Military Personnel
Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further Management Action Needed Gao ID: GAO-06-540 May 24, 2006Due to concerns about domestic violence in the military and its adverse effect on mission readiness, Congress required the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a task force to assess the services' response to domestic violence and recommend improvements. The task force issued three reports containing 194 recommendations. The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act required GAO to review DOD's progress in implementing the recommendations. This report discusses (1) DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary actions, (2) the resources DOD has provided to implement the recommendations, and (3) DOD's specific actions to ensure victim confidentiality and the education of commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains. GAO also examined whether DOD has established an oversight framework to monitor implementation.
DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary actions taken by commanders is hampered because the systems that the department uses to collect domestic violence information do not contain complete data. DOD's domestic violence database does not capture data from all law enforcement systems and, therefore, does not provide a complete accounting of reported incidents and actions taken by commanders. Notwithstanding the task force's recommendation to report on the number of domestic violence incidents, DOD and the services have not developed any plans to address the data limitations, which do not allow for visibility over domestic violence incidents. Without complete information on reported incidents of domestic violence and the steps taken by commanders to address these incidents, DOD will not know the size and nature of the problems or be able to assess the effectiveness of its actions. DOD has provided about $23 million to implement the recommendations and has made progress in this regard. Specifically, GAO identified 94 recommendations of varying potential importance as completed, 60 as pending further action, and 40 in which no action had been taken because DOD either disagreed with the recommendations or determined that they were not applicable to the department. Nonetheless, DOD faces challenges in completing the pending recommendations in a timely manner because of potential shortages of essential personnel in the office overseeing implementation. In addition, DOD's method of communicating its policy changes resulting from the recommendations has not ensured consistent practices and widespread understanding of the policies among DOD and the services. While DOD is taking steps toward ensuring confidentiality for victims and to train its personnel on domestic violence issues, additional efforts are needed. To ensure victim confidentiality, DOD issued a policy, effective April 22, 2006, allowing victims to report domestic violence to specified people without notifying command. In addition, DOD issued guidance requiring training and is providing several educational options. However, data regarding which chaplains have completed training are not available because the department and the services do not track this training. Chaplains play a special role in assisting domestic violence victims and, without complete training data, DOD may be unable to determine if chaplains have been provided the needed resources to assist victims. DOD has not established an oversight framework to monitor compliance with and evaluate implementation of the task force recommendations. While the task force recommended and DOD's draft domestic violence instruction requires monitoring and evaluation of domestic violence efforts, DOD has not established a process to do so. Without an overall management framework, DOD and Congress have limited visibility and oversight to evaluate DOD's implementation efforts and make needed improvements.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-540, Military Personnel: Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further Management Action Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-540
entitled 'Military Personnel: Progress Made in Implementing
Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further Management
Action Needed' which was released on May 24, 2006.
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.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at
(202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2006:
Military Personnel:
Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic
Violence, but Further Management Action Needed:
GAO-06-540:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-540, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Due to concerns about domestic violence in the military and its adverse
effect on mission readiness, Congress required the Department of
Defense (DOD) to establish a task force to assess the services‘
response to domestic violence and recommend improvements. The task
force issued three reports containing 194 recommendations. The Fiscal
Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act required GAO to review
DOD‘s progress in implementing the recommendations. This report
discusses (1) DOD‘s ability to report on domestic violence incidents
and disciplinary actions, (2) the resources DOD has provided to
implement the recommendations, and (3) DOD‘s specific actions to ensure
victim confidentiality and the education of commanding officers, senior
enlisted personnel, and chaplains. GAO also examined whether DOD has
established an oversight framework to monitor implementation.
What GAO Found:
DOD‘s ability to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary
actions taken by commanders is hampered because the systems that the
department uses to collect domestic violence information do not contain
complete data. DOD‘s domestic violence database does not capture data
from all law enforcement systems and, therefore, does not provide a
complete accounting of reported incidents and actions taken by
commanders. Notwithstanding the task force‘s recommendation to report
on the number of domestic violence incidents, DOD and the services have
not developed any plans to address the data limitations, which do not
allow for visibility over domestic violence incidents. Without complete
information on reported incidents of domestic violence and the steps
taken by commanders to address these incidents, DOD will not know the
size and nature of the problems or be able to assess the effectiveness
of its actions.
DOD has provided about $23 million to implement the recommendations and
has made progress in this regard. Specifically, GAO identified 94
recommendations of varying potential importance as completed, 60 as
pending further action, and 40 in which no action had been taken
because DOD either disagreed with the recommendations or determined
that they were not applicable to the department. Nonetheless, DOD faces
challenges in completing the pending recommendations in a timely manner
because of potential shortages of essential personnel in the office
overseeing implementation. In addition, DOD‘s method of communicating
its policy changes resulting from the recommendations has not ensured
consistent practices and widespread understanding of the policies among
DOD and the services.
While DOD is taking steps toward ensuring confidentiality for victims
and to train its personnel on domestic violence issues, additional
efforts are needed. To ensure victim confidentiality, DOD issued a
policy, effective April 22, 2006, allowing victims to report domestic
violence to specified people without notifying command. In addition,
DOD issued guidance requiring training and is providing several
educational options. However, data regarding which chaplains have
completed training are not available because the department and the
services do not track this training. Chaplains play a special role in
assisting domestic violence victims and, without complete training
data, DOD may be unable to determine if chaplains have been provided
the needed resources to assist victims.
DOD has not established an oversight framework to monitor compliance
with and evaluate implementation of the task force recommendations.
While the task force recommended and DOD‘s draft domestic violence
instruction requires monitoring and evaluation of domestic violence
efforts, DOD has not established a process to do so. Without an overall
management framework, DOD and Congress have limited visibility and
oversight to evaluate DOD‘s implementation efforts and make needed
improvements.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD take actions to address domestic violence data
deficiencies, provide adequate personnel and a strategy for
communicating its policy changes, maintain chaplain training data, and
establish an oversight framework. DOD agreed with the thrust of our
recommendations, with the exception of one that dealt with policy that
DOD stated involved privacy concerns.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-540].
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD's Ability to Report on Domestic Violence Incidents and Commander
Actions Is Hampered by Incomplete Data:
Resources Provided and Progress Made, but Challenges Exist to
Implementing the Remaining Task Force Recommendations:
Steps Taken to Ensure Confidentiality and Provide Domestic Violence
Training, but Additional Efforts Needed:
DOD Has Not Established an Oversight Framework to Monitor Compliance
and Evaluate Implementation of Recommendations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Resources Provided to Implement Task Force
Recommendations:
Appendix III: 194 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence
Recommendations:
Appendix IV: DOD's Directive-Type Memoranda and Policy Implementing the
Task Force Recommendations:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Installations Visited During the Review:
Table 2: Resources and Projects to Implement Task Force
Recommendations:
Table 3: Community Collaboration Recommendations:
Table 4: Education and Training Recommendations:
Table 5: Offender Accountability Recommendations:
Table 6: Victim Safety Recommendations:
Table 7: Other Recommendations:
Table 8: DOD's Memoranda Implementing Task Force Recommendations:
Figure:
Figure 1: Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Recommendations by
Themes and Implementation Status:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 24, 2006:
The Honorable John Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skeleton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) have expressed concerns
about domestic violence in the military and its adverse effect on unit
morale and mission readiness. DOD defines domestic violence as "[a]n
offense under the United States Code, the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, or State law that involves the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of force or violence against a person of the opposite
sex, or a violation of a lawful order issued for the protection of a
person of the opposite sex, who is (a) a current or former spouse; (b)
a person with whom the abuser shares a child in common; or (c) a
current or former intimate partner with whom the abuser shares or has
shared a common domicile." Further, to separate criminal from
noncriminal incidents, DOD's definition of domestic abuse encompasses
(1) domestic violence as defined above, or (2) a pattern of behavior
resulting in emotional/psychological abuse, economic control, and/or
interference with personal liberty that is directed toward a person of
the opposite sex who meets the same criteria as defined for domestic
violence.[Footnote 1] Serious adverse consequences for servicemembers
who commit acts of domestic violence can range from nonjudicial
punishments that could remove a servicemember from normal duties to
criminal sanctions that could result in imprisonment.
Following a number of reported high-profile domestic violence cases
involving soldiers who killed their spouses, Congress required DOD to
take several actions to address concerns about domestic violence in the
military. Specifically, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 required DOD to, among other things, (1) establish a
central database of information on domestic violence incidents reported
to a commander, military law enforcement, or officials responsible for
clinical treatment or support services and the action(s) taken by the
commanding officers when disciplinary measures were required, and to
report this information to the administrator of the database annually;
and (2) establish a Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence to assess
the military's response to domestic violence and make recommendations
for improvement.[Footnote 2] The task force issued three reports over
the next 3 years, which collectively contained almost 200
recommendations. To highlight its concerns, the task force stated in
its first report that domestic violence is an offense against the
institutional values of the military services of the United States that
degrades the overall readiness of our armed forces.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004[Footnote 3]
required us to review DOD's progress in implementing the task force
recommendations. In accordance with that act and agreements with your
offices, this report discusses (1) DOD's ability to report on domestic
violence incidents in the military and disciplinary actions taken by
commanders to address these incidents, (2) the extent to which DOD has
provided resources to the office overseeing the implementation of the
task force's recommendations and the extent to which the
recommendations have been implemented, and (3) the specific actions
that DOD has taken on recommendations to ensure the confidentiality for
victims of domestic violence and the education of commanding officers,
senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains. The report also discusses the
extent to which DOD has established an oversight framework to guide and
evaluate its implementation of the recommendations.
To determine DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents in
the military and command disciplinary actions, we reviewed and analyzed
information on and reports from DOD's Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System, which contains data on criminal incidents of domestic violence,
and the Family Advocacy Program Central Registry.[Footnote 4] In
addition, we reviewed DOD's three reports to Congress on reported
domestic violence incidents in the military, which were issued in
November 2001 for fiscal year 2000 data, February 2003 for fiscal year
2001 data, and July 2004 for fiscal year 2002 data. To assess the
reliability of the data in DOD's systems, we (1) reviewed existing
information about the data and the system that produced them and (2)
interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We concluded
that the data from the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System database
were not reliable enough to enable DOD to accurately report on the
number of domestic violence incidents in the military.
To determine the extent to which DOD (1) provided resources to the
office overseeing implementation, (2) implemented the task force
recommendations, and (3) established an oversight framework, we
interviewed knowledgeable DOD officials, including those in DOD's
Family Violence Policy Office and Family Advocacy Program Office, and
analyzed relevant documents and data. These documents and data included
budget information; DOD's strategic plan for implementing the task
force recommendations; DOD's Reports on Implementation of
Recommendations of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence
submitted on August 8, 2005, and February 15, 2006; training materials
for chaplains and commanding officers; and related metrics, applicable
laws, regulations, policy memoranda, and other documents DOD and the
services used to support implementation of the task force's
recommendations and evaluation of that implementation.
Additionally, we visited at least 2 military installations for each
service in the United States and 5 overseas, for a total of 15
installations. During these visits, we conducted nongeneralizable small
group discussions with and obtained supporting documentation from
various installation officials, including commanding officers,
chaplains, victim advocates, family advocacy program managers, and
staff judge advocates. We also conducted focus groups with military
police and senior enlisted personnel at these installations. We
performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards from July 2005 through March 2006. More details on
our scope and methodology are presented in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary
actions taken by commanders is hampered because the systems that the
department uses to collect domestic violence information do not contain
complete data. Specifically, in an effort to satisfy the requirement in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, DOD, in
June 2000, established the central domestic violence database in its
Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (which contains criminal
incidents). However, our analysis revealed that this database does not
contain complete data that would enable DOD to accurately report on the
number of domestic violence incidents in the military and the command
disciplinary actions that were taken. DOD officials informed us that
its domestic violence database of criminal incidents lacks complete
data because some of the services' law enforcement systems that feed
into it are not yet operational. In addition, we determined that a
number of installations were not reporting command disciplinary actions
into the law enforcement data systems as required by DOD guidance. In
its 2002 report to Congress on reported domestic violence incidents,
DOD stated that of the 2,173 Army and Air Force incidents for which
sufficient evidence existed to take disciplinary action, 1,027, or 47
percent, had no actions identified. Notwithstanding the task force
recommendation and the legislative requirement to report on the number
of incidents, DOD has not developed plans to address the data
limitations. Without complete data on reported incidents of domestic
violence and the steps taken by commanding officers to address these
incidents, Congress and DOD will lack the visibility and information
needed to understand the magnitude of the domestic violence problem,
identify domestic violence trends, and address emerging issues. To
ensure that complete data exist and can be reported annually as
required, we are recommending that DOD (1) develop a comprehensive
management plan to address deficiencies in the domestic violence data
captured in its law enforcement systems, and (2) take appropriate steps
to ensure that command actions related to domestic violence incidents
are entered in the law enforcement systems as required. DOD generally
concurred with these recommendations.
