing incidents of sexual harassment, 
we interviewed knowledgeable officials in the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense and each of the services in order to obtain a comprehensive 
understanding of the processes, procedures, and controls in place for 
monitoring and overseeing the programs. We also obtained and analyzed 
various pertinent documents, including the results of prior studies of 
sexual harassment in the military, federal internal control standards, 
[Footnote 23] and prior GAO reports on the use of performance measures 
to evaluate programmatic efforts. 

To obtain servicemembers' perspectives on the issue of sexual 
harassment in the military, we conducted small-group discussions with 
selected servicemembers and administered a nongeneralizeable survey to 
the participants. Our objective in using this approach was to obtain 
servicemembers' perspectives on several topics related to the issue of 
sexual harassment in the military because discussion groups are 
intended to provide in-depth information about participants' reasons 
for holding certain attitudes about specific topics and to offer 
insights into the range of concerns they may or may not have for an 
issue. Our small-group discussions were not designed to (1) 
demonstrate the extent of a problem or to generalize the results to a 
larger population, (2) develop a consensus to arrive at an agreed-upon 
plan or make decisions about what actions to take, or (3) provide 
statistically representative samples or reliable quantitative 
estimates. 

To select the participants for our discussion groups, we requested 
that the locations we visited provide us with a list of available 
personnel. From the lists provided, we randomly selected participants 
based on gender and rank with the goal of meeting with 8 to 15 
servicemembers in each discussion group. At most of the locations we 
visited, we held a total of 10 discussion groups, for a total of 
59.[Footnote 24] Although the results of our discussion groups are not 
generalizable and therefore cannot be projected across DOD, a service, 
or any single location we visited, the composition of our discussion 
groups was designed to ensure that we spoke with servicemembers across 
the enlisted and officer ranks (E1-O6), and across the military 
services. 

To facilitate our discussion groups, we developed a discussion guide 
to help the GAO moderator in addressing several topics on the issue of 
sexual harassment in the military.[Footnote 25] These topics include 
servicemembers' perspectives of what constitutes sexual harassment, 
command climate and sexual harassment, prevention of sexual harassment 
training, and what could be done to better address the issue of sexual 
harassment in the military. Because of the sensitivity of the 
information we were seeking, we took several steps to help assure a 
confidential environment during our discussion groups. First, we did 
not document the names of the participants of any of our sessions. 
Further, as discussed above, we broke out our small-group discussions 
by rank and gender. For example, we met with junior enlisted females 
separate from junior enlisted males. Finally, we had male GAO analysts 
facilitate our discussions with male servicemembers and female GAO 
analysts facilitate our discussions with female servicemembers. 

At the beginning of each discussion, we administered our 
nongeneralizable survey. The purpose of our survey was to (1) collect 
information from the participants that could not easily be obtained 
through discussion, for example, information participants may have 
been uncomfortable sharing in a group setting, and (2) collect some of 
the same data found in past DOD and GAO surveys. Specifically, the 
survey included questions designed to collect information on 
servicemembers' personal experience with sexual harassment in the 
military and their perspectives on such things as command climate, 
barriers to reporting incidents of sexual harassment, and the extent 
to which sexual harassment is a problem in the military, among others. 
Most of the servicemembers to whom we administered our survey 
participated in the small-group discussions; however, since 
participation was not compulsory, as well as due to space limitations, 
some participants left our discussions early or were dismissed. Table 
3 provides information on the number of surveys we received from 
servicemembers during our discussion groups. 

Table 3: Number of Surveys Administered, by Location and Gender: 

U.S. Army: 

Location: Camp Victory, Iraq; 
Males: 43; 
Females: 31; 
Total: 74. 

Location: Fort Carson, Colorado; 
Males: 34; 
Females: 26; 
Total: 60. 

U.S. Air Force: 

Location: Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; 
Males: 41; 
Females: 36; 
Total: 77. 

U.S. Navy: 

Location: Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia; 
Males: 69; 
Females: 77; 
Total: 146. 

