skip to main content

House Subcommittee Reviews Findings of Military Sexual Assault Report

On February 3, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on a report released by the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services.

Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis (D-CA) applauded the task force for a thorough report while reiterating that the Defense Department needs to continue making strides in dealing with sexual assault in military. “I do not want to steal the thunder of our witnesses, but there is a recurring theme in their report that needs to be mentioned from the outset. While the Department has done much in recent years to address sexual assault in the military, much more remains to be done. Thankfully, due to the work of this task force and others, we have a much clearer understanding of the problem. It is important that we make significant improvements to how the Department deals with sexual assault, and that we do all we can to avoid inadvertently making things worse in the process.”

The witnesses, Dr. Louis V. Iasiello, co-chair of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, and Brigadier General Sharon K.G. Dunbar, a member of the Task Force, presented joint testimony to the subcommittee. They summarized the report’s findings: “On 1 December 2009, we submitted our report of findings and recommendations to the secretary of Defense. Our review found that DoD [Department of Defense] overall has made notable progress in addressing sexual assault since the establishment of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program in 2005. Key to this progress has been heightened awareness attributable to leadership emphasis and involvement at all levels, increased program funding, and establishment of dedicated SAPR positions. At the same time, we found many opportunities for improvement. Specifically, while DoD has made important improvements in responding to victims’ needs, there must be greater focus on effectively addressing the spectrum of sexual assault prevention and response.”

Dr. Iasiello and Brig. Gen. Dunbar highlighted the task force’s recommendations for strategic oversight, prevention and training, victim response, accountability, and best practices. With regard to strategic oversight, they said, “We found that the current organizational placement of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) has limited its visibility and ability to effectively address integral cross-cutting issues. We therefore recommend the deputy secretary of Defense provide oversight for SAPRO for at least one year, or until the program is meeting established institutional goals.” They added, “Our task force noted that SAPRO does not provide policy or oversight for several of its significant responsibilities. For this reason, we recommend that DoD restructure SAPRO to include the expertise essential to address prevention, response, training, and accountability. Given that military personnel are increasingly serving in joint and deployed environments, the task force believes SAPRO must also drive consistency across the [armed] services in policy, terminology, personnel structures, and standards for managing and assessing the SAPR program. We found [a] lack of standardization in significant areas, such [as] SAPR program structures and funding, training and deployment preparation, terminologies used in policies and training, reporting and response procedures, and interpretation of SAPR guidance. For a DoD-wide program and for an issue that affects personnel in all services, we believe greater standardization is essential.”

With regard to sexual assault prevention, the witnesses also testified that “Leadership clearly has a profound influence on the prevention of sexual assault, from strategy development and execution, to continued focus and open discussion of the issue. Commanders and leaders must take an active role in addressing the issue and modeling correct behavior. Our task force found that, when leadership was not involved, SAPR training was generally perceived as yet another mandatory training requirement to fulfill as opposed to a problem to understand and address. As a result, we recommend that all commanders and senior enlisted leaders be actively involved in SAPR training and awareness programs. We also recommend that installation and operational commanders vigilantly assess the adequacy of measures to ensure the safest and most secure living and working environments.”

The witnesses detailed a recommendation by the task force to improve victim response, saying, “DoD has made notable progress in improving assistance to sexual assault victims, particularly through the restricted reporting option. This option permits victims to obtain immediate care and counseling without engaging law enforcement and their command authority. Despite this progress, we found communications between sexual assault victims and victim advocates to be problematic. Because these communications are afforded no privilege under military law, the effectiveness of victim advocates in the military is limited…In civilian communities, medical personnel can provide privileged advice and counsel; this is not the case for military providers. The net effect is that military sexual assault victims have little ability to discuss their circumstances with others…Based upon the fact that 35 states have granted effective privilege to communications between victims and victim advocates, we recommend Congress enact a comprehensive military justice privilege for communications between military victims of sexual assault and victim advocates.”

Rep. Davis expressed her concern about the issue of privileged communication between a victim advocate and the victim, saying she wants to “make sure it works.”

Brig. Gen. Dunbar responded by saying that if victims know others can testify against them they are “loathe to come forward,” meaning they do not always receive the care and treatment they need. She said that while a victim advocate would be someone with whom the victim could talk, such an arrangement could create unintended consequences that could prevent the victim from coming forward. The task force’s report concluded that the Defense Department would be better served by fewer but better qualified and more senior victim advocates, as Dr. Iasiello stated in earlier testimony.

The current victim advocate program was deemed ineffective and it was recommended by the task force that it be replaced with “a small cadre of trained and credentialed personnel, recognized as qualified by the general court-martial convening authority, to provide better victim support.” Brig. Gen. Dunbar said the program would benefit from fewer victim advocates who can provide a high “level of support and have a level of maturity to deal with the confidentiality.”

Ranking Member Joe Wilson (R-SC) raised another point of concern about whether Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it difficult to prosecute crimes and bring a perpetrator to justice. Article 120 governs the definitions of rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct within the armed services.

Brig. Gen. Dunbar agreed that Article 120 can be “cumbersome” and “confusing” and very difficult for juries to decipher because of its broad nature, which could in turn lead to more acquittals. To combat part of the problem, she suggested more training for prosecutors and investigators who lack familiarity with trying sexual assault cases with the aim of increasing success in prosecutions. She also suggested adding more prosecutors who do have the specific experience with military sexual assault. “In the end we want to provide justice for the victims,” she said.

Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) asked the witnesses about the oversight of commanders in pursuing cases. Dr. Iasiello and Brig. Gen. Dunbar both said they found during their investigation and discussions with courts-martial convening authorities that commanders and Judge Advocate Generals work together and “aggressively pursue and move forward wherever possible on a perpetrator of sexual assault.”

Rep. Davis then asked about the accountability for commanders and whether their follow-through on sexual assault cases is evaluated for career advancement.

Brig. Gen. Dunbar said commanders are evaluated on how well they take care of their men and women and that because sexual assault is generally an infrequent crime, it would be unfair to specifically categorize the issue as a way to evaluate commanding officers because “there is already a focus on taking care of people.”