DOD has provided funding that has been used to implement many of the
task force's recommendations, but personnel shortages and ineffective
communication of related policies have hindered the department's
efforts. Since fiscal year 2003, DOD has provided the Family Violence
Policy Office approximately $23 million to implement the task force's
recommendations. Among its investments, DOD used the money to fund a
contract to provide additional victim advocate and shelter services and
training for various DOD professionals. This funding helped the
department implement many of the task force recommendations during the
past 3 years. Specifically, our analysis of the status of DOD's actions
to implement the task force's recommendations showed that 94 had been
completed, 60 had pending actions, and 40 had no actions planned
because DOD either disagreed with the recommendations or determined
they were not applicable to the department. Despite the funding to date
and reported progress, personnel shortages and ineffective
communication of its policies could hinder DOD's efforts to implement
the pending task force recommendations and to improve its response to
domestic violence. Although retaining key personnel is a good internal
control principle, as of March 2006, DOD had not fully staffed the
office overseeing implementation of the task force recommendations.
According to officials in the Family Violence Policy Office, without
adequate personnel, they will not be able to implement all of the
pending recommendations in a timely manner. In addition, DOD's method
of communicating its new domestic violence guidance has produced
inconsistent practices among DOD and the services. DOD issued 16
interim directive-type memoranda to implement changes in response to
the task force recommendations. The department communicated these
memoranda to the services via mail to the Service Secretaries offices
and e-mail or Web pages. However, some installation officials stated
that memoranda and guidance sent by e-mail and Web pages were not
reaching their level in a timely manner and had ultimately resulted in
them not knowing about and, thus, not consistently following current
policies and guidance. For example, in response to a task force
recommendation, DOD initially allowed distribution of military
protective orders to law enforcement and family advocacy personnel, but
reversed this policy due to privacy concerns. This policy change,
however, was not effectively communicated, causing many inconsistent
practices throughout the installations we visited. Without an overall
communication strategy that promotes clear and consistent policy among
DOD and the services, there may continue to be inconsistencies in
knowledge on DOD's domestic violence guidance. We are recommending that
DOD (1) develop a plan to ensure adequate personnel are available to
implement the remaining task force recommendations and (2) establish a
strategy for communicating its policies, to include clearly
articulating its policy regarding the distribution of military
protective orders. In commenting on a draft of our report, DOD
concurred with the first recommendation. However, due to privacy
concerns, DOD partially nonconcurred with an earlier version of the
second recommendation, which asked the department to reconsider the
task force's recommendation on providing copies of the military
protective orders to law enforcement and family advocacy officials.
Since DOD stated that it has considered the issue of providing the
protective orders and continues to believe there are privacy concerns,
we modified our original recommendation to emphasize the department's
need to clearly communicate its policy regarding distribution of
military protective orders.
DOD is taking steps, such as issuing policy, to address the task
force's specific recommendations to ensure confidentiality for victims
and to train its commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and
chaplains; however, the department's final policy on confidentiality
did not take effect until April 2006, and additional efforts are needed
to ensure that appropriate training is received. In its efforts to
ensure confidentiality, DOD issued its Restricted Reporting Policy for
Incidents of Domestic Abuse on January 22, 2006. This policy is to
allow victims to report incidents of domestic abuse to health care
providers, victim advocates, and other specified people so that victims
can benefit from access to medical care or victim advocacy services and
support without initiating the investigative process or notifying the
victim's or alleged offender's commanding officer. The intent of the
policy is to encourage victims to seek help that they might not
otherwise receive because they feared for the family's overall
financial welfare and that the alleged offender's military career might
be jeopardized. However, the policy did not take effect until April 22,
2006. With respect to its training efforts, DOD has issued guidance
requiring training for commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel,
and chaplains. The military services are providing educational options
for commanding officers and senior enlisted personnel such as Web-based
training and training events held at the installations. In addition,
chaplains, who have a special role in assisting domestic violence
victims, are receiving training at their basic officer's course, and
periodically through continuing professional military education.
However, complete data on which chaplains have received training are
not available. Without complete data, DOD can not be assured of the
extent to which these personnel have been trained and provided with
resources that will assist them in effectively dealing with domestic
violence issues. Some Army and Navy chaplains told us that they may
notify command about domestic violence cases identified during a
privileged communication. According to the Army regulation,[Footnote 5]
however, such communications given to chaplains as a formal act of
religion or as a matter of conscience are protected and are not to be
disclosed without permission of the person making the communication. A
breach of this confidence would be contrary to the Army regulation.
Without additional guidance and emphasis within chaplain training to
clarify this issue, DOD will be unable to ensure that all chaplains are
prepared to handle private information provided by victims or
offenders, which could deter both victims and offenders from seeking
assistance. Accordingly, we are recommending that DOD, in conjunction
with the services, (1) develop procedures and metrics to ensure that
accurate, consistent, and timely domestic violence training data are
collected for chaplains; and (2) develop additional guidance and
training materials for chaplains clarifying their privileged
communication responsibilities. DOD did not concur with the first
recommendation and partially nonconcurred with the second
recommendation, both of which were originally directed to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and family advocacy
program officials. DOD commented that these two recommendations were
more appropriately directed to the Military Departments. We agree. We
have revised our report to direct the recommendations to the services.
However, in our view, these recommendations are also appropriately
directed to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
who has oversight responsibility and stewardship for domestic violence
issues.
While some progress has been made in implementing the task force
recommendations, DOD has not established an oversight framework to
monitor compliance with the recommendations and evaluate its
implementation efforts. DOD's draft domestic violence instruction
requires the Military Community and Family Policy office to monitor
compliance with and periodically evaluate domestic violence efforts.
However, the draft instruction does not communicate how this should be
done. Although DOD officials told us that the service headquarters
monitor and evaluate the performance of the family advocacy program
offices through their accreditation process, they acknowledged that the
service accreditation reports are not sent to DOD and that the
department has limited visibility into the services' domestic violence
efforts. Further, the Family Violence Policy Office has not established
a formal process for monitoring and reporting progress of the overall
implementation of the task force recommendations. Without an overall
management framework and a process for monitoring and reporting on
implementation of the recommendations, DOD and Congress have limited
visibility and oversight to evaluate implementation efforts and make
needed improvements and thus, ensure the success of its efforts. We are
recommending that DOD develop and implement, in conjunction with the
services, a DOD-wide oversight framework that includes a results-
oriented evaluation plan for assessing the effectiveness of the
implemented recommendations, and a process for monitoring and reporting
on ongoing implementation efforts. DOD concurred with this
recommendation.
DOD's comments and our evaluation of them are discussed in detail in a
later section of this report. The full text of the department's written
comments is contained in appendix V.
Background:
Following a number of high-profile domestic violence cases involving
soldiers stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, who killed their wives,
Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000, required
the Secretary of Defense to establish the Defense Task Force on
Domestic Violence. The task force was chartered as a 3-year effort to
assist the Secretary of Defense in identifying ways to prevent domestic
violence in the military, when possible, and in responding more
effectively when domestic violence occurs. In March 2000, 24 members
were appointed to the task force. These members included 12 senior
officials from the four services and 12 senior officials from the
civilian sector who were experts in the area of domestic violence.
The act also required the task force to develop a strategic plan for
DOD that included recommendations for improving DOD's domestic violence
efforts in areas such as victim safety programs, domestic violence
training for military commanders, and domestic violence responses at
overseas military installations. The task force also assessed and made
recommendations regarding the roles and responsibilities that command,
chaplain, law enforcement, legal, and medical personnel have with
regard to addressing domestic violence incidents. From February 2001
through February 2003, the task force issued three reports containing
194 recommendations for improving DOD's response to domestic violence.
The task force identified four primary themes with regard to the
recommendations made in the three reports:
* Community collaboration--addresses coordination and collaboration
issues among all military organizations, such as family advocacy and
legal offices, in relation to domestic violence, as well as
coordination between military and civilian communities.
* Education and training--addresses training issues for commanding
officers, senior enlisted personnel, Family Advocacy Program staff, and
first responders, such as military police.
* Offender accountability--identifies measures to improve individual
offender accountability and program accountability, as well as improve
dispositions and case management.
* Victim safety--addresses issues related to victim safety programs,
confidentiality for victims, and other policies to enhance victim
safety.
In January 2003, within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, the Military Community and Family Policy
Office established the Family Violence Policy Office to coordinate
implementation of the task force's recommendations, many of which were
aimed at improving DOD's Family Advocacy Program. The Family Advocacy
Program, also under the Military Community and Family Policy Office,
provides services that contribute to the health of military families,
treats victims of domestic violence, and offers rehabilitation and
treatment for abusers. The Family Advocacy Program Director works in
conjunction with service headquarters managers to oversee the execution
of the program within each service.
DOD's Ability to Report on Domestic Violence Incidents and Commander
Actions Is Hampered by Incomplete Data:
DOD's ability to report domestic violence incidents involving
servicemembers and the disciplinary actions taken by commanders is
hampered because the data systems that the department uses to collect
domestic violence information contain incomplete data. The National
Defense Authorization Act of 2000[Footnote 6] required DOD to develop a
centralized domestic violence database of information on incidents of
domestic violence involving members of the Armed Forces. This includes
domestic violence incidents reported to a commander, a law enforcement
authority of the Armed Forces, or a family advocacy program official.
Under the act, the Secretaries of the military departments are required
to report this information annually to the administrator of the
database. DOD is also required, under Section 591, to report
information from the database, along with its responses to each of the
three task force reports.[Footnote 7] In an effort to satisfy the
legislation, DOD established the central domestic violence database
within its Defense Incident-Based Reporting System.[Footnote 8] This
database contains domestic violence incidents that are criminal in
nature including: infractions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
state law, or violation of a protection order.
Although DOD established the central domestic violence database in June
2000,[Footnote 9] it is not yet fully operational and it does not
contain complete information about reported incidents of domestic
violence. DOD officials stated that the information contained in the
database on the number of incidents is not complete because some of the
law enforcement systems used by the services that feed into the central
database are not yet operational. These are the Air Force's Office of
Special Investigation system, which is expected to be operational by
August 2006; the Army's Judge Advocate General Office system, which is
still in development; and the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Office
system, which is expected to be operational by June 2006. As a result,
the central domestic violence database does not contain any information
about domestic violence incidents that would be captured in these
systems.
The central domestic violence database captures incidents of a criminal
nature that were responded to by military law enforcement personnel;
but it does not contain information on incidents reported to Family
Advocacy personnel such as emotional abuse or domestic violence
incidents that occur off the installation. To obtain this information,
as required in the act,[Footnote 10] DOD must supplement data from the
Defense Incident-Based Reporting System with data from the Family
Advocacy Program Central Registry, which contains clinical data on
domestic violence incidents. However, the Central Registry data system
previously provided incomplete domestic violence data because until
January 2006, the Central Registry only contained reported incidents of
abuse involving current spouses. It did not contain domestic violence
data as defined by DOD's 2004 definition that involved former spouses
and intimate partners with whom the alleged offender shared a child or
a common domicile. Therefore, prior to 2006, DOD did not provide
complete information on all reported instances of domestic violence.
DOD used information from the two systems in preparing its reports to
Congress on the number of incidents of domestic violence in the
military and commanders' actions taken in responding to them during
fiscal years 2000 through 2002. However, DOD officials who have
responsibility for gathering these data acknowledged that the
statistics contained in these reports were questionable. Moreover, they
informed us that since the last report to Congress on fiscal year 2002
incidents, no attempts had been made to match up the information from
the two systems, despite a June 8, 2000, memorandum from the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness that
directed them to do so. Our analysis confirmed that neither system had
complete data to enable DOD to accurately determine the extent of
reported domestic violence incidents in the military.
Beyond these concerns, our review of information in the Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System and supporting service law enforcement
systems revealed that a number of installations were not reporting
disciplinary actions taken by the commanders as required.[Footnote 11]
For example, in the fiscal year 2002 report that DOD released to
Congress, DOD reported that of the 2,173 Army and Air Force incidents
for which sufficient evidence existed to take disciplinary action,
1,027, or 47 percent had no actions listed. DOD and service
instructions require that command disciplinary actions be entered into
the law enforcement systems. Moreover, these systems contain a data
field to record commanders' actions in responding to domestic violence
incidents. However, during our site visits, we found that some
commander disciplinary actions were not being entered into the data
field and some of the law enforcement officials we interviewed stated
that they were unaware that they were required to do so. These
officials acknowledged the importance of including this information to
provide visibility over what disciplinary actions had been taken and
that there was a field available in the system for them to do so. At
one installation, we found that hard copies of the commander
disciplinary actions were maintained in a file in the Provost
Marshall's office, but this information had not been entered into the
law enforcement database.
Officials who oversee the DOD central domestic violence database and
the Central Registry data system, as well as Family Violence Policy
Office personnel, are aware of the problems with obtaining complete
information about domestic violence incidents and commander
disciplinary actions. However, officials in the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness have not developed a
plan for correcting the deficiencies and ensuring that (1) the central
database on domestic violence in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System and service law enforcement systems have complete and accurate
data and (2) all commander disciplinary actions related to domestic
violence incidents are reported into these systems. Without complete
data on reported incidents of domestic violence and the steps taken by
commanding officers to address these incidents, Congress and DOD will
lack the visibility and information needed to understand the magnitude
of the domestic violence problem, identify domestic violence trends,
and proactively address these issues as they emerge.
Resources Provided and Progress Made, but Challenges Exist to
Implementing the Remaining Task Force Recommendations:
Over the past 3 years, DOD provided the Family Violence Policy Office
about $23 million, which it has used to make progress toward
implementing many of the task force's recommendations. Nonetheless, two
challenges--shortages in critical staff and ineffective strategies for
communicating new domestic violence policies--threaten progress and
limit assurance of consistent application of its new policies.
Resources Provided for Office Overseeing Implementation of
Recommendations:
From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, the Military Community
and Family Policy Office provided the Family Violence Policy Office
with approximately $23 million to implement the task force's
recommendations. The largest portion, about $17 million, was for
funding a contract to provide victim advocate services and shelter
services to victims of domestic violence. Program analysts from the
Military Community and Family Policy Office told us that this contract
provides on-call services from within the local community, supporting
approximately 45 full-time and 40 part-time on-call advocates each
month. The Family Violence Policy Office was also provided
approximately $3 million to train various DOD professionals in 2005.
The cost of this training included funds for a contractor to perform
conference planning, facilitation, and administrative management
support services for these events . Additionally, the Family Violence
Policy Office was provided $400,000 to develop a DOD-wide domestic
violence public awareness campaign. Appendix II provides a detailed
breakdown of the expenditures of the Family Violence Policy Office in
implementing the task force recommendations.
Progress Made in Implementing Domestic Violence Recommendations:
Our analysis of DOD's actions in implementing the task force
recommendations shows that DOD, as of March 2006, had implemented
almost two-thirds of the recommendations they planned to carry out.
While this shows progress, the recommendations vary in their relative
importance to improving DOD's efforts to address domestic violence; and
thus, the implementation of some recommendations may not have as
significant an impact on DOD's efforts as will the implementation of
others. Notwithstanding this point, of the 194 recommendations made by
the task force, we found DOD had completed actions on 94
recommendations, had actions pending on 60 recommendations, and had not
taken actions on 40 recommendations because the department either
disagreed with the recommendations, the recommendation was not
applicable to the department, or DOD felt that the recommended action
was already undertaken. We counted recommendations as completed if we
found evidence of action taken on the recommendation by DOD. Actions
taken included guidance, policy memoranda, training materials, or other
supporting documentation DOD issued to implement the task force
recommendation. Additionally, we found, for the most part,
documentation, focus group discussions, or interviews that showed the
service and installation levels were implementing or had efforts to
begin implementing DOD's guidance on the completed actions.
Figure 1 shows our analysis of DOD's implementation status of the 194
recommendations. The recommendations are grouped by the four primary
task force themes previously discussed in this report; recommendations
that did not fit directly into one of these themes were classified as
"other." The "other" category contains items such as issues related to
overseas installations and program management.[Footnote 12]
Figure 1: Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Recommendations by
Themes and Implementation Status:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As figure I shows, DOD has made the most progress in implementing
recommendations pertaining to community collaboration and victim
safety. DOD officials stated that their original focus was placed on
addressing victim safety issues, in particular, because it was critical
to ensure victims are protected from further abuse. A listing of all
194 recommendations and our analysis of DOD's status in completing them
are included in appendix III.
The Family Violence Policy Office believed that they had completed more
recommendations than we identified in our analysis. Specifically, DOD
officials provided a department-level status matrix that indicated that
they had completed 121 of the 194 task force recommendations. Our
numbers differ because DOD identified 27 of the recommendations as
complete when we found DOD actually had stated that it did not agree
with 26 of the recommendations or took no action because the
recommendation was already being done or did not apply to them, and one
recommendation was still pending. For example, the task force
recommended that DOD centrally track military protective orders. DOD
essentially disagreed with the recommendation, stating that it had
determined that it would not be feasible to centrally record and track
military protective orders because there were too few such orders to
justify creating another database. Nevertheless, DOD categorized this
recommendation as complete, while we categorized this recommendation as
one with which they disagreed. We have grouped the 26 recommendations
and the one pending action with those that were identified as requiring
no action and pending, respectively in appendix III, which shows our
analysis of DOD's status for the recommendations.
Limited Personnel in Office Overseeing Implementation:
Despite its investment to date and reported progress, potential
personnel shortages in the DOD office implementing the recommendations
could hinder the department's timely implementation of the remaining
recommendations. The personnel in this office have an essential role in
implementing the domestic violence recommendations, with responsibility
for, among other things, (1) drafting, revising, and coordinating DOD
policy in response to domestic violence recommendations; (2) drafting
training curricula and monitoring implementation of those curricula for
family advocacy program staff, health care officials, and law
enforcement, among others; and (3) drafting and coordinating public
affairs strategies to inform the military community about the revised
DOD response to domestic violence in the military.
Officials in the Military Community and Family Policy Office and those
in the Family Violence Policy Office told us that, originally in 2003,
five positions had been provided for the team implementing the task
force recommendations. This included one permanent position for the
office supervisor; one term position for a program analyst; and three
positions for senior-level officers on detail assignments from the
services--one each from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Position
descriptions for military personnel stress that these individuals were
to serve as military experts in implementing domestic violence
programs. However, officials in the Family Violence Policy Office told
us the Navy officer retired in 2004, and the Air Force officer was
detailed to another OSD position in 2005. The Navy did not "backfill"
or replace its position, stating that the position was needed within
their service, and officials in the Family Violence Policy Office
stated that OSD had placed the Air Force position within another area
of DOD because OSD had a greater need for that position there. Thus,
since 2005, the Family Violence Policy Office has been reduced to three
positions.
During our review, officials in the Family Violence Policy Office
stated that the officer detailed from the Army is expected to retire in
May 2006 and the term position is expected to expire in July 2006. The
office had requested and obtained approval from the OSD Military
Community and Family Policy Office to fill the Army position and renew
the term position, stating that these positions were needed to complete
implementation of the remaining recommendations in a timely manner. The
officials further noted that the remaining recommendations they will be
implementing are more challenging than those already implemented and
will require personnel experienced in domestic violence issues. For
example, they explained that implementation of the recommendations
aimed at revamping the Case Review Committee and the Offender
Intervention require more research and analysis with experts within and
outside of DOD. Without adequate personnel, the officials estimate that
it may take more than 3 years to implement the remaining 60 task force
recommendations. However, as of March 2006, officials in the Family
Violence Policy Office told us that approval to fill the soon-to-be-
vacant positions had not been obtained from the final approval
authority at Washington Headquarters Services. Retaining key personnel
who can affect the ability of a program to function effectively is a
good internal control principle.[Footnote 13]
Implementation Policies Not Effectively Communicated:
DOD also faces a challenge in effectively communicating the policies
that it has developed in response to the task force's recommendations.
DOD's method of communicating its policy changes has not been effective
in ensuring consistent practices or promoting widespread understanding
of the new policies among DOD and the services.
As of March 2006, DOD had issued 16 directive-type memoranda as interim
guidance to quickly communicate information about changes resulting
from implementation of the task force recommendations. (See app. IV for
a list of these memoranda). Almost all of the directive-type memoranda
set target dates for DOD to issue later guidance implementing the
interim policies. In most cases, final guidance such as a directive was
expected to be issued within 180 days after each memorandum was signed;
however, as of March 2006, the final guidance had not been issued and
most of the interim guidance is now more than 2 years old. Since the
memoranda are interim guidance, they have been communicated to the
services and throughout DOD through mail to the Service Secretaries and
informally via e-mails and special Web pages[Footnote 14] rather than
being formally posted on the official DOD directives Web site.[Footnote
15] Under internal control guidance, organizations should consistently
apply policies, and sound management practices of leading organizations
offer federal agencies a methodology for establishing effective
communications to promote consistency.[Footnote 16] However, some DOD
and service officials we met with stated that existing DOD guidance was
not always consistent with the directive-type memoranda implementing
the task force recommendations and that this inconsistency has
sometimes caused confusion at the installation level. In addition, we
found that information in the directive-type memoranda was not always
communicated to the installations in a timely manner and had resulted
in some of the officials not knowing about and, thus not following
current policies consistently.
We identified several inconsistencies in implementing the
recommendations as a result of DOD's policy changes not being
communicated effectively, including the following:
* DOD's Family Advocacy Program Directive 6400.1 has not been updated
to reflect DOD's interim guidance that implements the task force
recommendations, even though a number of the task force recommendations
had called for these changes to be made in this directive. Family
Advocacy officials told us they will not update their directive until
the Family Violence Policy Office issues a new instruction,
incorporating all of the interim guidance issued in the directive-type
memoranda. As a result, some DOD and service officials stated that
inconsistent guidance from these two offices has been a source of
confusion. A prime example is that while DOD's new definition of
domestic violence was issued in 2004, staff at some of the
installations we visited said that they did not become aware of the
definition until late 2005 or January 2006. Consequently, some victims
of domestic violence who were covered under the new definition, since
2004, may not have been considered for services.
* The task force also recommended that DOD establish a policy that
written copies of military protective orders be forwarded immediately
to both law enforcement and family advocacy officials. While DOD
initially issued a policy in March 2004 allowing distribution to law
enforcement, it reversed this policy in July 2004 due to concerns with
the military protective order's use and dissemination. DOD's August 8,
2005, status report on recommendations further stated that the Privacy
Act[Footnote 17] does not allow distribution of the military protective
orders to family advocacy and law enforcement. This policy change,
however, was not effectively communicated, causing many inconsistent
practices throughout the installations we visited. For example,
contrary to the July 2004 guidance, DOD's September 2005 domestic
violence training materials provided to commanders, judge advocates,
and law enforcement personnel contained information on leadership
responsibilities, which stated that a copy of each order is to be
forwarded to law enforcement and family advocacy. Further, policy
information on DOD's Web sites that allowed the orders to be
distributed to law enforcement was not changed until we notified DOD
officials of the inconsistency. Additionally, we found inconsistent
practices between the services. For example, the Army's
regulations[Footnote 18] allowed distribution of the protective orders
to family advocacy and law enforcement officials. On the other hand,
the Navy did not provide copies to family advocacy. However, a Navy
instruction,[Footnote 19] which predated the DOD July 2004 guidance,
allowed distribution to law enforcement. Navy officials stated that
their guidance will be revised to reflect DOD requirements not to
provide copies to law enforcement, upon release of DOD's Domestic
Violence instruction. Finally, our discussions with OSD and service
lawyers revealed that they believe providing copies of protective
orders to family advocacy and law enforcement officials would not be a
violation of the Privacy Act.
* The task force recommended that "DOD mandate the military services to
provide awareness education to military spouses regarding the
transitional compensation program."[Footnote 20] DOD said that no
action was required on this recommendation "[s]ince Congress
established the transitional compensation program; the services have
routinely educated dependent family members about it." However, during
our installation visits we found inconsistent communication of this
information. Discussion groups with victim advocates and interviews
with family advocacy officials revealed that a few installations
elected not to inform military members or spouses about transitional
compensation until a specific victim had a documented, validated
domestic violence case in which they would be eligible to receive
benefits. The victim advocates stated that this was done to prevent
potential abuse of the program. Some of the other installations were
quite liberal about providing information on the program. They said
they felt providing the information may encourage more people to come
forward if they knew help was available.
* The task force also recommended that DOD develop guidance for
commanding officers on how to properly document domestic violence
issues in separation papers to help facilitate transitional
compensation. The directive-type memorandum issued by DOD to implement
this recommendation states that commanding officers should be trained
on transitional compensation, but it does not specifically require
training them on how to "properly document separation papers." Some
victim advocates at installations we visited said that commanding
officers do not always use proper documentation to ensure that victims
will receive transitional compensation and that some victims have been
denied these funds because of lack of documentation. DOD officials in
the Family Violence Policy Office told us that guidance on waiver
requirements, as recommended by the task force, is included in a draft
instruction from the Military Personnel Policy Directorate on
transitional compensation. We found inconsistencies in victim
advocates' knowledge of the waiver associated with transitional
compensation requirements because this information had not been
effectively communicated to the advocates.
DOD officials in the Family Violence Policy Office, Family Advocacy
Program Office, as well as officials in the four services acknowledged
that communication could be a problem and may result in
inconsistencies. They also noted that formal instructions take years to
draft and coordinate and that mailing the interim guidance to service
secretaries, e-mailing it to key points of contacts, and placing the
guidance on the Web pages were the best avenues to follow. However, in
our view, without an overall communication strategy that provides a
clear and consistent understanding of policy among DOD and the
services, there may continue to be confusion and inconsistencies among
DOD and the services on implementing the task force's recommendations.
Steps Taken to Ensure Confidentiality and Provide Domestic Violence
Training, but Additional Efforts Needed:
DOD is taking steps to address specific task force recommendations to
ensure confidentiality for victims of domestic violence and to train
commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains on how to
respond to such incidents. In its efforts to ensure confidentiality,
DOD has developed a restricted reporting policy that allows victims to
report incidents of domestic abuse, which includes domestic violence,
to health care and victim advocacy specialists without mandatory
disclosure to command or law enforcement officials. However, the policy
was not implemented until April 2006. Further, in its efforts to
provide additional domestic violence training, DOD issued guidance
requiring training for commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel,
and chaplains, but tracking and documenting these training efforts have
not always occurred.
New Restricted Reporting Policy Not Yet in Force:
The task force had a number of recommendations asking DOD to explore
options for creating a system of confidential services, privileged
communications, and exemptions to mandatory reporting. The goal of
these recommendations was to provide victims of domestic violence with
access to a credible avenue for receiving support, information,
options, and resources to address the violence in their lives. In
response to the task force's recommendations, on January 22, 2006, DOD
issued its Restricted Reporting Policy for Incidents of Domestic Abuse
to ensure that domestic violence victims are protected, treated with
dignity and respect, and provided with support, advocacy, and care.
Under the new policy, victims can choose either unrestricted reporting
or restricted reporting. Unrestricted reporting uses current reporting
channels--e.g., chain of command, Family Advocacy Program, or law
enforcement--and is for victims of domestic abuse who want to pursue an
official investigation of an incident. Restricted reporting allows
adult victims of domestic abuse to disclose the abuse to health care
providers, victim advocates, or supervisors of victim advocates, and
receive medical treatment and victim advocacy services without
notifying the alleged offender's commanding officer or law enforcement.
The new policy allows victims to receive relevant information, medical
attention, and support while having additional time to make a more
informed decision about reporting the incident. The task force found
that victims were often reluctant to seek services because they had
fears about the potential adverse impact the reported incident may have
on the servicemember's career and the family's financial well-being, as
well as concerns about their personal safety.
However, the restricted reporting policy did not take effect until
April 22, 2006, in order for the services to have time to develop
consistent policies and an implementation strategy. Consequently, at
the time of our review, it was too soon to assess what effects this
policy will have on reported cases of domestic violence. The new
policy, nonetheless, was a topic of great concern during our
discussions at the 15 installations included in our study. Installation
commanders, commanding officers, legal officers, provost marshals or
heads of security forces, chaplains, family advocacy program managers,
victim advocates, and health care providers all shared their views
about the advantages and disadvantages of the restricted reporting
policy. Their views varied considerably and ranged from unequivocal
support for the policy, to uncertainty because of licensing and ethical
concerns, to outright objection.
Those who expressed support for the policy said they did so because
they felt the policy promoted victim confidentiality, safety, and
support. Some unit commanders, for example, stated that the policy
would allow the victims to receive medical care and time to decide if
they wanted to press charges. In addition, chaplains at some
installations voiced approval for the policy because it opened another
avenue for victims to receive assistance without getting others
involved.
Conversely, officials who objected to the restricted reporting policy
said they did so because they believed the policy would not encourage
victims to "officially" report the incident, and thus would send the
wrong message to aggressors, as well as diminish the commanding
officers' ability to hold offenders accountable. Specifically, legal
officers serving as prosecutors and commanding officers at several
installations told us that they objected to the policy because, while
permitting victims to receive some types of assistance was positive, it
allowed aggressors to remain free from disciplinary actions and to be
able to continue the pattern of domestic violence. The legal officers
also expressed concern about the evidence that would not be captured at
the crime scene when domestic violence occurs because the incident was
not reported immediately.
One area of concern raised during our installation visits dealt with
specific licensing issues and ethical dilemmas. For example, health
care providers expressed concerns that the new restricted reporting
policy may conflict with state licensing requirements mandating them to
report incidents of domestic violence to civilian authorities. They
also expressed reservations about the policy in cases where they had to
provide medical aid to a severely injured individual who appeared to be
untruthful about the source of the injury. While this policy is similar
to DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program policy, many
officials in our discussion groups said that similar reporting may not
be appropriate. According to these individuals, the perpetrator of
sexual assault does not usually reside with the victim; therefore
unreported incidents are less likely to place a victim in a situation
for further abuse, unlike domestic violence where a victim would return
home to the alleged abuser. Some of the health care providers expressed
concerns that they might be placed in a position in which they had to
send a battered victim back into a dangerous situation.
During the time of our installation visits--i.e., from October 2005
through February 2006--the restricted reporting policy was issued and
addresses some of the concerns and issues from our discussion groups.
For example, the policy states that confidentiality will be suspended
for specific reasons, such as to prevent or lessen a serious and
imminent threat to the health or safety of the victim or another person
or when required by state statute. While some of the issues are
addressed in the policy, the level of support this policy will provide
victims of domestic violence, the potential impact restricted reporting
will have on law enforcement investigations, as well as the impact the
policy will have on a commander's ability to hold perpetrators
accountable, will be determined during implementation.
Additional Efforts Are Needed to Ensure Training Is Received:
Beyond confidentiality, the task force made over 10 recommendations
that focused on training for commanding officers, senior enlisted
personnel, and chaplains to respond to domestic violence issues. To
respond to the task force recommendations to train commanding officers
and senior enlisted personnel, DOD issued guidance directing the
services to require these officials to receive such training.
Specifically, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness issued a directive-type memorandum titled
"Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for Commanding
Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel" in February 2004. This
memorandum required training on specified topics, such as dynamics of
domestic violence, common misconceptions of victim safety, and
responses to alleged domestic abuse. The military services are
addressing this requirement by providing several educational options,
including Web-based training, training at the professional military
education schools, and training at installations led by instructors.
In addressing the task force recommendation to train chaplains, the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
issued a directive-type memorandum titled "Domestic Abuse Training for
Chaplains" on January 29, 2004, which required training for chaplains
on specified topics. One of the primary topics that chaplains received
training on was privileged communication,[Footnote 21] because of the
special role chaplains play in providing assistance to victims of
domestic violence. Chaplains we spoke with said they received this
training at their basic officer's course, periodically through
continuing professional military education, and at installations.
While training on domestic violence issues is being provided to
commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains, DOD does
not have complete data on which chaplains have received training
because the Military Community and Family Policy Office did not require
tracking or documenting training provided to chaplains. Although
internal control guidance states that management should document and
track agency initiatives to ascertain if they are achieved and provide
follow-up actions, the Family Violence Policy Office and Family
Advocacy Office did not develop training metrics. Without accurate
training data and documentation, DOD lacks visibility over whether
chaplains have been adequately trained and are being provided with
resources that will assist them in handling domestic violence issues.
Furthermore, during our discussion groups with chaplains, which
included a mix of experienced and junior officers, we found that some
chaplains did not fully understand their responsibilities concerning
privileged communication. For example, the Army regulation states that
such privileged communication is not to be disclosed to third persons
other than those to whom disclosure furthers the purpose of the
communication, or to those reasonably necessary for the transmission of
the communication. The regulation also states that the chaplain and
chaplain assistant will not divulge privileged communication without
the written consent of the person(s) authorized to claim the privilege.
Some Army and Navy chaplains we interviewed stated that they may notify
the chain of command about a privileged communication. For example, one
chaplain mentioned that there was no Army requirement that chaplains
report information discussed during a privileged communication and
others stated that the current Army regulation for chaplains speaks to
this. The chaplain further stated that some Army chaplains had decided
for themselves what they would and would not report and would explain
this to people that they counseled. A Navy chaplain also stated that
under certain conditions he would notify the commanding officer if an
individual admitted being involved in domestic violence, even if the
person made the statement as a matter of religious conscience. Other
chaplains in our discussion groups told us that a breach of privileged
communication could ruin the reputation of chaplains and lead to no one
seeking their help.
The task force, in its 2002 report, also had similar findings and
recommended that DOD issue guidance clarifying clergy confidentiality.
An official at the Chaplain Board told us that, since it takes so long
to issue DOD-wide guidance, DOD is not likely to issue additional
guidance addressing confidentiality and privileged communication
because the services have issued guidance, which is consistent with the
Military Rules of Evidence.[Footnote 22] However, when we discussed
privileged communication with chaplains, many referred to service
guidance, as well as the Military Rules of Evidence; but some were
unclear as to what their responsibilities were. Additional guidance and
emphasis during chaplain training could facilitate a consistent
understanding by chaplains of their responsibilities regarding
confidentiality. Without taking action, DOD may be unable to ensure
that all chaplains are prepared to handle private information provided
by victims or offenders, which could deter both from seeking
assistance.
DOD Has Not Established an Oversight Framework to Monitor Compliance
and Evaluate Implementation of Recommendations:
DOD has not established an oversight framework to monitor compliance
with and evaluate implementation of the task force recommendations on
domestic violence. The task force's initial 2001 report recommended
that DOD strategically use regional oversight and monitoring visits at
both the DOD and service levels to improve the department's oversight
of its efforts to address domestic violence. DOD's draft domestic abuse
instruction requires the Military Community and Family Policy Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to monitor
compliance with the instruction and periodically evaluate domestic
violence efforts. The draft instruction, however, does not communicate
how this should be done and the Military Community and Family Policy
Office has not established a formal process for doing this.
Officials in the Family Violence Policy Office stated that action on
the task force recommendation for oversight is pending and told us they
were exploring options for addressing it, such as having the DOD
Inspector General perform reviews every 2 or 3 years. These officials
and those from the Family Advocacy Program told us that the services'
headquarters monitor and evaluate their own installation family
advocacy program offices through their accreditation
processes.[Footnote 23] However, they acknowledged that the service
accreditation reports are not sent to DOD and that the department has
limited visibility into service domestic violence efforts. The Military
Community and Family Policy Office is considering asking officials from
the Family Advocacy Program Office and the Family Violence Policy
Office to go on some of the services' accreditation visits to provide
oversight of the implementation efforts. The task force mentioned,
however, that to be effective, program evaluation must be ongoing and
fully integrated.
Although the DOD Family Advocacy Office has established output metrics
that somewhat relate to certain recommendations, DOD has not
established results-oriented performance measures that could enable it
to evaluate compliance with the recommendations. One example of an
established DOD metric is the number of briefings to new unit
commanders and senior enlisted personnel on domestic abuse and child
abuse. A DOD Family Advocacy Program official stated that this metric
is intended to be an output measure related to the Government
Performance and Results Act[Footnote 24] and is only indirectly related
to a recommendation in the task force reports. This metric is not a
results-oriented performance measure that would capture the results or
evaluate the effectiveness of the briefings in increasing these
officers' awareness of domestic violence issues. Without an overall
management framework for monitoring and reporting on implementation,
DOD and Congress will continue to have limited visibility and oversight
to evaluate the changes associated with the recommendations and to make
improvements. As a result, DOD may be unable to ensure that all of the
accepted task force recommendations are implemented to produce the
desired improvements in assisting domestic violence victims and holding
offenders accountable.