Location: U.S.S. Carl Vinson; 
Males: 55; 
Females: 30; 
Total: 85. 

U.S. Marine Corps: 

Location: Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; 
Males: 77; 
Females: 64; 
Total: 141. 

Total: 
Males: 319; 
Females: 264; 
Total: 583. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Following the conclusions of all our discussion groups we performed a 
content analysis of the discussions in order to identify the themes 
that emerged and to summarize servicemembers' perspectives of sexual 
harassment in the military. We reviewed responses from several of the 
small-group discussions and created a list of themes and subtheme 
categories. One analyst then independently reviewed the comments from 
each of the 59 discussion groups and assigned comments to the 
appropriate category, which was agreed upon by two analysts. If 
agreement was not reached on a comment's placement in a category, 
another analyst reconciled the issue by placing the comment in either 
one or more of the categories. The responses in each category were 
then used in our evaluation and discussion of how active duty 
servicemembers perceive the issue of sexual harassment in the military. 

We conducted our small-group discussions and administered our 
nongeneralizeable survey during site visits we conducted between 
September 2010 and February 2011. Because our survey asked 
participants to consider their experiences over the past 12 months 
while in the military, participants' responses may cover the period 
between September 2009 and February 2010. 

We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review: 

Department of Defense: 

* Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, Patrick Air Force 
Base, Florida: 

* Defense Manpower Data Center, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Inspector General's Office, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, Arlington, 
Virginia: 

* Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Arlington, Virginia: 

Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: 

* J-1, Manpower and Personnel, Arlington, Virginia: 

Department of the Army: 

* Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia: 

* Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program, 
Washington, D.C. 

* Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C. 

* Camp Victory, Iraq: 

* Fort Carson, Colorado: 

Department of the Air Force: 

* Air Force Equal Opportunity Office, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Air Force Personnel Center, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas: 

* Office of the Judge Advocate General, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Joint Base San Antonio, Texas: 

* Lackland Air Force Base, Texas: 

Department of the Navy: 

* Navy Personnel Command: 

* Office of Women's Policy, Washington, D.C. 

* Navy Equal Opportunity Office, Millington, Tennessee: 

* Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia: 

* U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-70), Naval Air Station North Island, 
California: 

United States Marine Corps: 

* Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 

* Manpower Plans and Policy Division, Equal Opportunity and Diversity 
Management Branch, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia: 

* Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina: 

* Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia: 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 through September 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

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

September 13, 2011: 

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

Dear Ms. Farrell: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GA0-11-809, "Preventing Sexual Harassment: DoD Needs Greater 
Leadership Commitment and an Oversight Framework," dated August 9, 
2011 (GAO Code 351480)." 

The Department concurs with the GAO Draft Report recommendations and 
will develop an executable plan, prioritize actions, and address 
resourcing for the changes recommended. Where examples of Service 
"best practices" are cited in the draft report, the Department will 
work collaboratively to implement them in an effort to sustain 
military readiness by establishing a culture free of sexual harassment 
throughout DoD. 

Attached are comments on each recommendation prepared according to the 
format provided by GAO instructions. The Department of the Army 
submitted technical comments addressing objective corrections to 
factual information included in the report. The technical comments 
were sent to the GAO by e-mail and acknowledged on Thursday, August 
25, 2011. 

Mr. Jimmy Love is the DoD Primary Action Officer. If you have any 
questions, please contact Mr. Love by telephone at (703) 571-9331 or e-
mail james.love@osd.mil. 

Signed by: 

Jo Ann Rooney: 
Principal Deputy: 

Attachment: As stated. 

[End of letter] 

GAO Draft Report Dated August 9, 2011: 
GAO-11-809 (GAO Code 351480): 

"Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership Commitment 
And An Oversight Framework" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
develop a strategy for holding individuals in positions of leadership 
accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing the
Department's sexual harassment policies and programs. 

