jurisdiction: US

text: b' Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nProject No. 2003C004 September 11, 2003\n\n Interim Report on the\n United States Air Force Academy Sexual Assault Survey1\n\n Executive Summary\n\nThe data in this executive summary was released to the Secretary of Defense, the\nSecretary of the Air Force, The Panel to Review Sexual Misconduct Allegations at\nUnited States Air Force Academy2, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and\nReadiness, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, the General Counsel for\nthe Department of Defense, and the Air Force Inspector General on August 22, 2003.\n\nA. The Survey\nIn May 2003, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense authorized and\nadministered a survey of female cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) as part\nof the \xe2\x80\x9cEvaluation of Policies and Practices at the Military Service Academies Regarding\nResponse to Sexual Assaults.\xe2\x80\x9d The purpose of the survey was to determine the scope of\nrecent sexual assault incidents and to assess the perceptions of female cadets concerning\nthe Academy\xe2\x80\x99s response to sexual assault (including factors such as reasons for not\nreporting, likelihood of reprisal/ostracism for reporting assault, personal safety on\ncampus, cadet perceptions of the command\xe2\x80\x99s handling of sexual assault, and cadet\nperceptions of sexual assault support and training programs).\n\nTwo definitions were employed in the survey:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Sexual assault (adapted from USAFA Instruction 51-201, \xe2\x80\x9cCadet Victim/Witness\n Assistance and Notification Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d April 18, 2000):\n the touching of another without their consent in a sexual manner, including attempts,\n in order to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust or sexual desires of the accused, the\n victim, or both. Sexual assault includes, but is not limited to, rape, sodomy,\n fondling, unwanted touching of a sexual nature, and indecent sexual acts that the\n victim does not consent to, or is explicitly or implicitly forced into. It is immaterial\n\n\n\n\n1\n We intend to subsequently include this report as an appendix to an Inspection Report on Project\n No. 2003C004 that is scheduled to be completed by December 2003. This later report will address the\n root causes of sexual assault and issues of accountability at the Academy.\n2\n The information in the executive summary was released to \xe2\x80\x9cThe Panel to Review Sexual Misconduct\n Allegations at United States Air Force Academy\xe2\x80\x9d to comply with their request for our survey results by\n August 22, 2003 to enable the Panel to achieve their statutory publishing deadline of September 22, 2003.\n\n\n\n [1]\n\x0c whether the touching is directly upon the body of another or is committed through\n 3\n the person\xe2\x80\x99s clothing.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Rape (adapted from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 120,\n Rape):\n an act of sexual intercourse with a female, by force and/or without her consent\n (conscious or unconscious). Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the\n 4\n offense.\n\n (Note: The definition of sexual assault includes rape and attempted rape;\n consequently, the results for claimed sexual assault and the results for rape [and\n its attempt] are not additive.)\n\nB. The Data\n\nSurvey Population\nOf the total female population of 659 cadets, 66 were unavailable. Of all available cadets\n(593), 12 had unexcused absences. The remaining 581 cadets took the survey. Of their\nresponses, 2 were eliminated entirely\xe2\x8e\xafone was blank except for class year and a general\ncomment, and the other had so many inconsistencies that it could not be used. This left\nusable responses from 579 female cadets (87.9% of the total female cadet population, and\n97.6% of all available female cadets).\n\nScope of Recent Incidents\nThe 579 survey responses indicated the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 43 cadets (7.4% of all respondents)\xe2\x8e\xafincluding 15 members of the Class of 2003\n (11.7% of that class) \xe2\x8e\xafindicated they had been victims of at least one actual or\n attempted rape in their time at the Academy.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 109 cadets (18.8% of all respondents) indicated they had been victims of at least\n one instance of sexual assault in their time at the Academy. Many cadets\n indicated they experienced multiple incidents of sexual assault, for a total of at\n least 177 incidents recorded. (This figure includes the 43 cadets who indicated\n actual or attempted rape.)\n\n\n\n3\n The definition of sexual assault employed presents a certain amount of difficulty. It is adapted from the\n definition in USAFA Instruction 51-201, \xe2\x80\x9cCadet Victim/Witness Assistance and Notification\n Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d a definition that the Air Force considers too broad and may result in a higher count of sexual\n assault incidents than is actually warranted. The OIG (DoD) acknowledges that there is a certain amount\n of difficulty present in the definition employed\xe2\x8e\xafhowever, two important things must be considered; first,\n the OIG (DoD) survey definition lacked one important clause found in the USAFA Instruction 51-201,\n which states that consent is not given when \xe2\x80\x9cthe person is alcohol impaired\xe2\x80\x9d; second, the definition\n supplied is not so broad as to suggest that the majority of incidents claimed were in fact improperly\n classified by the respondents as sexual assaults.\n4\n The definition of rape employed is essentially the same as Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military\n Justice (UCMJ).\n\n\n\n [2]\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 397 (68.6% of all respondents) indicated they had experienced sexual harassment\n (unwanted and uninvited sexual attention) in the form of sexual teasing, jokes,\n remarks, or questions while at the Academy. 262 (45.3%) indicated experiencing\n sexually suggestive looks, gestures, or body language, and 225 (38.9%) indicated\n receiving letters, telephone calls, emails, instant messaging or materials of a\n sexual nature. 204 (35.2%) indicated experiencing leaning over, cornering,\n pinching or brushing against, unwanted touching, and 129 (22.3%) indicated\n experiencing pressure for sexual favors.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Cadets indicated that only 33 (18.6%) of the 177 sexual assault incidents were\n reported to the authorities.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Cadets indicated that they experienced reprisal for reporting 14 (42.4%) of these\n incidents. (\xe2\x80\x9cReprisal\xe2\x80\x9d was not defined in the survey.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 143 incidents were recorded as not being reported to any authority. When asked\n why they did not report these incidents, victims indicated that embarrassment was\n a factor in 77 incidents (53.8 % of all non-reported incidents), the fear of\n ostracism by peers in 66 (46.2 %), the fear of some form of reprisal in 61 (42.7%),\n and the belief that nothing would be done about the sexual assault in 58 (40.6 %).5\n When all respondents (both sexual assault victims and cadets not indicating\n sexual assault) were asked \xe2\x80\x9cother than embarrassment or shame, what do you\n think is the number ONE reason why some victims at your academy do not report\n sexual assaults,\xe2\x80\x9d the top two reasons given were fear of ostracism by peers\n (32.8% of respondents), and fear of being punished for other infractions (26.8%).\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The respondents categorized offenders for 172 of the 177 incidents; the categories\n included cadets (both senior and non-senior to the respondents), civilians and\n military (both affiliated and not affiliated with the Academy), and unidentified\n persons. Fellow cadets were identified as the principal offender group (149 or\n 86.1%) of all identified offenders; 65 of these were cadets who were senior to the\n victims.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The respondents also indicated locations for 174 of the 177 incidents of sexual\n assault; 114 incidents (64.4%) occurred on the installation\xe2\x80\x9465 in the dormitories\n and 49 elsewhere. Another 11 (6.2%) occurred off the installation, but at\n Academy-sponsored events, and 49 (27.7%) occurred off the installation, not at\n Academy-sponsored events.