Conclusions:
Understanding the size and nature of domestic violence is essential to
DOD's ability to improve its response to this important issue. Yet the
department currently lacks the information needed to determine reported
domestic violence incidents. To date, DOD does not have a database
containing complete information on reported incidents and what actions
are being taken to discipline those who commit these violent acts. In
addition, the lack of sufficient personnel threatens the timely
implementation of the pending task force recommendations. Further, the
absence of clear and effective communication of the policy changes made
in response to the task force recommendations has hindered
servicemembers' awareness of their responsibilities in providing
assistance to victims and holding offenders accountable. The failure to
track the training of the chaplains who respond to domestic violence
incidents impairs DOD's visibility over whether chaplains are being
provided with the tools to effectively deal with domestic violence and
understand their obligations concerning privileged communications.
Finally, the absence of an oversight framework limits DOD's ability to
assess its efforts to achieve the desired results in improving the
prevention of and response to domestic violence. Without further
management action to address all of these deficiencies, DOD may be
unable to effectively identify and respond to concerns about domestic
violence among servicemembers.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance implementation of the task force recommendations and improve
the effectiveness of domestic violence efforts, we recommend that the
Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to take the following seven actions:
* Develop, in conjunction with the service secretaries, a comprehensive
management plan to address deficiencies in the data captured in DOD's
domestic violence database that focuses on ensuring that accurate and
complete data exist and that all instances in the Defense Incident-
Based Reporting System and Family Advocacy Program Central Registry are
matched and reported annually, as required in DOD's Manual 7730.47-M;
* take appropriate steps, in conjunction with the service secretaries,
to ensure all commander actions related to domestic violence incidents
are entered in law enforcement systems;
* develop a plan to ensure adequate personnel are available to
implement pending task force recommendations;
* establish a communication strategy for effectively informing DOD and
service officials about new guidance implementing the task force
recommendations, to include:
* issuing a revised DOD family advocacy program directive that is
consistent with interim guidance for implementing the task force
recommendations; and:
* clearly articulating its policy regarding the distribution of
military protective orders using a method that will ensure consistent
application by all services and DOD;
* develop, in conjunction with the service secretaries, procedures and
metrics to ensure that accurate, consistent, and timely domestic
violence training data are collected for chaplains;
* develop, in conjunction with the service secretaries, chaplain
guidance and training materials that highlight and clarify chaplain
responsibilities concerning privileged communication; and:
* develop and implement, in conjunction with the services, a DOD-wide
oversight framework that includes a results-oriented evaluation plan
for the implemented recommendations, and a process for ongoing
monitoring of and reporting on implementation.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of our report (reprinted in app. V), DOD
expressed concern that GAO had attempted to define, differentiate, and
prioritize what it considered important task force recommendations and
had focused on perceived deficiencies rather than progress. The
department further noted that GAO's review had assumed that DOD should
implement all recommendations of the task force exactly as written and
stated that after each report the department clearly indicated the
recommendations it agreed with, did not agree with, and would study.
DOD also stated that it never suggested that it could not or would not
modify any of the task force recommendations. DOD noted that GAO had
sought to penalize the department for deviating from the narrowest
reading of individual recommendations. We disagree. To the contrary,
our report is very clear on the progress the department has made in
implementing the recommendations. Moreover, the scope and methodology
for our study (explained in app. I) clearly details the approach that
we used to assess this progress. Further, in mentioning that the
recommendations vary in their relative importance to improving DOD's
efforts to address domestic violence issues, we simply noted that the
implementation of some recommendations may not have as significant an
impact on DOD's efforts as will the implementation of others.
Additionally, we did not assume that DOD could not modify task force
recommendations. As the report states, when counting recommendations as
being completed by DOD, we included instances where actions taken to
implement the recommendations were different from language that the
task force suggested. Specifically, we stated that completed actions
were grouped into two categories: (1) actions that DOD took that
directly implemented the task force recommendations and (2) completed
actions taken that DOD believed met the intent of the recommendation.
We also made it clear in our report that there were 40 recommendations
that DOD did not take action on because they did not agree with the
recommendation, the recommendation was not applicable to DOD, or the
recommended action was already being done. In addition, we noted in the
report that there were 60 recommendations where DOD had actions
pending.
Regarding our recommendations, DOD concurred that the department would
take steps to ensure commander actions related to domestic violence are
entered into law enforcement databases, develop a plan to ensure
adequate personnel are available to implement pending task force
recommendations, and establish an oversight framework to monitor
progress and implementation of the task force recommendations. DOD
stated that it had issued policy requiring documentation of commander
actions, conducted training to communicate this policy, and would
continue to aggressively communicate this policy to the services. DOD
also indicated that it was committed to providing resources to
implement the task force recommendations and had requested extensions
for current personnel to do so. We believe this approach could satisfy
the intent of our recommendation if DOD has a defined plan to provide
personnel in the event the requested personnel extensions are not
granted. DOD said it is developing an initial oversight process to
monitor progress and implementation and it anticipates completion will
be in fiscal year 2007 or 2008. As DOD develops this oversight process,
we reiterate the need for it to include results-oriented performance
measures that can enable it to evaluate compliance with the
recommendations.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation calling for the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop a
comprehensive management plan to address data deficiencies in DOD's
domestic violence database. DOD stated that this recommendation is more
appropriately directed to the Military Departments, noting that it
requires the services to submit data, but that the systems used by the
services are insufficient and unfunded. We agree. While we believe the
recommendation is appropriately directed to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who has oversight and stewardship
for the department's centralized domestic violence database, we have
expanded our recommendation to include the services.
DOD partially nonconcurred with our recommendation to establish a
communication strategy for informing DOD and service officials about
new guidance, to include issuing a revised family advocacy program
directive and reconsidering the task force recommendation on providing
military protective orders to law enforcement and family advocacy
officials and communicating associated policies to the services.
Specifically, DOD agreed with the need to issue a revised Family
Advocacy Program Directive. However, the department disagreed with the
need to reconsider the task force's recommendation to provide military
protective orders. DOD stated that it has considered the issue of
providing the protective orders to law enforcement and family advocacy
officials and continued to believe there are privacy concerns. Given
its position, we are no longer recommending that the department
reconsider the task force's recommendation in that regard. However,
because of inconsistent practices found among the services regarding
whether distribution of these orders was allowed to law enforcement and
family advocacy personnel, we continue to believe that the department
needs to clarify and more effectively communicate its policy on this
issue and, therefore, we are revising our recommendation to emphasize
this point.
DOD partially nonconcurred with our recommendation to develop, in
concert with the Family Advocacy Director and four service family
advocacy program managers, guidance and training materials clarifying
chaplain responsibilities regarding privileged communications. DOD
stated that the family advocacy program managers were not the
proponents of chaplains' privileged communications. We agree and have
modified our recommendation to include the services, as well as the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. DOD also stated
that each military department has policy addressing clergy
confidentiality and DOD does not contemplate developing such a policy.
DOD further stated that it has issued policy requiring this training
and noted that DOD and the services will continue to address this issue
at relevant training events. Because we, like the task force, found
some chaplains did not fully understand their responsibilities
concerning privileged communications, we continue to believe that DOD
needs to issue a departmentwide policy on privileged communications,
and that DOD and the services need to develop training materials that
highlight and clarify chaplain responsibilities for these
communications.
DOD nonconcurred with our recommendation to develop, in concert with
the Family Advocacy Director, four service family advocacy program
managers, and the chaplaincy board, procedures and metrics to ensure
that accurate, consistent, and timely domestic violence training data
are collected for chaplains. DOD stated that the family advocacy
program managers were not the proponents of chaplain training and that
this recommendation is more appropriately directed to the Military
Departments. We agree. While we believe the recommendation is
appropriately directed to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness, who has oversight over domestic abuse matters, we have
modified our recommendation to include the services. In addition, DOD
further stated that it is inappropriate for the department to engage in
routine operator-level activity such as tracking training statistics.
However, it is important to note that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness has established metrics for tracking
domestic abuse training for commanding officers and senior enlisted
personnel and, in light of this fact, we continue to believe that the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should also
maintain procedures and metrics on domestic abuse training for
chaplains, who play a critical role in assisting domestic violence
victims.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense and
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at 202-512-6304. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VI.
Signed by:
Valerie C. Melvin:
Acting Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In conducting our review of the Department of Defense's (DOD) progress
in implementing recommendations from the Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence, we contacted officials at the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness' Family Violence Policy Office
and Family Advocacy Program, Defense Manpower Data Center; Army's
Military Community and Family Support Center; Commander of Naval
Installations; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Force Management and Personnel; and Marine Corps Family Advocacy
Program Office. We made 15 site visits to installations in the United
States, Germany, Japan, and South Korea to collect documentation to
assess the status of DOD's efforts to implement the Defense Task Force
on Domestic Violence's recommendations. We selected locations based on
the number of incidents of spouse abuse reported to the Family Advocacy
Program office from 2000 through 2004,[Footnote 25] suggestions from
DOD and service officials, and location--i.e., at least two
installations per service domestically and at least one per service
overseas. At each of these locations, we interviewed key personnel in
positions such as installation commanders, provost marshals,
commanders, legal officers, victim advocates, family advocacy managers,
health care officials, chaplains, military police, and senior enlisted
personnel because they were identified by the task force as having
specific responsibilities pertaining to victim safety or offender
accountability. Table 1 lists all of the installations we visited.
Table 1: Installations Visited During the Review:
Service: Army;
Installation: Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Installation: Service: Fort Hood, Texas.
Installation: Service: Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
Installation: Service: Yongsan Garrison, South Korea.
Service: Navy;
Installation: Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia.
Installation: Service: Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida.
Installation: Service: Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Installation: Service: Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan.
Service: Marine Corps;
Installation: Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, California.
Installation: Service: Marine Corps Base, Hawaii.
Installation: Service: Camp S. D. Butler, Japan.
Service: Air Force;
Installation: Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
Installation: Service: Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.
Installation: Service: Ramstein Air Base, Germany.
Installation: Service: Kadena Air Base, Japan.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To determine DOD's ability to report on domestic violence in the
military and the disciplinary actions taken by commanders to address
these incidents, we reviewed and analyzed laws, directives, and other
DOD and service policies and guidance for reporting domestic violence
incidents including DOD's Manual for Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System 7730.47-M and DOD's Manual for Child Maltreatment and Domestic
Abuse Incident Reporting System 6400.1-M-1. We also reviewed and
analyzed DOD domestic violence data obtained from the Defense Incident-
Based Reporting System, Family Advocacy Program Central Registry, and
reports to Congress on DOD domestic violence. To assess the reliability
of the criminal and clinical data systems, we (1) reviewed existing
information about the data and systems that produced them and (2)
interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We also
reviewed information on the collection methods used to gather, record,
and report the data mentioned above and verified the reliability of the
data in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System and Family Advocacy
Program Central Registry. We concluded that the data from both data
systems were not complete enough to provide an accurate number of
domestic violence incidents or commander actions.
To determine the extent to which DOD has implemented the
recommendations of the task force as well as the amount of resources
provided to the office responsible for implementing the
recommendations, we reviewed Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence
reports and spoke with members of the defense task force that made the
recommendations to DOD. In addition, we prepared a matrix summarizing
the recommendations; obtained DOD's status in implementing the
recommendations,[Footnote 26] along with supporting documentation and
evidence to corroborate implementation; and we interviewed or conducted
focus groups with officials at the selected installations mentioned
above to understand the guidance and training received by the officials
and assess how they are implementing the recommendations. We also
obtained from the installations supporting documentation for many of
the implemented recommendations, including copies of memoranda of
agreements with civilian law enforcement agencies, training materials,
and guidance on military and civilian protection orders. Furthermore,
we interviewed officials at the DOD Family Violence Policy Office, the
office responsible for implementing the recommendations, and examined
budget information to ascertain the funding and resources provided to
this office.
To facilitate the data-gathering process for all four
questions,[Footnote 27] we developed and pretested our questions and
data collection instruments at Fort Mead and Andrews Air Force Base,
both located in Maryland. We identified the content of the instruments
through a review of the task force report recommendations, service
guidance, and other policy manuals. We ultimately used three types of
data collection instruments at the 15 installations visited.
Specifically:
* Focus group protocols were used to solicit information from two
homogeneous groups: military police and senior enlisted personnel. The
focus group protocol was used to increase the likelihood that the
questions were asked and procedures were conducted in a standardized
manner, regardless of which GAO analyst conducted the focus groups
during the 15 site visits. For each focus group we required a minimum
of 6-10 participants. Participants were assured of anonymity and
therefore encouraged to openly share their opinions.
* Advanced questions were sent to six types of officials at the
installations we visited: unit commanders, legal officials, Family
Advocacy Program managers, victim advocates, chaplains, and health care
officials. The questionnaires were sent ahead of our visit and these
groups were asked to fill out the questionnaires and return them to us
before the interview. The purpose of the questionnaires was to obtain
specific information such as training and budget information.
* Separate discussion group interview protocols were created for eight
types of officials: installation commanders, provost marshals, unit
commanders, legal officials, Family Advocacy Program managers, victim
advocates, chaplains, and health care officials. When possible, we also
interviewed civilian law enforcement officials around the military
installation. While some of the questions were the same or very similar
for some issues, the content of the discussion group interview
protocols was tailored to the type of official interviewed.
To determine the efforts DOD has taken to ensure the confidentiality of
victims and the education and accountability of commanding officers and
chaplains, we used the methodology for the second question as well as
reviewed and analyzed DOD's recently issued confidentiality policy,
which provides limited confidentiality for victims. We also conducted
discussion groups with commanding officers and chaplains at the
installations visited to ascertain the training these officials have
received and to address the accountability of these individuals. We
reviewed and analyzed domestic violence training materials obtained
from installation officials and officials at the service training
schools to determine (1) the efforts DOD takes to educate commanding
officers and chaplains, (2) whether such training is standardized, and
(3) whether the training covers topics recommended by the task force on
domestic violence. Additionally, we reviewed accreditation reports for
installation Family Advocacy Program programs, where available, and
other materials documenting the effectiveness of training programs,
such as reports to DOD on training metrics.
To determine the extent to which DOD has developed an overall framework
to guide and evaluate implementation, we interviewed officials in the
DOD Family Violence Policy Office, which is the office responsible for
implementing the defense task force recommendations. We also reviewed
and analyzed DOD regulations and guidance and reports submitted to the
OSD Family Advocacy Program office to ascertain if DOD has an overall
framework to guide and evaluate implementation of the recommendations.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993[Footnote 28] and
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government[Footnote 29]
provided model criteria for determining the adequacy of the oversight
framework.
We conducted our review from July 2005 through March 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Resources Provided to Implement Task Force
Recommendations:
The Military Community and Family Policy Office has managed and
provided the Family Violence Policy Office with approximately $23
million to implement task force recommendations since mid-2003. Table
II shows funding and projects for fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
Table 2: Resources and Projects to Implement Task Force
Recommendations[A]:
Projects: Marine Corps Web-enabled reporting system;
Purpose: Provide secure Web for the Marine Corps child and spouse abuse
reporting system;
FY 03: $175,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: $175,000.
Projects: Air Force Central Registry for Child/Spouse Abuse;
Purpose: Fund a comprehensive development plan for establishing an
abuse central registry;
FY 03: 250,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 250,000.
Projects: Marine Corps case management system software;
Purpose: Provide Marines with case management software for managing
child/spouse abuse reports;
FY 03: 76,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 76,000.
Projects: Family violence prevention fund;
Purpose: Fund a DOD-wide domestic violence public awareness campaign;
FY 03: 400,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 400,000.
Projects: Family advocacy conference;
Purpose: Fund the evaluation of a 3-day joint service family advocacy
training conference for about 600- 650 participants;
FY 03: 350,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 350,000.
Projects: Family advocacy demonstration project;
Purpose: Fund initiatives with potential for worldwide application to
improve DOD's response to domestic violence;
FY 03: 200,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 200,000.
Projects: Domestic violence/child abuse internet support;
Purpose: Fund marketing to reach military members and their families on
the topic of domestic violence;
FY 03: 600,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 600,000.
Projects: Family advocacy training for commanders interactive training;
Purpose: Fund a Web-based interactive domestic violence training for
commanding officers and senior enlisted personnel;
FY 03: 535,094;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 535,094.
Projects: Texas council on family violence;
Purpose: Fund a standardized domestic violence intervention public
awareness hotline campaign;
FY 03: 429,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 429,000.
Projects: Child abuse hotline marketing;
Purpose: Fund posters for child abuse and safety hotline;
FY 03: 100,000;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 100,000.
Projects: Family advocacy command assistance team training;
Purpose: Fund a 5-day joint service family advocacy command assistance
training conference for 70 people;
FY 03: 81,154;
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 81,154.
Projects: Family advocacy demonstration project;
Purpose: Fund domestic violence incident reduction projects such as
collaboration among military and civilian police;
FY 03: [Empty];
FY 04: 155,000;
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 155,000.
Projects: Victim advocate training for chaplains (travel costs);
Purpose: Fund travel;
FY 03: [Empty];
FY 04: 19,000;
FY 05: $23,100;
Total: 42,100.
Projects: Victim training for professionals;
Purpose: Fund a series of conferences for professionals in 2005;
FY 03: [Empty];
FY 04: 2,640,906;
FY 05: [Empty];
Total: 2,640,906.
Projects: Victim advocates and shelter;
Purpose: Fund the establishing, administering, and monitoring of
installations that participate in the program to provide victim
advocates and/or shelter services to victims of domestic violence;
FY 03: 4,571,000;
FY 04: 7,500,000;
FY 05: 4,800,000;
Total: 16,871,000.
Projects: Joint domestic violence shelter;
Purpose: Fund the family abuse shelter in Hawaii;
FY 03: [Empty];
FY 04: [Empty];
FY 05: 396,000;
Total: 396,000.
Projects: Travel;
Purpose: Fund travel;
FY 03: 75,000;
FY 04: 3,500;
FY 05: 11,000;
Total: 89,500.
Projects: Total funding per fiscal year;
Purpose: [Empty];
FY 03: $7,842,248;
FY 04: $10,318,406;
FY 05: $5,230,100;
Total: $23,390,754.
Source: Department of Defense.
[A] Program analysts in DOD's Military Community and Family Policy
Office noted that contract and staff costs were unknown for fiscal year
2003 and staff costs were for a General Schedule 12 and 15 for both
fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: 194 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence
Recommendations:
Tables 3 through 7 contain the task force recommendations broken out by
descriptive categories: Community Collaboration, Education and
Training, Offender Accountability, Victim Safety, and Other. Each table
groups the recommendations, by our analysis of the Department of
Defense's (DOD) actions taken. We split the Completed Actions group
into two sections (1) actions that DOD took that directly implemented
the task force recommendations and (2) completed actions taken that
they believe meet the intent of the recommendation. The No Action
Required group consists of recommendations DOD classified as complete,
but actually disagreed with and took no action; recommendations DOD
shows as having no action required because the recommendation was not
applicable to DOD; or those recommendations where DOD indicated that
the recommended actions were already being done. The Pending Actions
group consists of those recommendations in which DOD, at the time of
our review, was still working on or weighing its response. Not all
tables contain recommendations that fit under each group identified
above.
Table 3: Community Collaboration Recommendations:
Completed actions.
Recommendation: Make violation of a valid civilian order of protection
by a military member an offense under Uniform Code of Military Justice;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Implementation of the Armed Forces Domestic Security
Act, November 10, 2003.
Recommendation: Use standard Military Protective Order;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Military Protective Orders, March 10, 2004.
Recommendation: Require written Military Protective Order;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Military Protective Orders, March 10, 2004.
Recommendation: Require initial training for commanding officers with
annual refreshers;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: With Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, develop
standardized curricula;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Require initial domestic violence training for Senior
enlisted personnel in key billets with annual refreshers;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: With Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, develop
standardized curricula;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Task Force provided DOD with proposed language to send
to Congress to amend Section 103, title 18, to make it a crime to
violate a civilian order of protection on federal property;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Implementation of the Armed Forces Domestic Security
Act, November 10, 2003.
Recommendation: Train commanding officers on Military Protective
Orders;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Forward law enforcement domestic violence issues to
Joint Security Chiefs Counsel;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: DOD provided
documentation that the Defense Enterprise-Wide Working Group and Joint
Security Chiefs Counsel consented to support domestic violence efforts
as a result of meetings held with each on March 19 and 24, 2003,
respectively.
Recommendation: Create, with Department of Justice, an initiative,
including financial incentives, to encourage collaborative agreements
between civilian law enforcement/judicial agencies and military
installations in the areas of information sharing, training material
and opportunities, programs, and other domestic violence resources;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: DOD partnered
with the Department of Justice and Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center to create a train-the-trainer module based on a coordinated
community response to domestic violence. In addition to training, DOD
and Office of Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice are
conducting coordinated community response projects in two communities
with large military populations, Jacksonville, FL (Navy) and
Clarksville, TN (Army).
Recommendation: Explore use of state-of-the-art training platforms such
as Web-based training;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: DOD provided
documentation that they explored options and are developing Web-based
domestic violence training for commanding officers.
Recommendation: Ensure maximum use of treatment/intervention resources
in civilian communities overseas when available and appropriate;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: DOD responded
that the services report increased collaboration and use of host nation
resources overseas, where available.
Recommendation: Adopt and widely disseminate the Commanding Officer's
Protocol/ Guidelines;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence Involving Military Members on Active
Duty, October 22, 2004.
Recommendation: Seek partnerships to develop domestic violence
prevention and education programs;
Documentation to support that implementation is complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Amend DODD 6400.1 to require installation/regional
commanders to seek Memorandum of Understanding with local communities
to address responses to domestic violence;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Domestic Violence Memoranda of Understanding Between
Military and Local Civilian Officials, January 29, 2004.
Recommendation: Create an enclosure to DODD 6400.1 that provides
examples of Memorandum of Understanding and guidance in negotiating the
creation and implementation of such memoranda;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Domestic Violence Memoranda of Understanding Between
Military and Local Civilian Officials, January 29, 2004.
Recommendation: Require copy of military protective order to be
provided to victim within 24 hours of issuance;
Directive-Type Memorandum: Military Protective Orders, March 10, 2004
provides a copy to the victim but not in 24 hours.
Recommendation: Issue official instructions as follows: Military
installation officials should seek to establish relationships which
foster collaboration with community based services for victims of
domestic violence;
local law enforcement departments;
local prosecutor's office(s);
and local criminal, civil, and domestic violence court(s). The ultimate
goal being the improvement of command awareness of domestic violence
issues, improvement of the delivery of services to and safety of
victims, and increased accountability of offenders;
Directive-Type Memorandum: Establishing Domestic Violence Memoranda of
Understanding Between Military and Local Civilian Officials, January
29, 2004.
Recommendation: Adopt the standard Military Protective Order on page 32-
33 of the Defense Task Force's Second Year Report;
Directive-Type Memorandum: Military Protective Orders, March 10, 2004.
Recommendation: Adopt a policy that commanding officers remove and bar
civilian domestic violence offenders from the installation;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command Responses to
Domestic Violence Involving Military Members on Active Duty, October
22, 2004.
Recommendation: Require notification to gaining commander of pending
transfer of service member with open Family Advocacy Program (domestic
violence) case to ensure needed services are available at new duty
station;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command Responses to
Domestic Violence Involving Military Members on Active Duty, October
22, 2004, and Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and
Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted
Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Request that the Defense Enterprise-Wide Working Group
create a sub working group of the Defense Criminal Investigative
organizations to address domestic violence issues;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: DOD provided documentation that the
Defense Enterprise-Wide Working Group and Joint Security Chiefs Counsel
consented to support domestic violence efforts as a result of meetings
held with each on March 19 and 24, 2003, respectively.
Recommendation: Establish procedures for returning service/family
members to continental United States following domestic violence
incident depending on severity and availability of services;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command Responses to
Domestic Violence Involving Military Members on Active Duty, October
22, 2004. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 571 (2003), Travel and Transportation for
Dependents Relocating for Reasons of Personal Safety, stipulates that a
spouse victim of domestic violence can request shipment of household
goods and/or motor vehicle provided (1) a commander determines the
member committed the abuse in question, (2) a safety plan and
counseling have been provided to the victim, (3) the safety of the
dependent is at risk, and (4) relocation is advisable. The member must
consent in writing before transportation will be provided.
Recommendation: Develop a standard state-of-the-art curriculum for all
commanding officers and key billeted senior enlisted personnel;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Abuse Response and Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Ensure services provide written guidance to
training/education commands for domestic violence training;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Abuse Response and Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004. DOD is also developing Web-
based training modules for commanding officers.