DoD Response: Concur. Leadership accountability is essential to the 
success of Service and DoD efforts to prevent sexual harassment. DoD 
will address this recommendation in Fiscal Year 2012 in collaboration 
with the Military Services through a systematic review of existing 
Service methods to ensure accountability. The goal of the review will 
be to develop an overarching DoD strategy of holding leaders at 
appropriate levels in the organization accountable for promoting, 
supporting, and enforcing the Department's sexual harassment policies 
and programs. The DoD strategy will be included in a revised DoD 
instruction addressing the DoD Military Equal
Opportunity Program. The new instruction will be coordinated through 
DoD and the Military Services and published in Fiscal Year 2012. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Service secretaries to verify or track military commanders' 
compliance with existing requirements that commanders periodically 
determine their organizational health and functioning effectiveness by 
periodically assessing their equal opportunity climate through 
"command climate" assessments. 

DoD Response: Concur. Senior leaders demonstrate commitment by 
monitoring compliance with requirements aimed at creating an 
organizational culture free of sexual harassment. DoD plans to address 
this recommendation with specific guidance in a revised DoD 
instruction addressing the DoD Military Equal Opportunity Program. The 
new instruction will be coordinated through DoD and the Military 
Services and published in Fiscal Year 2012. DoD will continue 
collaboration with the Military Services and the Defense Equal 
Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) in preparing guidance to 
ensure Service structures, missions, resourcing, and operational needs 
are considered. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
develop guidance on how incidents of sexual harassment should be 
handled in environments wherein two or more of the Services are 
operating together. 

DoD Response: Concur. Service members should not he denied the benefit 
of their parent Service's equal opportunity and counseling systems if 
necessary to ensure the DoD standards on complaint handling are met 
for each member. DoD and the Military Services will collaborate to 
propose guidance on how incidents of sexual harassment should be 
handled in environments wherein two or more of the Services are 
operating together for the Commanders of the Combatant Commands and 
the Directors of Defense Agencies under the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense Principal Staff Assistants. The proposed guidance will reflect 
the standards, values, and principles of existing Service programs, 
resources, and counseling services and will be included in the new DoD 
Military Equal Opportunity Program instruction, which will be 
coordinated through DoD and the Military Services and published in 
Fiscal Year 2012. DoD will consider existing Service or Joint Basing 
guidelines that may serve as "proven practices" in the development of 
joint-service guidance. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
take steps to ensure that the Service's complaint data are complete 
and accurate and establish reporting requirements specifying uniform 
data elements that the Services should use when collecting and 
reporting information on formal sexual harassment complaints. 

DoD Response: Concur. Complete, accurate and consistent data help 
inform DoD and Service leadership decisions related to sexual 
harassment program policy, prevention and training, and problem 
analysis. The Department will collaborate with the Military Services 
to ensure that the Service's complaint data are complete and accurate 
and to develop uniform data elements that the Services should use when 
collecting and reporting information on formal sexual harassment 
complaints. DoD will review existing Service database management 
systems and explore alternatives for establishing reporting 
requirements that comply with Secretary of Defense efficiencies 
guidance by the end of Fiscal Year 2012. 

Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
ensure that the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity 
develops and aggressively implements an oversight framework to help 
guide the Department's efforts. At a minimum, such a framework should 
contain long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; strategies to 
accomplish goals; criteria for measuring progress; and results-
oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the
Department's sexual harassment policies and programs. Such a framework 
should also identify and include a plan for ensuring that adequate 
resources are available to carry out the office's oversight 
responsibilities. 