\n\nPerceptions of Academy\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Sexual Assaults\nThe survey also requested cadet views on:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Previous command\xe2\x80\x99s handling of sexual assault incidents: A slight majority\xe2\x80\x94\n 310 (53.5% of all respondents)\xe2\x80\x94believed that the previous leadership did not\n handle sexual assault incidents appropriately, while 86 (14.9%) believed they did,\n and 182 (31.4%) did not know.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Previous command\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to curb sexual harassment: Almost half\xe2\x80\x94267\n (46.1%)\xe2\x80\x94believed that the previous command had made honest and reasonable\n5\n Because cadets were allowed to select multiple reasons for not reporting, these numbers total above 143,\n the total number of incidents not reported.\n\n\n\n [3]\n\x0c efforts to prevent or stop uninvited and unwanted sexual attention, while 310\n (53.5%) believed it had not.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Current command\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to curb sexual harassment: Almost all\xe2\x80\x94556\n (96.0%)\xe2\x80\x94believed the current command was making honest and reasonable\n efforts to prevent or stop uninvited and unwanted sexual attention, while only 22\n (3.8%) believed it was not.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Cadet Safety: A majority\xe2\x80\x94365 (63.0%)\xe2\x80\x94expressed no fears about their\n personal safety, while 82 (14.2%) indicated their biggest fear was being hazed or\n unjustifiably harassed, 51 (8.8%) stated that it was that they would be sexually\n assaulted, and 27 (4.7%) stated that they would be non-sexually assaulted. Cadets\n also indicated overwhelmingly (over 90%) that they felt very safe or safe in every\n location on campus, except when alone on academy grounds during hours of\n darkness. (During hours of darkness, 68.9% felt very safe or safe; 20% felt\n somewhat safe; and 10.9% felt unsafe or very unsafe.)\n\n\n\n\n [4]\n\x0cTable of Contents\nExecutive Summary 1\n A. The Survey .............................................................................................................. 1\n B. The Data.................................................................................................................. 2\nTable of Contents................................................................................................................ 1\nAPPENDIX. Interim Report on the United States Air Force Academy\n Sexual Assault Survey .................................................................................. 2\nI. Background ............................................................................................................. 2\nII. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 3\n A. Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3\n B. The Survey Instrument............................................................................................ 3\n C. Respondent Population ........................................................................................... 5\n D. Survey Administration ............................................................................................ 6\n E. The Data Set............................................................................................................ 7\n F. Research Limitations .............................................................................................. 9\nIII. Survey Findings \xe2\x80\x93 Sexual Assault Incidents......................................................... 10\n A. Sexual Assault Incidents at the Academy............................................................. 10\n B. The Offenders ....................................................................................................... 12\n C. Sexual Harassment................................................................................................ 12\n D. Location of Sexual Assaults.................................................................................. 15\nIV. Survey Findings \xe2\x80\x93 Response to Sexual Assaults .................................................. 16\n A. Reporting of Sexual Assault Incidents.................................................................. 16\n B. Perceptions of Previous Command\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Sexual Assaults ..................... 20\n C. Comments on Reasons for Not Reporting Sexual Assaults.................................. 33\n D. Comments Regarding Reprisal ............................................................................. 34\n E. Comments Regarding Cadet Safety ...................................................................... 34\n F. General Comments................................................................................................ 36\nAttachment A \xe2\x80\x93 Survey Proctor Statement....................................................................... 42\nAttachment B \xe2\x80\x93 Categories for Comment Analysis.......................................................... 44\nAttachment C \xe2\x80\x93 Survey Instrument................................................................................... 46\nAttachment D \xe2\x80\x93 Letter from Senate Governmental Affairs Committee ........................... 59\nAttachment E \xe2\x80\x93 Letter from Senate Armed Services Committee ..................................... 60\n\n\n\n\n [1]\n\x0cAPPENDIX. Interim Report on the United States\n Air Force Academy Sexual Assault\n Survey\n\nI. Background\n On February 24, 2003, Senator Susan M. Collins, Chairman, Senate\n Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Ranking\n Member, formally requested that the Inspector General of the Department of\n Defense (IG DoD) investigate allegations \xe2\x80\x9cthat the U.S. Air Force Academy\n apparently has failed to take appropriate action in response to reports of sexual\n assault against women cadets.\xe2\x80\x9d6 The Senators noted that the Secretary of the Air\n Force, Dr. James E. Roche, had already announced the creation of a special panel\n to review the Air Force policies on sexual assault, with an emphasis on the United\n States Air Force Academy (USAFA). However, while the Senators commended\n the Secretary\xe2\x80\x99s response, they stated in their letter their belief that an independent\n investigation was necessary, and that the IG DoD was \xe2\x80\x9cbest suited to undertake\n such an investigation.\xe2\x80\x9d7\n\n On February 27, 2003, the Senator John Warner, Chairman, Senate Armed\n Services Committee and Senator Wayne Allard wrote to the Inspector General to\n request that he \xe2\x80\x9creview the work being done by the Air Force and others and to\n provide [his] findings and recommendations to [the Senate Armed Services\n Committee] at the appropriate time.\xe2\x80\x9d8\n\n In a response to Senators Collins and Lieberman on February 28, 2003, and in a\n meeting with Senators Warner and Allard on March 17, 2003, the IG DoD\n advised that in accordance with his statutory mandate to \xe2\x80\x9cgive particular regard to\n the activities of the internal audit, inspection, and investigative units of the\n military departments with a view toward avoiding duplication and insuring\n effective coordination and cooperation,"9 he had already directed the Office of the\n Inspector General, Department of Defense (OIG DoD) Office of Investigative\n Policy and Oversight (IPO), to evaluate not only the ongoing Air Force review,\n but also to determine how allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault are\n referred and handled in the other Service Academies. The IG DoD also stated\n that he would advise the Senators both of the results of our oversight evaluation of\n the Air Force review and of our own larger systemic review.\n\n As part of the data-gathering process, the OIG DoD evaluation team decided to\n administer a survey to determine the scope of sexual assaults at USAFA and to\n understand the opinions of female USAFA cadets regarding the Academy\xe2\x80\x99s\n response to sexual assaults. Considering the long-term experience of the\n\n6\n See Attachment D.\n7\n Ibid.\n8\n See Attachment E.\n9\n Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. (5 USC Appendix 1, \xc2\xa72)\n\n\n\n [2]\n\x0c Academy Class of 2003 and indications that over half of that class\xe2\x80\x99 female cadets\n did not have faith in Academy programs regarding sexual assault10, it became\n crucial to obtain the views of this class before they graduated. Therefore, OIG\n DoD personnel developed the survey and subsequently administered it to female\n cadets in all class years during the period of May 19 through 21, 2003. This\n report summarizes the results of the initial survey at the United States Air Force\n Academy.