No action required;
Recommendation: Establish standard policy of enforcement of
warrants/orders on military installations;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
stated that enforcement of warrants and orders varies so significantly
by location the issue is best handled by local memorandum of
understanding instead of standard DOD policy.
Recommendation: Establish and fund a domestic violence response
coordinator position at each major installation;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
officials disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action.
DOD noted that tasks are currently performed by a combination of law
enforcement personnel, victim advocates, and Family Advocacy Program
staff.
Recommendation: Centrally record and track Military Protective Orders;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
essentially disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action.
DOD noted that Office of Secretary of Defense determined it would not
be feasible to create another database.
Recommendation: Require copies to Family Advocacy Program and
installation military police;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
essentially disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action.
DOD stated in its August 8, 2005, report responding to the task force
recommendations that the Privacy Act restricts distribution of military
protective orders and that the victim must provide orders to Family
Advocacy Program and law enforcement if desired. The Office of
Secretary of Defense and service lawyers told us in interviews that
this distribution would not necessarily be a violation of the Privacy
Act. The July 14, 2004, Directive-Type Memorandum, Clarifying Guidance
Concerning the DD Form 2873, Military Protective Order, does not
authorize distribution to the Family Advocacy Program or military
police.
Recommendation: Provide a list of suggested duties for the Domestic
Violence Response Coordinator;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action. DOD stated
that tasks are currently performed by a combination of law enforcement
personnel, victim advocates, and Family Advocacy Program staff.
Recommendation: Recommend the establishing of such positions at
installation level;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action, but DOD
identified it as complete. DOD stated that tasks are currently
performed by a combination of law enforcement personnel, victim
advocates, and Family Advocacy Program staff.
Recommendation: Reconstitute DOD-level Family Advocacy Committee;
DOD disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action, but
identified as complete. DOD stated that other means are currently in
place to achieve this.
Recommendation: Require quarterly meetings of DOD-level Family Advocacy
Committee;
DOD disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action. DOD
stated that other means are currently in place to achieve this.
Recommendation: Require service-level Family Advocacy Committees;
DOD disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action. DOD
stated that other means are currently in place to achieve this.
Recommendation: Require installation-level Family Advocacy Committee;
DOD disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action. DOD
stated that other means are currently in place to achieve this.
Recommendation: Charter DOD-level Family Advocacy Committee to
collaborate among services to improve services, victim safety, and
offender accountability;
DOD disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action. DOD
stated that other means are currently in place to achieve this.
Recommendation: Select standardized delivery models as specified for
training;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
essentially disagreed with the recommendation and will not take action.
However, they issued Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response
and Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted
Personnel, February 3, 2004, but this directive does not address a
standard delivery model.
Recommendation: Request Congress enacts legislation making it a crime
to disobey a civilian order of protection on federal property;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
stated that the recommendation was directed toward Congress, but OSD
issued Directive- Type Memorandum: Implementation of the Armed Forces
Domestic Security Act, November 10, 2003.
Pending actions: Make domestic violence Memorandum of Understandings
with local communities an item of special interest for the DOD and
Service Inspector Generals;
Pending actions: Do not assign overseas service/family members
undergoing domestic violence program unless services available in
gaining command;
Pending actions: Do not assign overseas service/family members pending
court action for domestic violence offense;
Pending actions: Provide promotion materials that advertise family
services that portray total community;
Pending actions: Provide promotional materials in language and
population served;
Pending actions: Encourage installation representatives to coordinate
with local, diverse organizations;
Pending actions: Encourage input of foreign-born spouses in design of
outreach materials on domestic violence;
Pending actions: Evaluate Services "best practices."
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
Table 4: Education and Training Recommendations:
Completed actions.
Recommendation: With Defense Task Force Domestic Violence, develop
domestic violence awareness education for all health care staff;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Identification and Assessment Training
for Health Care Providers, February 6, 2004.
Recommendation: Require initial domestic violence training for New
Parent Support Program nurses;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Identification and Assessment Training
for Health Care Providers, February 6, 2004.
Recommendation: Recommend that DOD issue a policy memorandum regarding
Domestic Violence;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Deputy
Secretary of Defense issued Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Violence, November 19, 2001.
Recommendation: DOD, with Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence,
develops domestic violence training for chaplains;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Training for Chaplains, January 29,
2004.
Recommendation: Highlight senior leadership policy on nontolerance of
domestic violence;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Deputy
Secretary of Defense issued memorandum on Domestic Violence, November
19, 2001.
Recommendation: Implement standardized medical forensic training for
health care providers in first responder roles;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Identification and Assessment Training
for Health Care Providers, February 6, 2004.
Recommendation: Explore state-of-the-art training platforms such as Web-
based training for forensic medical training;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: DOD
responded that upon completion of commander Web-based training module,
consideration will be given to expanding this platform.
Recommendation: Develop standardized domestic violence training
curriculum for chaplains using outline provided;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Training for Chaplains, January 29,
2004.
Recommendation: Initiate domestic violence evidence-based training for
Staff Judge Advocates;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Violence Prosecution Training, March 18, 2002.
Recommendation: Conduct Lautenberg Awareness Campaign;
Directive-Type Memorandum: Department of Defense Policy for
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Implementation of Domestic Violence
Misdemeanor Amendment to the Gun Control Act for Military Personnel,
November 27, 2002.
Recommendation: Require annual Lautenberg Awareness Education;
Directive-Type Memorandum: Department of Defense Policy for
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Implementation of Domestic Violence
Misdemeanor Amendment to the Gun Control Act for Military Personnel,
November 27, 2002.
Recommendation: Include domestic violence awareness education in basic
officer and enlisted schools;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Abuse Response and Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Include domestic violence awareness education in all
professional military education schools, local training, etc;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Abuse Response and Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: With Chaplain working group and Defense Task Force on
Domestic Violence, develop domestic violence training for Chaplains'
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Basic Courses and ensure training for
those overseas;
Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Training for Chaplains,
January 29, 2004.
No action required;
Recommendation: DOD mandate transitional compensation awareness
education for spouses;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
stated that this is already being done. Since Congress established the
transitional compensation program, the services have routinely educated
dependent family members about it.
Recommendation: Emphasize the need to reach spouses residing off the
installation;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
stated that Family Advocacy Program provides outreach to spouses
residing off of the installation.
Recommendation: Ensure cultural diversity education for those overseas;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
stated that cultural diversity education is provided by local,
national, and family center staff.
Recommendation: Request Congress fully fund New Parent Support Program;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
stated that it had previously requested and been denied full funding
for New Parent Support Program.
Recommendation: The Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Victim
Safety Workgroup continues to investigate the issue of transitional
compensation;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
noted that the recommendation is for the Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence, not DOD.
Pending actions: Develop domestic violence instructions for initial
training for military police;
Pending actions: Ensure local military police patrol officers receive
domestic violence training;
Pending actions: Create domestic violence mobile training teams for
military police;
Pending actions: Develop a list of state-of-the-art domestic violence
equipment for military police;
Pending actions: Study adoption of indicator-based screening for
domestic violence;
Pending actions: Provide law enforcement first responders with audio
visual equipment;
Pending actions: Provide training on the use of audio visual equipment;
Pending actions: Develop policy on clergy confidentiality;
Pending actions: Develop standard DOD policy on clergy confidentiality;
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Table 5: Offender Accountability Recommendations:
Completed actions.
Recommendation: Investigate every domestic violence incident to
determine if a crime was committed;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence Involving Military Members on Active
Duty, October 22, 2004.
Recommendation: Ensure services comply with interim guidance on waivers
for domestic violence-related convictions;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Enlistment Waivers for Domestic Violence-Related
Convictions, January 22, 2002.
Recommendation: Review the Lautenberg waivers;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: A 2001
Office of Undersecretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness review of
service enlistment waivers found the Services to be in compliance with
the interim guidance concerning Lautenberg and enlistment waivers.
Recommendation: Develop guidance for formal and informal fatality
reviews;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete:
Directive- Type Memorandum: Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Fatality
Reviews, February 12, 2004.
Recommendation: Require results and system change recommendations to be
completed in a timely manner;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Fatality Reviews,
February 12, 2004.
Recommendation: Evaluate data collection methods;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete:
Evaluation determined Defense Incident-Based Reporting System and
Family Advocacy Program Central Registry are not interchangeable and
forced substitution would be a mistake.
Recommendation: Establish a law enforcement protocol for domestic
violence investigations;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence Involving Military Members on Active
Duty, October 22, 2004.
Recommendation: Incorporate into education programs factors for legal
and commanding officers to consider in responding to domestic violence
as a crime;
Documentation we found to support implementation as complete: Directive-
Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Develop guidance to capture data required by Section
594, Public Law 106-65;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: DODD 7730.47 Defense Incident-Based
Reporting System establishes guidance to capture data required by
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. No.
106-65, at 594 (1999).
Recommendation: Formally evaluate repeat offenders/treatment failures
for continued service;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Abuse Response and Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February 3, 2004.
Recommendation: Issue final Lautenberg guidance;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum: Department
of Defense Policy for Implementation of Domestic Violence Misdemeanor
Amendment to the Gun Control Act for Military Personnel, November 27,
2002.
Recommendation: Develop guidelines for commanding officers in domestic
violence substantiation determinations;
Documentation we found to support actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation: Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command Responses to
Domestic Violence Involving Military Members on Active Duty, October
22, 2004. DOD later responded that since commanders are required to
consult with legal, this is an automatic process because the military
attorneys consult the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and the Manual
for Courts Martial and this document contains a list of factors to
consider when determining whether to substantiate a case.
No action required.
Recommendation: Study whether Defense Incident-Based Reporting System
should replace the Family Advocacy Program central registry;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
disagreed with the intent of this recommendation and said the study
determined that Defense Incident- Based Reporting System and the Family
Advocacy Program central registry are not interchangeable, and forced
substitution of one for the other would be a mistake.
Recommendation: Expand Family Advocacy Program database to comply with
section 594 requirements if Defense Incident-Based Reporting System is
delayed;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
disagreed with the need to use the Family Advocacy Program database to
meet the requirements of section 594 of Pub. L. No. 106-65 (1999).
Recommendation: Fatality reviews;
Documentation we found that does not support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's support for no action required: DOD
stated that the Defense Task Force on Domestic violence made no
specific recommendations, but pledged to continue researching issue in
conjunction with DOD's goal of implementing domestic violence fatality
reviews.
Pending actions: Train law enforcement, legal, and command to
collaborate on domestic violence crime determination;
Pending actions: Require comprehensive, effective batterer
intervention;
Pending actions: Develop criteria for differing interventions;
Pending actions: Develop criteria for risk/lethality assessments;
Pending actions: Develop criteria for success in offender behavior
after intervention;
Pending actions: Require domestic violence program evaluation;
Pending actions: Establish advisory committee to oversee program
evaluation;
Pending actions: Establish a protocol for evaluating field-based
domestic violence programs;
Pending actions: Use regional oversight and monitoring visits;
Pending actions: With organizations experienced in domestic violence
prevention programs, develop an ongoing domestic violence awareness
campaign;
Pending actions: Target a program of domestic violence education to
grades E1-E4;
Pending actions: With Department of Defense Education Activity
incorporate domestic violence awareness into dependent schools;
Pending actions: Incorporate criteria provided by Defense Task Force on
Domestic Violence into policy update for domestic violence case
management;
Pending actions: Fully implement Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System at the earliest possible date;
Pending actions: Seek to improve civil-military cooperation to foster
victim safety;
Pending actions: Work with the Department of Justice to implement
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 to ensure proper
emphasis for domestic violence;
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
Table 6: Victim Safety Recommendations:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Table 7: Other Recommendations:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: DOD's Directive-Type Memoranda and Policy Implementing the
Task Force Recommendations:
As of March 2006, the Department of Defense (DOD) has issued 16
directive-type memoranda to implement the task force's recommendations.
Table 8 lists the memoranda and dates of issuance. DOD also issued 3
other memoranda that were not identified as directive-type memoranda
but were related to the task force recommendations. These included the
Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum titled "Domestic Violence" dated
November 19, 2001; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force
Management Policy memoranda titled "Enlistment Waivers for Domestic
Violence-Related Convictions" dated January 22, 2002; and the
memorandum titled "Domestic Violence Prosecution Training" dated March
18, 2002.[Footnote 30]
Table 8: DOD's Memoranda Implementing Task Force Recommendations:
1;
Directive-type memoranda: Establishment of DOD Database on Domestic
Violence and Procedures for Submitting Domestic Violence Data;
Date issued: 06/2000.