DoD Response: Concur. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness recognizes the need for an oversight framework 
to help guide the Department's prevention of sexual harassment 
efforts. The Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity 
(ODMEO) is presently preparing a new DoD instruction on the Military 
Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program which proposes to place the Deputy's 
Advisory Working Group (DAWG) in the MEO Program oversight framework 
which includes the prevention of sexual harassment. The DAWG, a DoD 
senior leadership advisory group, is a highly effective enterprise 
governance forum which is chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
established to communicate the senior leadership's direction, and 
focuses on operational-level decision-making (deliverables) and 
socialization across the Department as it pertains to budget issues 
and technical programs. ODMEO believes that placing the DAWG within 
the MEO Program oversight framework will strengthen and 
institutionalize the responsibilities and authorities needed for 
successful implementation of sexual harassment policies. The new DoD MEO
Program instruction is on track to be coordinated through DoD and the 
Military Services and published in Fiscal Year 2012. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this 
report include David E. Moser (Assistant Director), Marilyn K. 
Wasleski (Assistant Director), James D. Ashley, K. Nicole Harms, P. 
Nicole Harris, Gloria Hernandezsaunders, Wesley A. Johnson, Chelsea 
Kinsman, Ronald La Due Lake, Jonathon P. Oldmixon, Jillena Roberts, 
John S. Townes, Cheryl A. Weissman, and Elizabeth W. Wood. In 
addition, Jennifer Andreone, Lisa Canini, Burns Chamberlain, Katherine 
Forsyth, Gilbert Kim, Anne McDonough-Hughes, and Michael Rohrback 
provided assistance during site visits. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Military Justice: Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual 
Assault Investigations and Adjudications. GAO-11-579. Washington, 
D.C.: June 22, 2011. 

Military Personnel: Sustained Leadership and Oversight Needed to 
Improve DOD's Prevention and Treatment of Domestic Abuse. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-923]. Washington, D.C.: September 
22, 2010. 

Military Personnel: Status of Implementation of GAO's 2006 
Recommendations on DOD's Domestic Violence Program. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-577R]. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 
2010. 

Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Programs Need to Be Further Strengthened. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-405T]. Washington, 
D.C.: February 24, 2010. 

Military Personnel: Additional Actions Are Needed to Strengthen DOD's 
and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215]. Washington, D.C.: 
February 3, 2010. 

Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Strengthen Implementation and 
Oversight of DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Programs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1146T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
10, 2008. 

Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and Oversight 
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924]. 
Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2008. 

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

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

Military Personnel: Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to 
Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further Management Action Needed. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-540]. Washington, D.C.: 
May 24, 2006. 

Military Equal Opportunity: Problems With Services' Complaint Systems 
Are Being Addressed by DOD. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-96-9]. Washington, D.C.: January 
26, 1996. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In September 1991, a professional military organization known as 
the Tailhook Association met in Las Vegas, Nevada for its annual 
convention. The convention resulted in numerous allegations of sexual 
harassment and sexual assault and focused public and congressional 
attention on these problems in the military environment. 

[2] DOD conducted sexual harassment surveys of active duty 
servicemembers in 1988, 1995, and 2002. In December 2002, Congress 
passed the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003 (Pub. L. No. 107-314), which included a provision (codified 
at 10 U.S.C. § 481) that requires DOD to conduct four quadrennial 
surveys, each in a separate year, to identify and assess racial and 
ethnic issues and discrimination, and to identify and assess gender 
issues and discrimination, among members of the armed forces. DOD 
conducted the first of these surveys for its active component in 2006 
and then subsequently in 2010. 

[3] DOD's survey defines unwanted sexual contact to include rape, 
nonconsensual sodomy (oral or anal sex), or indecent assault 
(unwanted, inappropriate sexual contact or fondling) that can occur 
regardless of gender, age, or spousal relationship. 

[4] At the installation level, a variety of personnel--for example, 
equal opportunity advisors and equal opportunity representatives or 
specialists--assist commanders in implementing the day-to-day 
operations of their military equal opportunity programs. For purposes 
of this report, we use the term "program officials" to refer to these 
individuals. 

[5] Defense Manpower Data Center, 2010 Workplace and Gender Relations 
Survey of Active Duty Members (DMDC Report No. 2010-024) (April 2011). 
This survey was administered between February and June 2010. The 
weighted response rate was 32 percent. All percentage estimates we 
report from the 2010 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active 
Duty Members have margins of error at the 95 percent confidence level 
of plus or minus 2 percentage points or less. 

[6] Department of Defense Directive 1350.2, Department of Defense 
Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program (Aug. 18, 1995). 

[7] GAO, Military Equal Opportunity: Problems With Services' Complaint 
Systems Are Being Addressed by DOD, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-96-9] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 
26, 1996). 