\n\nII. Methodology\n\nA. Objectives\n The purpose of the survey was to determine:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The scope of recent sexual assault incidents at the Academy\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The perceptions of female cadets concerning the Academy\xe2\x80\x99s response to\n sexual assaults, including factors such as reasons for not reporting,\n likelihood of reprisal/ostracism for reporting assault, personal safety on\n campus, cadet perceptions of the command\xe2\x80\x99s handling of sexual assault,\n and cadet perceptions of sexual assault support and training programs.\n\nB. The Survey Instrument\n\nDevelopment\n OIG DoD personnel developed the survey instrument11 in early May of 2003.\n The team developed the survey using the survey objectives as the benchmark for\n relevance. Due to the limited time available to develop the survey instrument, we\n decided to use survey questionnaires from the following two previously approved\n and administered DoD surveys as guidelines and templates for formulating\n questions for this sexual assault survey:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cDepartment of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey,\xe2\x80\x9d Defense\n Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Report Number 96-014 (December\n 1996).\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cReport on the Military Environment With Respect to the Homosexual\n Conduct Policy,\xe2\x80\x9d Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing\n (DoD) Report Number D-2000-101.\n\n To ease and speed the process of data analysis, the evaluation team decided that\n the best option for the survey platform was an on-line survey. Additionally, the\n\n10\n Article on USAFA Web site, \xe2\x80\x9cSuperintendent addresses issue of sexual assault,\xe2\x80\x9d stated that 59 percent of\n the first-class (Class Year 2003) women cadets did not have faith in the Academy\xe2\x80\x99s programs regarding\n sexual assault. The Superintendent indicated that this statistic came from the results of the January 2003\n USAFA sexual assault survey.\n11\n See Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [3]\n\x0c team decided that in order to make cadets comfortable about providing\n information on such a sensitive subject, we would need to provide total\n anonymity to survey participants. We accomplished this by using randomly\n generated, 4-digit access codes that were individually placed in sealed envelopes\n that participants themselves selected. While we did keep track of and record that\n attended, we ensured there was no way to associate the participants\xe2\x80\x99 names with\n the access codes the cadets used.\n\n The survey had 27 questions, for a total of over 100 response items; 14 questions\n and about half of the response items were only applicable to those respondents\n who indicated that they experienced sexual assault. The survey also employed\n definitions of sexual assault and rape to assist participants in responding to critical\n questions:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Sexual assault (adapted from USAFA Instruction 51-201, \xe2\x80\x9cCadet\n Victim/Witness Assistance and Notification Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d April 18, 2000):\n the touching of another without their consent in a sexual manner,\n including attempts, in order to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust or\n sexual desires of the accused, the victim, or both. Sexual assault\n includes, but is not limited to, rape, sodomy, fondling, unwanted\n touching of a sexual nature, and indecent sexual acts that the victim\n does not consent to, or is explicitly or implicitly forced into. It is\n immaterial whether the touching is directly upon the body of another or\n is committed through the person\xe2\x80\x99s clothing.12\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Rape (adapted from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),\n Article 120, Rape):\n an act of sexual intercourse with a female, by force and/or without her\n consent (conscious or unconscious). Penetration, however slight, is\n sufficient to complete the offense.\n\n When we conducted the beta test with USAFA cadets (see the \xe2\x80\x9cRefinement\xe2\x80\x9d\n section for details), several cadets indicated that they associated force with\n physical violence, and that if the offender was not violent, then the incident would\n not meet the legal definition of rape. There was a particular concern with a\n scenario involving a male having sexual intercourse with a female who was\n rendered unconscious due to alcohol consumption and thus not capable of\n resisting. Therefore, we felt it necessary to slightly modify the definition by\n adding \xe2\x80\x9c/or\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9c(conscious or unconscious).\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n12\n The definition of sexual assault employed presents a certain amount of difficulty. It is adapted from the\n definition in USAFA Instruction 51-201, \xe2\x80\x9cCadet Victim/Witness Assistance and Notification\n Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d a definition that the Air Force considers too broad and may result in a higher count of sexual\n assault incidents than is actually warranted. The OIG (DoD) acknowledges that there is a certain amount\n of difficulty present in the definition employed\xe2\x8e\xafhowever, two important things must be considered; first,\n the OIG (DoD) survey definition lacked one important clause found in the USAFA Instruction 51-201,\n which states that consent is not given when \xe2\x80\x9cthe person is alcohol impaired\xe2\x80\x9d; second, the definition\n supplied is not so broad as to suggest that the majority of incidents claimed were in fact improperly\n classified by the respondents as sexual assaults.\n\n\n\n [4]\n\x0cRefinement\n To refine the survey questions and to help ensure that they would be understood\n as intended, the team assembled a focus group of OIG DoD unmarried female\n employees under the age of 2513, who did not have children, to take a draft survey\n and offer criticism. The focus group critiqued both the proctor statement and the\n survey questions, and the team adjusted the instrument accordingly.\n\n Next, the team coordinated with USAFA to identify 15 female cadets to beta test\n the survey. On May 16, 2003, three members of the IPO evaluation team visited\n USAFA to conduct the beta test. USAFA staff provided the team with a list of 15\n female cadets (all from class 2003) to take the beta test and be part of a \xe2\x80\x9cfocus\n group.\xe2\x80\x9d Of the 15 cadets, 13 showed up to take the survey beta test.\n\n After briefing the cadets on the beta test process, the team walked them to the\n computer lab where the final survey would later be administered. We read the\n proctor statement to the beta test group, provided them with codes to access and\n complete the on-line survey. Following the beta test, the team reviewed the\n survey instrument with the test group. We considered their comments and\n suggestions and further adjusted the survey instrument to incorporate their\n feedback. (These cadets were excused from the subsequent final survey\n population.)\n\nC. Respondent Population\n The Academy\xe2\x80\x99s total female cadet population was 659 at the time of the survey.\n Of these, 66 were unavailable to take the survey and had excused absences. Of\n those available (593), 12 did not take the survey and had unexcused absences.\n Thus, a total of 581 cadets took the survey (98.0% of all those available, and\n 88.2% of the total population).\n\n The following is a complete breakdown by class year of the total female cadet\n population at the time of the survey:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Class Year 2003 had a total population of 140. Of that number, 129\n cadets participated in the survey and 11 did not, all of whom were excused\n due to their prior participation in the survey beta test. This class had no\n unexcused absences. (The total number of beta test participants was not\n 11 but 13; however, 2 of them chose to take the survey even though\n excused.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Class Year 2004 had a total population of 154. Of that number, 117\n cadets participated in the survey and 37 did not. Of the latter group, 33\n had already left for summer research programs or associated leaves of\n absence, 1 had out-processed and separated from the Academy, 1 had an\n excused absence, and 2 cadets had unexcused absences.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Class Year 2005 had a total population of 177. Of that number, 154\n cadets participated in the survey and 23 did not. Of the latter group, 5 had\n13\n The focus group also included one active duty Army major with previous experience at the U.S. Military\n Academy.\n\n\n\n [5]\n\x0c already departed for civil engineering summer programs, 8 had separated\n from the Academy, 3 had excused absences, and 7 cadets had unexcused\n absences.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Class Year 2006 had a total population of 188. Of that number, 181\n cadets participated in the survey and 7 did not. Of the latter group, 1\n foreign exchange cadet had already left to return home, 3 had separated\n from the Academy, and 3 cadets had unexcused absences.\n\nD. Survey Administration\n We intended initially to administer the survey to a statistical sample of 400 female\n USAFA cadets. However, when the OIG DoD team, along with the Deputy\n Inspector General for Inspections and Policy (OIG DoD), met with USAFA senior\n leadership to discuss survey administration, the Academy staff expressed their\n desire to open the survey to all female cadets that wanted to participate rather than\n limit participation to those in the statistical sample. In fact, they had already\n announced the survey to all female cadets. Subsequently, the Deputy Inspector\n General decided to administer the survey to all available female cadets while still\n maintaining the integrity of our stratified random sample. This was accomplished\n by using batches of access codes to allow separation of those women in our\n sample from participants not in the sample group. However, because the rate of\n participation in the survey was near to a complete census of available female\n cadets (581 of 593) we later decided to use all the responses in analyzing the data\n rather than just those from the initial statistical sample.\n\n During the period of May 19 through 21, 2003, the OIG DoD team administered\n the sexual assault survey at USAFA to all available female cadets. The following\n schedule shows hours of operation and the groups scheduled to take the survey:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 May 19, 8:00 AM \xe2\x80\x93 5:00 PM, 1st Class Cadets\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 May 20, 8:00 AM \xe2\x80\x93 12:00 AM, 4th Class Cadets\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 May 20, 4:00 PM \xe2\x80\x93 8:00 PM, 2nd Class Cadets and 4th Class make-up\n \xe2\x80\xa2 May 21, 8:00 AM \xe2\x80\x93 12:00 AM, 4th Class Cadets\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 May 21, 4:00 PM \xe2\x80\x93 8:00 PM, 3rd Class Cadets\n The USAFA Commandant\xe2\x80\x99s office notified all female cadets about the survey\n through the cadet chain of command, via e-mail. Cadets were required to report\n to the survey location in Fairchild Hall during their scheduled time slots to receive\n a briefing from the OIG DoD team and take the survey. As cadets arrived, they\n reported to an OIG DoD team member outside the briefing room. The IG\n representative checked the cadets\xe2\x80\x99 names off a student roster, and then allowed\n each cadet to select a sealed envelope containing an access code. Using the\n established proctor statement, an IG representative briefed the cadets on the\n purpose of the survey and emphasized that the survey was an important research\n tool that required each respondent to complete it honestly; and that the results of\n the survey would be completely anonymous. The IG representative also provided\n instructions regarding the on-line survey and explained that an IG team member\n\n\n [6]\n\x0c would be available if anyone wanted a private interview. Participants were then\n escorted into one of two adjacent computer labs, allowed to sit where they wanted\n as long as they left an empty workstation between themselves and another cadet.\n This was done to maximize privacy. As each cadet completed the survey and\n departed the computer lab, they were met by another OIG DoD representative\n who made a quick assessment whether any cadets appeared upset and needed to\n speak to someone from the counseling center, and provided written contact\n information for the IG DoD team and for the Defense Hotline.\n\nE. The Data Set\n\nFormat\n The OIG evaluators collected cadet responses using a hypertext markup language\n (HTML) survey questionnaire hosted on the OIG DoD internet Web site. By\n using Perl Script programming, Cadets\xe2\x80\x99 responses were passed from the HTML\n questionnaire into a data file. The data file was then imported into a Microsoft\n Access database. OIG DoD statisticians imported the Access database into a\n Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software file that was used to compute the\n results based on various parameters. Investigative Policy and Oversight personnel\n also used the Access database for analysis of responses, to include textual\n comments.\n\nData Loss\n The Perl Script programming used to extract and capture textual responses was\n miscoded and did not function as intended for the memo field following Question\n 25, ("If you did NOT report the sexual assault(s), why not," selection "l,"\n [Other]). Otherwise, both the non-textual responses and the related textual\n responses to the remaining questions were available for analysis with the\n exception of Question 2, (\xe2\x80\x9cSince you have been at the Academy, have you\n received any of the following kinds of UNINVITED AND UNWANTED sexual\n attention," selection "j" [Other sexual attention]). Although 30 respondents\n selected 2.j., no textual comments were provided. There were no programming\n errors associated with this anomaly.\n\nCleaning\n Of the 581 survey responses received, two of these were eliminated in their\n entirety. One response was blank other than for class year information, the other\n contained item responses that were so inconsistent that no reasonable\n reconciliation could be accomplished. This left a total of 579 usable survey\n responses.\n\n In these survey responses, 57 item responses out of a total of some 50,000 were\n recoded to resolve certain internal inconsistencies (either between two item\n responses or between item responses and comments). Whenever a preponderance\n of the information provided in the record supported one interpretation, the\n inconsistent item response was changed to reflect that view. For example, if a\n respondent indicated in Question 2 that she had never been sexually assaulted\n while at the Academy, but then contradicted this answer in Question 11 and\n\n\n [7]\n\x0c supplied specific details regarding one or more incidents of sexual assault in\n Questions 13 through 25, her answer in Item 2a was recoded to coincide with\n responses to subsequent questions. If no clear preponderance could be\n determined in certain situations, the inconsistent items were recoded as \xe2\x80\x9cno\n response.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nWritten Responses\n The survey allowed respondents to provide textual comments in 11 questions. In\n eight of these, questions provided the answer choice \xe2\x80\x9cother\xe2\x80\x9d and allowed\n respondents to elaborate on this answer choice. The team was able to extract data\n for 6 of the 8 questions, yielding 253 written comments. The other three\n questions requested respondents to comment on specific topics. Respondents\n provided 481 comments regarding safety (83%), 178 comments on training\n (31%), and 286 general comments (49%), for a total of 945 comments. Overall,\n we received 1,198 textual comments for analysis.\n In order to analyze the comments, the team placed them into database tables based\n on the topic of the comment and then began a process of categorizing the\n comments. As previously mentioned, we only received data for nine of the eleven\n textual fields. Four of the nine yielded nine or fewer written comments and,\n therefore, did not need further breakdown. The textual comments from the\n remaining five fields were sorted by question topic into tables covering cadet\n safety (questions 6e and 7), incident reporting (Question 26j), sexual assault\n prevention and awareness training (Question 27), and general comments (section\n 5 of the survey). The next step of analysis was to categorize the comments in\n each table. (For a listing of these categories and their description, see Attachment\n B)\n\n After categories were developed, the team analyzed the comments and selected all\n categories that applied. We then developed queries to further sort the comments\n based on the different categories within each table.\n\nReliability of Data\n Two of the 581 survey responses collected were discarded as unusable (one\n contained an answer to only one question; the other was so inconsistent it was\n beyond reconciliation) leaving 579 usable responses (99.7 percent).\n\n Within this set of responses, all common questions were answered by at least 571\n of the 579 cadets. With one exception, the cadets all answered at least 50 out of\n the 60 (83.3 percent) of the common questions on the survey (that is those\n questions that applied both to cadets who had experienced no sexual assaults as\n well as to those who had). A standard criterion for determining the completeness\n of a survey response is a question completion rate of 80 percent.14 The 83.3\n percent completion rate of our survey clearly meets this standard.\n\n While some responses had minor inconsistencies that we recoded, in nearly every\n survey project, items are sometimes misread or terms are misunderstood.\n Additionally, respondents sometimes quickly review the early items in a survey\n14\n The American Association of Public Opinion Research, 2000, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of\n Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, Ann Arbor, Michigan: AAPOR, p. 28.\n\n\n\n [8]\n\x0c and as a result make mistakes due to haste. This is common to virtually all survey\n research and should not be viewed as compromising the reliability of this data set.\n\n The reliability of this data is corroborated by the OIG DoD team\xe2\x80\x99s on-site\n observations of the demeanor of the cadets when completing the survey. Cadets\n gave no outward signs that led the team to believe that cadets were taking the\n survey in a manner that was either flippant or deliberately untruthful. In similar\n fashion, assessment of the respondents\xe2\x80\x99 written comments overwhelmingly\n indicates serious thought about the issues addressed in the survey, and further\n suggests that they were both sincere and truthful in taking the survey.\n\n The content of the cadets\xe2\x80\x99 responses is also generally consistent with that of the\n detailed reviews of Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) criminal\n investigative case files with regard to some of the reasons for not reporting sexual\n assaults.\n\n In general, there were no reasons identified that would indicate the survey data\n should be considered as anything but reliable. While it is impossible to prove the\n truthfulness of survey results, the evidence suggests that these data are reliable.\n\nF. Research Limitations\n The usable survey results represent a census of 579 female cadets in a total\n population of 659 (87.9% of the female cadets at the Academy). It should be\n noted that because the survey results are descriptive of the responding female\n cadets, the appropriate analytical method is enumeration. The results are from a\n census, not a random sample, so no probabilistic methods were employed. The\n results were not statistically projected beyond the respondents. The results of the\n surveys from the 579 cadets do not project to the 78 who did not participate.\n However, the number of incidents and the number of cadets\xe2\x80\x99 perceptions do\n represent the minimum numbers for all 659 cadets.\n\n It is also important to note that the responses of the cadets were taken at face\n value. OIG DoD personnel did not perform independent verifications of their\n responses, and thus there is an underlying assumption that the responding female\n cadets understood the survey questions and answered them honestly. As\n mentioned earlier, the data gives no reason to believe this assumption is false, but\n it is impossible to establish its truth with perfect certainty.\n\n It is also impossible to estimate the number of sexual assaults that may have\n occurred against female cadets who left the Academy prior to the administration\n of the survey and who were originally members of one of the year groups\n surveyed15. The survey allowed cadets to record data on up to four incidents of\n sexual assault. Nine cadets indicated they had experienced four or more\n incidents, so there may be a small number of incidents experienced, but not\n recorded.\n\n\n\n15\n Data from the investigative case review for female cadets in these same class years (2003 to 2006)\n indicate that seven sexual assaults (five of which alleged rape) have been reported by female cadets who\n had already departed the Academy and were not present for the survey.\n\n\n\n [9]\n\x0c In addition, to protect the anonymity of the respondents and to encourage honest\n responses to very sensitive questions, the survey instrument included very few\n demographic items for respondents. As a result, any similarities and variance\n among squadrons or other sub-groups of cadets at the Academy (with the\n exception of class year) cannot be identified.\n\nIII. Survey Findings \xe2\x80\x93 Sexual Assault Incidents\n This section details the findings of the survey concerning the scope of recent\n sexual assault incidents at the Academy.\n\nA. Sexual Assault Incidents at the Academy\n Of the 579 usable responses, 109 cadets (19%) indicated that they were the\n victims of at least one sexual assault since becoming an Air Force Academy cadet\n (these cadets reported a total of at least 177 sexual assault incidents). Of those\n who indicated they were sexually assaulted, 43 (7% of the total 579 respondents)\n indicated the sexual assault included the offense of rape or attempted rape. Table\n 1 contains a breakdown of the responses by class year.16\n\n Table 1 - Breakdown of Sexual Assaults by Class Year of Graduation\n Total Total Sexual Rape or\n Class Percent of Percent of\n Usable Assault Attempted\n Year Respondents Respondents\n Responses Victims Rape Victims\n 2003 128 31 24.2% 15 11.7%\n 2004 117 32 27.4% 10 8.5%\n 2005 154 27 17.5% 11 7.1%\n 2006 180 19 10.6% 7 3.9%\n Total 579 109 18.8% 43 7.4%\n\n Two other factors influence these figures. Cadets in the different class years have\n spent different amounts of time at the Academy; those with longer tenures (the class\n of 2003) have had more exposure to academy life. Also, some cadets who had\n experienced an assault early in their academic career may have left the Academy\n (voluntarily or involuntarily) and, therefore, would not be available with their\n classmates to respond to the survey.\n\n In order to compare the rates on a common basis, we established a common\n framework of incidents per 100 cadets and calculated adjusted rates accordingly.\n Table 2 shows the adjusted numbers of incidents by class year for calendar year\n 2002.17 These figures have been adjusted for the months at the Academy of the\n different cadet classes as well as the numbers of respondents. Departing the\n\n16\n Table 1 corresponds with survey questions one, 11 and 12.\n17\n Calendar year 2002 was selected because it is the longest time frame that all four classes had in common.\n Based on incident reports for 2002, it is possible to compare rates for the same time frame but at different\n stages of the cadets\xe2\x80\x99 careers at USAFA (with the caveat that the class of 2006 data is for 5.5 months, not\n 10, and had to be pro-rated up to 10 months for comparability).\n\n\n\n [ 10 ]\n\x0c Academy following an incident could not be eliminated, but focusing on the data\n from a recent year should minimize the effect of this factor.\n\n\n\n Table 2 - Sexual Assault Incidents per 100 Survey Respondents\n Class Year\n 2003 2004 2005 2006\nCalendar Year 2002 Sexual Assault Incidents 8 14 22 19\nMonths at the Academy during CY 2002 10 10 10 5.5\nTotal Respondents 128 117 154 180\nNumber of Annual Sexual Assault Incidents per\n100 Respondents for Time at USAFA 6 12 14 19\n\n Normalized sexual assault rates indicate that first-year/freshmen (Class of 2006)\n cadets have highest rate of sexual assault while forth-year cadets/seniors (Class of\n 2003) have lowest rate of sexual assault.\n\n A total of 68 respondents indicated single incidents of sexual assault, while 41 others\n indicated multiple incidents of sexual assault. Among the 41, 23 cadets indicated that\n they had been sexually assaulted twice (46 incidents), 9 cadets indicated they were\n sexually assaulted 3 times (27 incidents), and 9 cadets indicated they were sexually\n assaulted 4 or more times (36 or more incidents), amounting to a total of at least 177\n separate incidents of sexual assault during the period from 1999 to May 2003. Table\n 3 reflects a breakdown of reported sexual assault incidents by class status for each\n class year and shows that more assaults have occurred early in a cadet\xe2\x80\x99s Academy\n career.\n\n Table 3 - Reported Sexual Assault Incidents by Class Year Status\n Spring Spring\n Cadet Basic Spring\n Freshman Junior Spring\n Class Training/Fall Sophomore Total\n Yr/Fall Yr/Fall Senior\n Year of Freshman Yr/Fall Incidents\n Sophomore Senior Yr\n Yr Junior Yr\n Yr Yr\n 2003 10a 19b 10c 8d 1e 48\n 2004 13b 20c 14d 1 e* 48\n 2005 13c 22d 7 e* 42\n 2006 19d 12e* 31\n Total 55 73 31 9 1 16918\n\nNotes: a= 1999, b= 2000, c= 2001, d= 2002, e=2003 (These years indicate the year the\nsexual assault occurred).\n* Denotes only Spring semester data reflected (survey conducted in May 2003)\n\n\n18\n Eight reported incidents do not fall within this chart: Three incidents had no information on year of\n occurrence. Five incidents do not fall into the timeframe during which the cadets would normally attend\n the Academy, but they could possibly have happened while they attended the Academy Prep School or\n other factors such as administrative turn back for academic or other reasons.\n\n\n\n [ 11 ]\n\x0cB. The Offenders\n The respondents categorized the offenders for 172 of the 177 incidents including\n cadets (both senior and non-senior to the respondents), civilians not affiliated with\n the installation, and several unidentified persons. Three categories each had three\n or fewer offenders indicated: staff or faculty member, civilians assigned to the\n installation, and military assigned to the installation. (Actual numbers for each of\n these categories are not reported in order to ensure the anonymity of respondents.)\n Respondents did not provide offender information for 5 of the 177 incidents.\n Because one sexual assault incident involved multiple offenders, a total of 173\n offenders were identified. Fellow cadets were the principal offender group (149\n or 86.1% of all identified offenders); 65 were cadets who were senior to the\n victim, while 84 were cadets who were not senior. Table 419 shows the\n breakdown of offenders.\n\n Table 4. Sexual Assault Offenders\n Category of Offender Total Percentage\n Cadet who was senior to me 65 37.6%\n Cadet who was not senior to me 84 48.6%\n Non-affiliated civilian 9 5.2%\n Unidentified person 7 4.0%\n Non-installation military person 4 2.3%\n Staff or faculty member, Civilian\n assigned to installation, Other 4 2.3%\n installation military person\n Total 17320 100%\n\nC. Sexual Harassment\n Survey respondents were also asked whether they had received any uninvited and\n unwanted sexual attention since they had been at the Academy. A total of 397\n cadets (68.6%) had experienced sexual teasing, jokes, or remarks, more than half\n of them indicated multiple incidents. There was also a significant occurrence of\n sexually suggestive looks, gestures, or body language, as well as sexual whistles,\n calls, hoots, and yells. Table 5a shows that 12421 cadet respondents indicated that\n between 176 and 319 of those incidents of uninvited and unwanted sexual\n attention were also cases of \xe2\x80\x9cactual or attempted sexual assault.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Respondents who answered Question 11 affirmatively (that since becoming a\n cadet they had been sexually assaulted) have higher numbers of other forms of\n\n19\n Corresponds with Question 16 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C\n20\n One incident had two categories of offenders recorded.\n21\n This figure of 124 responses regarding sexual assault for Question 2 exceeds the 109 affirmative\n responses to Question 11 by 15 (as evident in Table 5b). However, unlike Question 11\xe2\x80\x94which asked,\n \xe2\x80\x9chave you been a victim of sexual assault while at the Academy?\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x94Question 2 included the word \xe2\x80\x9cor\n attempted sexual assault.\xe2\x80\x9d The inclusion of \xe2\x80\x9cattempted sexual assault\xe2\x80\x9d in this question may explain why\n 124 respondents indicated affirmative responses here while only 109 indicated affirmative responses to\n Question 11.\n\n\n\n [ 12 ]\n\x0c unwanted sexual attention when compared to the female cadets that answered\n Question 11 negatively. Tables 5a through 5d22 show a breakdown of this data\n according to various groups of cadets.\n\n Table 5a \xe2\x80\x93 All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Frequency of Unwanted Sexual Attention\n 6 or\n Type of Uninvited, Unwanted Sexual 1 to2 3 to 5 more No\n Attention Never times times times # Response %\na. Actual or attempted sexual\n 455 101 21 2 124 0 21.4\n assault\nb. Pressure for sexual favors 449 91 24 14 129 1 22.3\nc. Leaning over, cornering,\n pinching or brushing against, 374 124 53 27 204 1 35.2\n unwanted touching\nd. Sexually suggestive looks,\n 316 141 54 67 262 1 45.3\n gestures or body language\ne. Letters, telephone calls, emails,\n instant messaging or materials of 354 116 53 56 225 0 38.9\n a sexual nature\nf. Pressure for dates 392 116 41 30 187 0 32.3\ng. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or\n 180 155 77 165 397 2 68.6\n questions\nh. Sexual whistles, calls, hoots or\n 279 166 62 69 297 3 51.3\n yells\ni. Attempts to get your\n participation in any other sexual 477 72 16 12 100 2 17.3\n activities\nj. Other sexual attention (Specify\n 494 17 4 9 30 0 5.2\n below \xe2\x80\x93 do not use commas)\n\n\n Table 5b - Cadets NOT Sexually Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Frequency of Unwanted Sexual\n Attention (470 cadets)\n 6 or\n Type of Uninvited, Unwanted Sexual 1 to2 3 to 5 more No\n Attention Never times times times Response\n 455 1523 0 0 0\na. Actual or attempted sexual assault\n 96.8% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%\n 403 58 6 2 1\nb. Pressure for sexual favors\n 85.7% 12.3% 1.3% 0.4% 0.2%\nc. Leaning over, cornering, pinching or 345 78 32 15 0\nbrushing against, unwanted touching 73.4% 16.6% 6.8% 3.2% 0.0%\n\n\n22\n Corresponds with Question 2 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C\n23\n See \xe2\x80\x9cCleaning\xe2\x80\x9d in Section E of this appendix for an explanation of this anomaly.\n\n\n\n [ 13 ]\n\x0cd. Sexually suggestive looks, gestures or 288 110 35 37 0\nbody language 61.3% 23.4% 7.4% 7.9% 0.0%\ne. Letters, telephone calls, emails, instant 319 89 33 29 0\nmessaging or materials of a sexual nature 67.9% 18.9% 7.0% 6.2% 0.0%\n 339 85 26 20 0\nf. Pressure for dates\n 72.1% 18.1% 5.5% 4.3% 0.0%\ng. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or 165 131 60 113 1\nquestions 35.1% 27.9% 12.8% 24.0% 0.2%\n 248 135 44 41 2\nh. Sexual whistles, calls, hoots or yells\n 52.8% 28.7% 9.4% 8.7% 0.4%\ni. Attempts to get your participation in any 421 38 6 3 2\nother sexual activities 89.6% 8.1% 1.3% 0.6% 0.4%\nj. Other sexual attention (Specify below - 420 14 1 7 28\ndo not use commas) 89.4% 3.0% 0.2% 1.5% 6.0%\n\n Table 5c - Cadets Sexually Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Frequency of Unwanted Sexual Attention\n (109 Cadets)\n 6 or\n Type of Uninvited, Unwanted Sexual 1 to2 3 to 5 more No\n Attention Never times times times Response\n 0 86 21 2 0\na. Actual or attempted sexual assault\n 0.0% 78.9% 19.3% 1.8% 0.0%\n 46 33 18 12 0\nb. Pressure for sexual favors\n 42.2% 30.3% 16.5% 11.0% 0.0%\nc. Leaning over, cornering, pinching or 29 46 21 12 1\nbrushing against, unwanted touching 26.6% 42.2% 19.3% 11.0% 0.9%\nd. Sexually suggestive looks, gestures or 28 31 19 30 1\nbody language 25.7% 28.4% 17.4% 27.5% 0.9%\ne. Letters, telephone calls, emails, instant 35 27 20 27 0\nmessaging or materials of a sexual nature 32.1% 24.8% 18.3% 24.8% 0.0%\n 53 31 15 10 0\nf. Pressure for dates\n 48.6% 28.4% 13.8% 9.2% 0.0%\ng. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or 15 24 17 52 1\nquestions 13.8% 22.0% 15.6% 47.7% 0.9%\n 31 31 18 28 1\nh. Sexual whistles, calls, hoots or yells\n 28.4% 28.4% 16.5% 25.7% 0.9%\ni. Attempts to get your participation in any 56 34 10 9 0\nother sexual activities 51.4% 31.2% 9.2% 8.2% 0.0%\nj. Other sexual attention (Specify below - 74 3 3 2 27\ndo not use commas) 67.9% 2.8% 2.8% 1.8% 24.8%\n\n\n\n\n [ 14 ]\n\x0c Table 5d - Rape/Attempted Rape Victims \xe2\x80\x93 Frequency of Unwanted Sexual\n Attention (43 Cadets)\n 6 or\n Type of Uninvited, Unwanted Sexual 1 to2 3 to 5 more No\n Attention Never times times times Response\n 0 33 8 2 0\na. Actual or attempted sexual assault 0.0% 76.7% 18.6% 4.7% 0.0%\n 17 20 8 9 0\nb. Pressure for sexual favors 39.5% 46.5% 18.6% 20.9% 0.0%\nc. Leaning over, cornering, pinching or 13 15 7 7 1\nbrushing against, unwanted touching 30.2% 34.9% 16.3% 16.3% 2.3%\nd. Sexually suggestive looks, gestures or 9 12 6 15 1\nbody language 20.9% 27.9% 14.0% 34.9% 2.3%\ne. Letters, telephone calls, emails, instant 12 12 7 12 0\nmessaging or materials of a sexual nature 27.9% 27.9% 16.3% 27.9% 0.0%\n 20 9 7 7 0\nf. Pressure for dates 46.5% 20.9% 16.3% 16.3% 0.0%\ng. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or 5 10 6 21 1\nquestions 11.6% 23.3% 14.0% 48.8% 2.3%\n 11 11 8 12 1\nh. Sexual whistles, calls, hoots or yells 25.6% 25.6% 18.6% 27.9% 2.3%\ni. Attempts to get your participation in any 19 14 5 5 0\nother sexual activities 44.2% 32.6% 11.6% 11.6% 0.0%\nj. Other sexual attention (Specify below - 28 2 3 1 9\ndo not use commas) 65.1% 4.7% 7.0% 2.3% 20.9%\n\n\nD. Location of Sexual Assaults\n Respondents provided location information for 174 of the 177 sexual assault\n incidents. 64.4 percent (114) of the 177 sexual assaults occurred on the\n installation and more than half of those incidents (65 of the 114) were in the\n dormitory; the other 49 were committed on base in places other than a dormitory.\n The remaining 33.9 percent of the sexual assaults (60 of 177) occurred off base;\n most of which (49) were at events not sponsored by the Academy and 11 occurred\n at Academy sponsored events. In order words, 70.6 percent of the sexual assaults\n indicated by respondents occurred either on base or at Academy-sponsored events\n off base. Table 624 reflects a breakdown by incident and location of occurrence.\n\n\n\n\n24\n Corresponds with Question 15 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C\n\n\n\n [ 15 ]\n\x0c Table 6 - Total Sexual Assaults by Location\n Location 1st Incident 2d Incident 3d Incident 4th Incident Total\n 65\n On base (in dorm) 42 15 5 3\n 36.7%\n On base (not in 49\n 25 15 6 3\n dorm) 27.7%\n Off base\n 11\n (Academy 7 1 2 1\n 6.2%\n sponsored)\n Off base (not\n 49\n Academy 33 10 4 2\n 27.7%\n sponsored)\n 3\n No Response 2 0 1 0\n 1.7\n Total 109 41 18 9 177\n\n\nIV. Survey Findings \xe2\x80\x93 Response to Sexual\n Assaults\n This section details the findings of the survey regarding the perceptions of female\n cadets concerning the Academy\xe2\x80\x99s response to sexual assaults, including factors\n such as personal safety, attitudes of leadership towards the issue of sexual assault\n and sexual harassment, attitudes toward reporting sexual assaults, and likelihood\n of suffering repercussions for reporting an incident of sexual assault.\n\nA. Reporting of Sexual Assault Incidents\n Of the 177 sexual assault incidents recorded by 109 respondents, 33 incidents\n were reported by 29 respondents who provided data on one or more authorities to\n which the incident was reported. This allowed respondents to indicate several\n different authorities for one incident. The highest number of incidents (17 of 33\n (52%)) were reported to Air Officers Commanding (AOCs). Fifteen (45 %) were\n reported to the Academy counseling center, 12 (36%) were reported to Academy\n staff and faculty members, and 10 (30%) were reported to the military hotline run\n by cadets. Five (15%) were reported to the Air Force Office of Special\n Investigations (AFOSI). Table 725 lists the total number of incidents reported to\n each authority.\n\n\n\n\n25\n Corresponds with Question 18 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C\n\n\n\n [ 16 ]\n\x0c Table 7 - Reported Sexual Assaults\n Number of\n Citations % of 33 Total\n Authorities to which sexual assaults for each Incidents\n were reported authority Reported\n a. Air Officers Commanding (AOC) 17 51.5%\n b. Academy staff & faculty member (Not\n 12 36.4%\n AOC)\n c. Military hotline run by cadets/midshipmen 10 30.3%\n d. Military hotline NOT run by\n 1 3.0%\n cadets/midshipmen\n e. Person in cadet/midshipmen chain of\n 6 18.2%\n command\n f. Upperclassman not in chain of command 9 27.3%\n g. Academy Counseling Center 15 45.5%\n h. Installation Medical Personnel 9 27.3%\n i. Off-Installation Medical Personnel 2 6.1%\n j. Civilian Counseling Center 1 3.0%\n k. AFOSI 5 15.2%\n l. Security Forces 3 9.1%\n m. Academy Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Office 1 3.0%\n n. Installation chaplain/clergy 4 12.1%\n o. Off-installation chaplain/clergy 0 0.0%\n p. Civilian Law Enforcement Agency 2 6.1%\n r. Other (comments reflected friends) 5 15.2%\n\n The respondents also indicated that either AFOSI or civilian law enforcement\n authorities conducted investigations into a total of nine sexual assault incidents\n (six single or first incidents, and three second incidents). Some of the respondents\n (16) also indicated that no criminal investigation was conducted because they\n chose not to report the sexual assault to law enforcement officials, even though\n the incident was reported to some other authority at the Academy.\n\nReprisal for Reporting Sexual Assaults\n As previously stated, 29 of the 109 cadets who answered that they experienced\n one or more sexual assault incidents indicated that they reported the assault to\n authorities. Twelve of the 29 (41.4%) indicated that they experienced reprisal\n from another cadet, authorities at the USAFA, or other military authority. Eight\n of the 12 cadets who experienced reprisal also indicated that their peers had\n ostracized them. One additional cadet reported being ostracized while not\n suffering reprisal from authorities. Sixteen reported no repercussions.\n\n Of the 43 who indicated that they were victims of actual or attempted rape, 13\n reported at least one incident, 7 of those 13 (53.8%) indicated that there was\n reprisal for at least one incident, and 5 of those 7 stated they were also ostracized\n by their peers. Six reported no repercussions. Because several of these 43 cadets\n recorded multiple incidents of sexual assault, with at least one of them including\n\n\n [ 17 ]\n\x0c actual or attempted rape, we could not determine whether or not the incident they\n reported to authorities included actual or attempted rape. Therefore, we identified\n the 26 respondents who indicated that they had experienced a single sexual assault\n incident and that it involved actual or attempted rape. Among the 26, 6 indicated\n that they reported the incident to one or more person at USAFA or other military\n authorities. Among the six, three (50%) indicated that they had suffered reprisal26\n from another cadet, USAFA, or other military authority. Two of those three\n reported being ostracized by their peers. Three reported no repercussions.\n\n Table 827 summarizes reprisal for reporting sexual assaults and all incidents\n recorded by cadets.\n\n Table 8 \xe2\x80\x93Reprisal for Reporting Sexual Assaults\n All Cadets\n Cadets with a Q12 Cadets\n Indicating Incident* with Single All Incidents\n Sexual Plus Other Q12 Recorded by\n Assaults Incidents Incident* Cadets\nNumber of Cadets/Incidents 109 43 26 177\nReported to Authorities 29 13 6 33\nIndicated Reprisal 12/41.4% 7/53.8% 3/50 % 1428\nIndicated Being Ostracized 9 5 2 11\nIndicated No Repercussion 16 6 3 18\n* \xe2\x80\x9cQ12 Incident\xe2\x80\x9d refers to Question 12, which allowed sexual assault victims to indicate whether or not\ntheir sexual assault included actual or attempted rape.\n\n According to survey responses, of the 177 sexual assault incidents, the victims did\n not report 14329 sexual assaults. This is consistent with the fact that rape and\n sexual assault are nationally underreported phenomena among women at colleges\n and universities.30 (The Air Force Academy concurs with this fact as well.31)\n\n The respondents were asked to select all reasons that applied for not reporting\n each incident of sexual assault; therefore, cadets could select multiple reasons for\n\n26\n The incident was treated as involving reprisal if the cadet answered yes to any or all of questions 24a\n (reprisal from upperclassmen in my chain of command), 24b (reprisal from upperclassmen NOT in my\n chain of command), 24c (reprisal from Academy staff or faculty), 24d (reprisal from command officials\n (AOC, TAC, Company Commander), or 24f (punished unfairly for other unrelated infractions/violations)\n for that incident.\n27\n Corresponds with questions 23 and 24 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n28\n One of the 177 incidents involved being ostracized but not suffering reprisal from authorities. The final\n breakdown is: 10 incidents involved both reprisal and being ostracized; 4 involved reprisal but not being\n ostracized; and one involved being ostracized but not suffering reprisal. The remaining 18 incidents had\n no repercussions indicated.\n29\n Respondents indicated that they reported 33 of the 177 incidents; one respondent did not answer this\n question.\n30\n See Bonnie Fisher, et al. \xe2\x80\x9cThe Sexual Victimization of College Women\xe2\x80\x9d (Washington, DC: Department\n of Justice, December 2000): pp. 23-26.\n31\n See USAFA Instruction 51-201, \xe2\x80\x9cCadet Victim/Witness Assistance and Notification Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d April\n 18, 2000, p. 21: \xe2\x80\x9cIt is well recognized that sexual crimes are extremely underreported because of victim\xe2\x80\x99s\n fears about the reactions of others to their reporting.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n [ 18 ]\n\x0c each incident. The reason most victims indicated for not reporting sexual assaults\n was embarrassment (77 incidents for 53.8 percent of non-reported incidents). The\n second highest reason for not reporting was fear of being ostracized by their peers\n (66 incidents for 46.2 percent of non-reported incidents). The third highest\n response was a belief that nothing would be done about the sexual assault (58\n incidents for 40.6 percent of non-reported incidents). There were 61 incidents in\n which sexual assault victims selected at least one of the four forms of reprisal\n (items a through d in Table 9), making fear of reprisal another significant reason\n why victims did not report their assaults. Table 932 provides further details\n regarding why the alleged victims did not report sexual assaults and the associated\n percentage of the 143 non-reported incidents.