2;
Directive-type memoranda: Department of Defense Policy for
Implementation of Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Amendment to the Gun
Control Act for Military Personnel;
Date issued: 11/27/02.
3;
Directive-type memoranda: Department of Defense (DOD) Policy for
Implementation of Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Amendment to Gun
Control Act for DOD Civilian Personnel;
Date issued: 11/27/02.
4;
Directive-type memoranda: Implementation of the Armed Forces Domestic
Security Act;
Date issued: 11/10/03.
5;
Directive-type memoranda: Domestic Abuse Training for Chaplains;
Date issued: 01/29/04.
6;
Directive-type memoranda: Establishing Domestic Violence Memoranda of
Understanding Between Military and Local Civilian Officials;
Date issued: 01/29/04.
7;
Directive-type memoranda: Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention
Training for Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel;
Date issued: 02/03/04.
8;
Directive-type memoranda: Domestic Abuse Identification and Assessment
Training for Health Care Providers;
Date issued: 02/06/04.
9;
Directive-type memoranda: Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Fatality
Reviews;
Date issued: 02/12/04.
10;
Directive-type memoranda: Military Protective Orders;
Date issued: 03/10/04.
11;
Directive-type memoranda: Clarifying Guidance Concerning the DD Form
2873, Military Protective Order;
Date issued: 07/14/04.
12;
Directive-type memoranda: Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement
and Command Responses to Domestic Violence Involving Military Members
on Active Duty;
Date issued: 10/22/04.
13;
Directive-type memoranda: Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate Program;
Date issued: 02/17/05.
14;
Directive-type memoranda: Notification of Department of Defense-Related
Fatalities Due to Domestic Violence or Child Abuse;
Date issued: 03/04/05.
15;
Directive-type memoranda: Duration of Payment for Transitional
Compensation for Abused Dependents;
Date issued: 06/14/05.
16;
Directive-type memoranda: Restricted Reporting Policy for Incidents of
Domestic Violence;
Date issued: 01/22/06.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Under Secretary Of Defense:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
May 3, 2006:
Personnel And Readiness:
Ms. Valerie C. Melvin:
Acting Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO):
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Melvin:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, "MILITARY PERSONNEL: Progress Made in Implementing
Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further Management
Action Needed," dated April 7, 2006 (GAO Code 350723/GAO-06-540)."
We are pleased that GAO found that DoD has implemented almost two
thirds of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence (hereafter
referred to as the "Task Force") recommendations with which it agreed
to implement or study and that documentation, focus group discussions,
and interviews showed the Department's policies were being implemented
at the Service and installation level.
The Department is concerned, however, that GAO's attempt to define,
differentiate, and prioritize what it considers important Task Force
recommendations has focused on perceived deficiencies rather than
progress. Fundamental in the GAO review is the apparent assumption that
DoD should implement all recommendations of the Task Force-and exactly
as written. After each of the three annual reports, DoD clearly
indicated the recommendations with which it agreed (the vast majority),
those with which it nonconcurred, and those we agreed to study. The
Department never intended to suggest it could not or would not modify
any particular Task Force recommendation during implementation. Yet,
GAO seeks to penalize the Department for deviating from the narrowest
reading of individual recommendations. The Department must have the
flexibility to implement policy that will support and serve its Service
members and their families.
The Department has accomplished a great deal in a short time and will
continue to implement aggressively Task Force recommendations.
Our responses to specific GAO recommendations are contained in the
enclosure.
Signed by:
David S. C. Chu:
Enclosure:
As stated:
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED APRIL 7, 2006 GAO CODE 350723/GAO-06-540:
"MILITARY PERSONNEL: Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations To
Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further Management Action Needed"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
(USD(P&R)) to develop a comprehensive management plan to address
deficiencies in the data captured in DoD's domestic violence database
that focuses on ensuring that accurate and complete data exists and
that all instances in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System
(DIBRS) and Family Advocacy Program Central Registry are matched and
reported annually, as required in DoD's Manual 7730.47-M. (p. 26/GAO
Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Partially concur.
This recommendation is more appropriately directed to the Military
Departments. The DIBRS database is operational and the USD(P&R) has
repeatedly issued memoranda requiring the Military Departments to
submit data to DIBRS. The systems used by the Military Departments to
populate DIBRS are insufficient and underfunded. The DoD Law
Enforcement and Policy Support Directorate will continue to address
this issue at regularly scheduled meetings with Service
representatives.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to take
appropriate steps, in conjunction with the service secretaries, to
ensure all commander actions related to domestic violence incidents are
entered in law enforcement systems. (p. 26/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur.
The Department has made substantial efforts to ensure commanders are
aware of their responsibilities for reporting disciplinary actions
related to domestic violence. Specifically, the Department issued the
directive-type memorandum, "Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement
and Command Responses to Domestic Violence Involving Military Members
on Active Duty," in October 2004 requiring commanding officers to
document command actions and report such actions through installation
law enforcement officials for inclusion in DIBRS. During the past year
the Department has conducted six domestic abuse training conferences
for commanding officers, judge advocates, and law enforcement personnel
specifically addressing these issues and will continue with these
trainings. Furthermore, the Department has developed a Web based
domestic violence training curriculum for commanding officers in which
this issue is addressed. Finally, each Military Service addresses this
issue at each domestic violence training they conduct. DoD will
continue to aggressively communicate this policy to the Military
Departments.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to
develop a plan to ensure adequate personnel are available to implement
pending task force recommendations. (p. 26/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur:
DoD remains steadfast in its commitment to provide resources to
continue its aggressive pace implementing the Task Force
recommendations. The Department has requested extensions of current
personnel to complete the mission for which a final determination is
expected by July 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to
establish a communication strategy for effectively informing DoD and
service officials about new guidance implementing the task force
recommendations, to include:
* issuing a revised DoD family advocacy program directive that is
consistent with interim guidance for implementing the task force
recommendations; and:
* reconsidering the task force's recommendation on providing copies of
military protective orders to law enforcement and family advocacy
officials and communicating that the associated implementing policy be
consistently followed by all services and DoD. (p. 26/GAO Draft
Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Partially nonconcur.
DoD concurs with sub-bullet one and the revision of the Directive is
underway with an anticipated completion in FY07. DoD does not concur
with sub-bullet two. Due to privacy concerns raised about this matter
after the policy was originally issued, the policy was re-reviewed and
modified accordingly. The Department does not contemplate, at this
time, reconsidering this issue.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to
develop, in concert with the family advocacy director, the four service
family advocacy managers, and chaplaincy board procedures and metrics
to ensure that accurate, consistent, and timely domestic violence
training data are collected for chaplains. (p. 26/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Nonconcur.
The family advocacy program managers are not the proponents of chaplain
training. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for DoD to engage in routine
operator level activity such as tracking training statistics. This
recommendation is more appropriately directed to the Military
Departments who are responsible for tracking such information in their
respective Departments.
RECOMMENDATION 6: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to
develop, in concert with the family advocacy director and the four
service family advocacy managers, chaplain guidance and training
materials that highlight and clarify chaplain responsibilities
concerning privileged communication. (p. 26/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Partially nonconcur.
The family advocacy program managers are not the proponents of chaplain
privileged communication. Furthermore, each Military Department has
policy addressing clergy confidentiality which guides chaplain
confidentiality in all situations; therefore DoD does not contemplate
developing a clergy confidentiality policy. Additionally, the
Department issued a directive-type memorandum, "Domestic Abuse Training
for Chaplains," in January 2004 requiring the Military Departments to
provide specialized training addressing this issue during all chaplain
officer basic courses and at periodic continuing professional military
education update opportunities. DoD, in collaboration with the Military
Departments, will continue addressing this issue at all relevant
training events.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to
develop and implement, in conjunction with the services, a DoD-wide
oversight framework that includes a results-oriented evaluation plan
for the implemented recommendations, and a process for ongoing
monitoring of and reporting on implementation. (p. 26-27 GAO Draft
Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur.
The Department has issued sixteen directive-type memorandums
implementing recommendations made by the Task Force. As these new
policies are being trained, a process is being developed for DoD
representatives to accompany Service accreditation teams to evaluate
the execution of these new policies. This initial oversight process
will allow further study and development of a DoD oversight team that
monitors progress and implementation. Anticipated completion is FY07-
08.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Valerie C. Melvin, (202) 512-6304:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Laura L. Durland, Assistant
Director; James R. Bancroft; Renee S. Brown; Robert B. Brown; Carissa
D. Bryant; Marion A. Gatling; Nicole Harms; Amanda Miller; J. P.
Newton; Jeanett H. Reid; and Sonja S. Ware made key contributions to
this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] DOD adopted the definitions for domestic violence and domestic
abuse in 2004.
[2] Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 591, 594 (1999).
[3] Pub. L. No. 108 -136, at 575 (2003).
[4] The Family Advocacy Central Registry collects clinical information
about the initial allegation of domestic abuse, support and services
provided to victims of such abuse, and treatment, such as anger
management classes, given to alleged abusers.
[5] Army Regulation 165-1, Religious Activities: Chaplain Activities in
the United States Army, Mar. 25, 2004.
[6] Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 594 (1999).
[7] Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 591 (1999).
[8] An official in DOD's Law Enforcement Policy and Support Office told
us that the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System was designed and
constructed to collect and report crime data under a number of
statutes, including the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 and
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994. We were told,
however, that because the services are not reporting information needed
to make up the total input to the law enforcement database, collection
and/or reporting for this are done manually "offline" instead of
through the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System.
[9] DOD's Manual for Defense Incident-Based Reporting System, 7730.47M,
dated July 25, 2003, discusses requirements for the centralized
database on domestic violence.
[10] Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 594 (1999).
[11] Department of Defense Directive-Type Memorandum, Establishment of
DOD Database on Domestic Violence and Procedures for Submitting
Domestic Violence Data, June 8, 2000.
[12] This category also included special interest items such as the
domestic violence definition, prevention of domestic violence, severity
of abuse, recommended research, and process model.
[13] See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[14] The special Web pages provide news and information for flag and
general officers--i.e., http://www.commanderspage.com; while, another-
-i.e., http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil--provides servicemembers
and their families with information on all quality-of-life issues,
including domestic violence.
[15] As of March 30, 2006, DOD had posted Directive Type Memoranda on
its official Directives Web site; however, this link only had 3 of the
16 domestic violence directive-type memoranda.
[16] See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[17] The Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-579 (1974) is the primary
act that regulates the federal government's use of personal
information. It places limitations on agencies' collection, disclosure,
and use of personal information in systems of records.
[18] Army Regulation 608-18 (Sept. 27, 2004).
[19] OPNAVINST 1752.2A (Jul. 17, 1996).
[20] Congress established the transitional compensation program for
abused spouses/family members of military personnel as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-
160, at 554 (1993). The law authorizes temporary payments for families
in which the servicemember has been discharged administratively or by
court-martial for dependent-related abuse.
[21] A communication to a chaplain given as a formal act of religion or
as a matter of conscience that is made in confidence and not intended
to be disclosed to others is a privileged communication.
[22] The Military Rule of Evidence 503, Communications to Clergy,
states that a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose in legal
proceedings and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential
communication to a clergy or to a clergyman's assistant if such a
communication is made either as a formal act of religion or as a matter
of conscience.
[23] Accreditation is a process of education and improvement for
service organizations that are committed to achieving quality in
management and services. It demonstrates that the service has met
accepted standards of operation in the Family Advocacy Program.
[24] Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993).
[25] We did not verify these numbers.
[26] We assessed DOD's progress in implementing the recommendations
included in its status matrix submitted on February 15, 2006. DOD
continues to complete recommendations and submitted an updated matrix
March 21, 2006; however, our time frames precluded us from
corroborating this additional information.
[27] We assessed (1) DOD's ability to report on domestic violence
incidents in the military and disciplinary actions taken by commanders
to address these incidents, (2) the extent to which DOD has provided
resources to the office overseeing implementation of the task force's
recommendations and the extent to which the recommendations have been
implemented, (3) the specific actions that DOD has taken on the
recommendations to ensure the confidentiality of victims and the
education and accountability of commanding officers and chaplains, and
(4) the extent to which DOD has established an oversight framework to
monitor compliance with and evaluate implementation of the
recommendations.
[28] Pub. L. No. 103-62 (Aug. 3, 1993).
[29] See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-0021.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[30] Travel guidance was also issued that related to one of the task
force's recommendation, titled "MAP 55-03 - Travel and Transportation
for Dependents Relocating For Reasons of Personal Safety", dated
February 24, 2004.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