[8] Department of Defense, Report of the Task Force on Discrimination 
and Sexual Harassment (May 1995). 

[9] See Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy (Apr. 27, 2010), 
Air Force Instruction 36-2706, Equal Opportunity Program Military and 
Civilian (Oct. 5, 2010), Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 
Instruction 5354.1F, Navy Equal Opportunity (EO) Policy (July 25, 
2007), and Marine Corps Order 1000.9A, Sexual Harassment (May 30, 
2006). 

[10] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is responsible for 
establishing procedures for handling federal employees' allegations of 
discrimination, including sexual harassment, and has issued 
regulations that govern how such complaints should be processed 
administratively. The federal equal employment opportunity complaint 
process consists of two stages--informal, or pre-complaint, 
counseling; and formal complaint, which is filed with the agency. 
Under existing regulations, complainants who are civilian employees 
must consult an equal employment opportunity counselor at their agency 
in order to try to informally resolve the matter before filing a 
formal complaint. 

[11] DOD Directive 1350.2 requires commanders to assess their 
organizational equal opportunity climate, preferably as part of their 
assumption of command, and to schedule follow-up assessments 
periodically during their command tenure. The services' policies, in 
turn, establish requirements for the frequency by which these 
assessments are to be conducted. For example, the Army requires 
company commanders to administer a command climate assessment within 
90 days of assuming command and annually thereafter. In contrast, the 
Air Force requires that such assessments be conducted for units with 
more than 50 personnel every 2 years or upon a unit commander's 
request. 

[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-96-9]. 

[13] The DEOCS measures climate factors associated with DOD's military 
equal opportunity and civilian equal employment opportunity programs. 
Used by both military and civilian members of DOD, about half of the 
survey's questions address equal opportunity or equal employment 
opportunity issues, while the remainder addresses organizational and 
demographic issues. During fiscal year 2010, about 650,000 DEOCS 
surveys were completed by DOD personnel. 

[14] Air Force Instruction 36-2706, Equal Opportunity Program Military 
and Civilian (Oct. 5, 2010). 

[15] GAO, Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and 
Oversight Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 
2008). 

[16] GAO, Military Personnel: Additional Actions Are Needed to 
Strengthen DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Programs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2010). 

[17] See GAO/NSIAD-96-9. In 1996, we reported that there were problems 
with the services' collection and reporting of equal opportunity 
complaint data and that the task force recommended that steps be taken 
to address these problems. At that time, we also reported that DOD was 
taking steps to address the task force's recommendations and therefore 
did not include any of our own recommendations in that report. 

[18] DOD's survey defines unwanted gender-related experiences as 
sexual harassment, sexist behavior, and three components of sexual 
harassment: crude/offensive behavior, unwanted sexual attention. 

[19] Department of Defense Directive 1350.2, Department of Defense 
Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program (Aug. 18, 1995). 

[20] See, for example, GAO, Military Personnel: Sustained Leadership 
and Oversight Needed to Improve DOD's Prevention and Treatment of 
Domestic Abuse, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-923] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2010); [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215]; and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924]. 

[21] See, for example, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924]; GAO, Military Personnel: DOD 
Needs an Oversight Framework and Standards to Improve Management of 
Its Casualty Assistance Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1010] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 
2006); and Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.10, 
2004). 

[22] We limited our scope in conducting this review to DOD's policies 
and programs to help prevent and to address incidents of sexual 
harassment involving the active components of DOD. Therefore, we did 
not address DOD's sexual harassment policies and programs for the 
reserve or guard components of DOD or for its civilian employees. 

[23] See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999) and Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/]GAO-01-1008G (Washington, 
D.C.: August 2001). 

[24] We held only nine discussion groups with servicemembers while 
aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson because there were no senior officer 
females available to meet with us at the time of our visit. 

[25] To develop questions for our discussion groups and survey we 
reviewed several DOD surveys and studies of issues such as command 
climate and sexual harassment in the military. We pretested the 
content and format of our questions and made adjustments as necessary. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

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

Contact: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: