Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and Oversight Challenges

DOD concurred with our recommendation, and, in March 2009, DOD noted in its Fiscal Year 2008 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military that its Joint Environments Working Group was examining DOD policy to determine if modifications were needed in order to effectively implement the program in joint and deployed environments. In April 2009, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Plans sent a memo to the Joint Staff containing the Working Group's guidance for revising future joint publications to address sexual assault prevention and response in joint environments. In June 2009, we met with a Joint Staff official who told us that they were using this guidance to revise its joint publication 1-0 and that until its revised publications are issued the interim guidance addressing program implementation is in effect.

DOD concurred with our recommendation and, in March 2009, noted in its Fiscal Year 2008 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military that it examined program staffing as part of its fiscal year 2008 Policy Assistance Team visits. Additionally, in 2009, the Under Secretary of Defense for Plans testified that the Department had increased funding in its fiscal year 2010 budget to provide for 54 full-time positions in its sexual assault prevention and response programs. By undertaking this evaluation, DOD addressed our recommendation to review its program staffing.

In March 2010, noted in its annual report on sexual assault in the military that during fiscal year 2009 DOD's Sexual Assault Advisory Council conducted site visits to review troop and commander training across the military services and that, based in part on GAO's recommendation, this review focused specifically on the military services' accession and commander training. The goals of those site visits were to determine how well the military services provided sexual assault prevention and response training in accordance with DOD requirements, to assess the quality of the training, to identify best practices and opportunities to refine DOD policy, and to provide immediate feedback to stakeholders. DOD's report also noted that other aspects of the department's sexual assault prevention and response training were reviewed during fiscal year 2009 as well, including training for Military Criminal Investigative Organizations, to ensure training requirements reflect the needs of law enforcement and military criminal investigators responsible for addressing issues and procedures applicable to sexual assault cases, and for trial counselors, to ensure training requirements reflect the needs of judge advocates who are responsible for addressing issues and procedures applicable to sexual assault cases. However, as we reported in February 2010 (GAO-10-215), while DOD has taken steps to evaluate the effectiveness of its training, DOD's training programs cannot be assessed because DOD's strategic plans and draft oversight framework do not contain measures against which to benchmark performance. As of September 2011, DOD's oversight framework was not yet complete. In January 2012, we met with SAPRO officials to discuss the status of performance measures for training. SAPRO officials told us that it conducted Policy Assistance Team (PAT) visits to assess the military services' sexual assault prevention and response training and found that the services had implemented training programs as required by DOD policy. As part of those visits, SAPRO also identified inconsistencies and deficiencies in the training programs and in response, worked to standardize and institutionalize training for each responder role. We agree that this constitutes an evaluation of sexual assault prevention and response training and consider this recommendation to be implemented.

DOD concurred with our recommendation, and subsequently, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs directed that a task force be chartered to determine the Military Health System's commitment and support of the department's sexual assault prevention and response programs. In November 2008, the Health Affairs Sexual Assault Task Force was chartered. The task force assessed (1) the overall policy guidance; (2) standard of care; (3) communication, collaboration, and continuity of care; (4) personnel, (5) training; and (6) supplies and materiel. In March 2009, the task force submitted a report detailing its assessment. The task force's report included a total of 14 recommendations with specific timeframes for implementing them--for example, surveying by September 2009 in-theater military treatment facilities regarding the availability of appropriate sexual assault prevention and response equipment and supplies and establishing a Military Health System Sexual Assault Health Care Integrated Policy Team, also by September 2009, to conduct a further, more detailed review of the issue. Having taken these steps, we believe DOD was response to our concerns and has taken an important step towards ensuring that servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault receive the care they need.

DOD concurred with our recommendation and, as we reported in GAO-10-215, has also taken a variety of steps to emphasize support for and to further develop its sexual assault prevention and response programs. For example, in fiscal year 2008, representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the military services visited selected military installations to assess, among other things, the extent to which commanders' company and field grade officers' support sexual assault prevention and response programs. OSD found that while most program personnel had demonstrable support from their command, command support of sexual assault prevention and response programs varied from installation to installation, and stronger command support of the program was required. OSD further reported that it is working with its stakeholders to address its findings.

DOD concurred with our recommendation and, in March 2010, issued the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, which implemented new disposition categories to better account for the outcomes of investigations and actions taken against subjects. These include, for example, data on the number of command actions precluded or declined for sexual assault charges for cases where there was insufficient evidence of any offense, the charge was unfounded, or the victim declined to participate in military justice action, among others. Having taken steps to implement these new disposition categories and establishing baseline data as part of its report for 2009, DOD has met the intent of our recommendation.

DOD concurred with our recommendation and acknowledged, as we note in our report, that access to installation-level data by DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program office is critical for oversight and visibility over alleged sexual assault incidents and stated. In GAO-10-215, we reported that DOD they will not collect such data until they have implemented a statutorily mandated centralized database to maintain these data. As of September 2011, DOD's database was not yet operational. In January 2012, we met with SAPRO officials who stated and provided documentation that they are collecting installation-level data, and they are using these data to conduct trend analyses. Further, SAPRO said that while recently collected data will not be imported into its Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID) once it becomes operational, it will maintain these data and manually incorporate them into future trend analyses. Because SAPRO will use installation-level data that was collected prior to its implementation of DSAID, DOD has implemented this recommendation.

DOD concurred with our recommendation and, from August 11-15, 2008, the task force held its first open meeting.

The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and, in a December 2010 letter to members of Congress and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, noted that a Coast Guard fiscal year 2009 Manpower Resource Analysis of its field positions performing primary Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) duties recommended the addition of 16 additional positions. During fiscal year 2010, three such positions were added, and additional positions have been requested as part of normal resource proposal process. Also in fiscal year 2010, a Headquarters position was re-located to the Coast Guard Academy as a dedicated SARC position. Having taken these steps, we believe the Coast Guard has implemented our recommendation and taken an important step to improve the implementation of its sexual assault prevention and response program.

The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and, in December 2010, a copy of its Plan of Action and Milestones was provided to members of Congress and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Coast Guard's plan specifies, for 10 separate long-term goals or objectives, such things as its strategies to achieve these; milestones; criteria for measuring progress, and performance goals. Examples include the long-term goals or objectives of fostering a climate of victim support and safety, ensuring that program coordinators possess the education and background to fulfill their responsibilities, and compiling annual sexual assault data in such a way to parallel that which is required of the Department of Defense. Having taken these steps, we believe the Coast Guard has implemented our recommendation and taken an important step to help ensure the effective implementation of its sexual assault prevention and response program.