\n\n Table 9 - Cadets Sexually Assaulted\xe2\x80\x94Reasons for Not Reporting Incidents\n Number of\n Reasons for not reporting:\n Incidents*\n 33\n a. Feared some form of reprisal 61/42.7%\n b. Feared being ostracized by peers 66/46.2%\n c. Feared being punished for other infractions/violations I committed 34/23.8%\n d. Believed that nothing would be done about the sexual assault 58/40.6%\n e. Not aware of reporting procedures 23/16.1%\n f. Embarrassment 77/53.8%\n g. Fear that a significant other would find out 14/9.8%\n h. Other 39/27.3%\n* As cadets could select multiple reasons for not reporting a single incident, the numbers in this column\ntotal above 143, the total number of incidents not reported.\n\n Additionally all survey respondents (not just victims of sexual assault) were then\n asked for their perspective on the number one reason, excluding embarrassment or\n shame, why some sexual assault victims do not report. A total of 190 (32.8%)\n selected \xe2\x80\x9cFeared being ostracized by peers\xe2\x80\x9d as the number one reason victims do\n not report sexual assaults. The second highest response selected was \xe2\x80\x9cfear of\n being punished for other infractions/violations committed,\xe2\x80\x9d with 155 (26.8%).\n These reasons are consistent when comparing responses of cadets who indicated\n they were sexually assaulted and those that were not, as shown in Table 10.34\n\n\n\n\n32\n Corresponds with Question 25 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n33\n Within these 61 incidents, cadets indicated the fear of reprisal from upperclassman in their chain of\n command for 34 incidents, the fear of reprisal from upperclassmen not in their chain of command for\n 37 incidents, the fear of reprisal from Academy staff or faculty for 17 incidents, and the fear of reprisal\n from command officials (AOC, TAC, or Company Commander) for 35 incidents. (As cadets could\n indicate multiple specific forms of feared reprisal as reasons for not reporting a single incident, these\n numbers total above 61, the total number of incidents for which some form of feared reprisal was\n indicated as a reason for not reporting).\n34\n Corresponds with Question 26 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 19 ]\n\x0c Table 10 - All Respondents - Reasons for Not Reporting Sexual Assaults Incidents\n Excluding Embarrassment or Shame\xe2\x80\x93Comparing Respondents Sexually Assaulted\n and Not Sexually Assaulted\n Respondents Respondents\n Number one reason for not reporting\n Sexually Not Sexually Total\n sexual assault incidents\n Assaulted Assaulted\n a. Feared some form of reprisal:35 19/3.3% 36/6.2% 54/9.3%\n e. Feared being ostracized by peers 35/32.1% 155/33.4% 190/32.8%\n f. Feared being punished for other\n 28/25.7% 127/27.3% 155/26.8%\n infractions/violations I committed\n g. Believed that nothing would be done\n 15/13.8% 42/9.0% 57/9.8%\n about the sexual assault\n h. Not aware of reporting procedures 1/0.9% 2/0.4% 3/0.5%\n i. Fear that a significant other would\n 1/0.9% 4/0.9% 5/0.9%\n find out.\n j. Other 10/9.2% 98/21.1% 108/18.7%\n No Response 0/0.0% 6/1.2% 6/1.0%\n Total Responses 109 464 579\n\n\nB. Perceptions of Previous Command\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Sexual\n Assaults\n The respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with certain\n statements related to what the Academy\xe2\x80\x99s leaders had done prior to January 2003\n to prevent sexual assault and to encourage reporting. Table 11a36 reflects the\n results.\n\n Table 11a - All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Previous Academy Leaders\n Prior to January 2003, the Strongly Don\xe2\x80\x99t No\n Academy\xe2\x80\x99s leaders\xe2\x80\xa6 Agree Agree Disagree Know response\n a. handled sexual assault cases 19 67 310 182 1\n appropriately 3.3% 11.6% 53.5% 31.4% 0.2%\n\n\n\n35\n The cadets indicated the following specific forms of reprisal as the top reason for not reporting:\n Respondents Respondents\n Number one reason for not reporting sexual assault\n Sexually Not Sexually Total\n incidents\n Assaulted Assaulted\n a. from upperclassmen in my chain of command 4/3.7% 8/1.7% 12/2.1%\n b. from upperclassmen NOT in my chain of command 5/4.6% 9/1.9% 14/2.4%\n c. from Academy staff or faculty 2/1.8% 3/0.6% 5/0.9%\n d. from command officials (AOC, TAC, Company\n 8/7.3% 16/3.4% 24/4.1%\n Commander)\n\n36\n Corresponds with Question 8 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 20 ]\n\x0cb. in general, punished offenders 25 66 266 221 1\nappropriately 4.3% 11.4% 45.9% 38.2% 0.2%\nc. implemented sufficient\nprograms to prevent sexual 96 238 172 70 3\nassaults 16.6% 41.1% 29.7% 12.1% 0.5%\nd. increased awareness and\n 113 203 216 45 2\nencouraged victims and others to\n 19.5% 35.1% 37.3% 7.8% 0.3%\nreport sexual assaults\ne. effectively assisted sexual 31 85 254 208 1\nassault victims 5.4% 14.7% 43.9% 35.9% 0.2%\nf. treated sexual assault victims 27 70 263 216 3\nfairly 4.7% 12.1% 45.4% 37.3% 0.5%\ng. did not tolerate sexual assaults 75 183 176 143 2\n 13.0% 31.6% 30.4% 24.7% 0.3%\nh. had a good process for reporting 59 134 243 141 2\nsexual assaults 10.2% 23.1% 42.0% 24.4% 0.3%\n\n Tables 11b, c, and d, reflect the same question broken out by respondent groups\n who indicated that they were sexually assaulted and those who indicated that they\n were not.\n\n Table 11b - Cadets Not Sexually Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Academy Leaders\nPrior to January 2003, the Strongly Don\xe2\x80\x99t No\nAcademy\xe2\x80\x99s leaders\xe2\x80\xa6 Agree Agree Disagree Know response\na. handled sexual assault cases 17 53 239 160 1\nappropriately 3.6% 11.3% 50.9% 34.0% 0.2%\nb. in general, punished offenders 21 53 211 184 1\nappropriately 4.5% 11.3% 44.9% 39.1% 0.2%\nc. implemented sufficient\n 83 199 125 61 2\nprograms to prevent sexual\n 17.7% 42.3% 26.6% 13.0% 0.4%\nassaults\nd. increased awareness and\n 96 171 158 43 2\nencouraged victims and others to\n 20.4% 36.4% 33.6% 9.2% 0.4%\nreport sexual assaults\ne. effectively assisted sexual 27 67 194 181 1\nassault victims 5.7% 14.3% 41.3% 38.5% 0.2%\nf. treated sexual assault victims 24 54 200 190 2\nfairly 5.1% 11.5% 42.6% 40.4% 0.4%\ng. did not tolerate sexual assaults 65 150 132 121 2\n 13.8% 31.9% 28.1% 25.7% 0.4%\nh. had a good process for reporting 49 108 189 122 2\nsexual assaults 10.4% 23.0% 40.2% 26.0% 0.4%\n\n\n\n\n [ 21 ]\n\x0c Table 11c - Cadets Sexually Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Academy Leaders\n Prior to January 2003, the Strongly Don\xe2\x80\x99t No\n Academy\xe2\x80\x99s leaders\xe2\x80\xa6 Agree Agree Disagree Know Response\n a. handled sexual assault cases 2 14 71 22 0\n appropriately 1.8% 12.8% 65.1% 20.2% 0.0%\n b. in general, punished offenders 4 13 55 37 0\n appropriately 3.7% 11.9% 50.5% 33.9% 0.0%\n c. implemented sufficient\n programs to prevent sexual 13 39 47 9 1\n assaults 11.9% 35.8% 43.1% 8.3% 0.9%\n d. increased awareness and\n 17 32 58 2 0\n encouraged victims and others to\n 15.6% 29.4% 53.2% 1.8% 0.0%\n report sexual assaults\n e. effectively assisted sexual 4 18 60 27 0\n assault victims 3.7% 16.5% 55.0% 24.8% 0.0%\n f. treated sexual assault victims 3 16 63 26 1\n fairly 2.8% 14.7% 57.8% 23.9% 0.9%\n g. did not tolerate sexual assaults 10 33 44 22 0\n 9.2% 30.3% 40.4% 20.2% 0.0%\n h. had a good process for 10 26 54 19 0\n reporting sexual assaults 9.2% 23.9% 49.5% 17.4% 0.0%\n\n Table 11d - Cadet: Victims of Rape/Attempted Rape \xe2\x80\x93\n View of Academy Leaders\nPrior to January 2003, the Strongly I Don\'t No\nAcademy\xe2\x80\x99s leaders\xe2\x80\xa6 Agree Agree Disagree Know Response\na. handled sexual assault cases 0 5 29 9 0\nappropriately 0.0% 11.6% 67.4% 20.9% 0.0%\nb. in general, punished offenders 0 6 21 16 0\nappropriately 0.0% 14.0% 48.8% 37.2% 0.0%\nc. implemented sufficient programs 3 20 15 4 1\nto prevent sexual assaults 7.0% 46.5% 34.9% 9.3% 2.3%\nd. increased awareness and\n 3 14 24 2 0\nencouraged victims and others to\n 7.0% 32.6% 55.8% 4.7% 0.0%\nreport sexual assaults\ne. effectively assisted sexual assault 0 8 24 11 0\nvictims 0.0% 18.6% 55.8% 25.6% 0.0%\nf. treated sexual assault victims 0 6 26 11 0\nfairly 0.0% 14.0% 60.5% 25.6% 0.0%\n 2 16 17 8 0\ng. did not tolerate sexual assaults 4.7% 37.2% 39.5% 18.6% 0.0%\nh. had a good process for reporting 2 14 17 10 0\nsexual assaults 4.7% 32.6% 39.5% 23.3% 0.0%\n\n\n\n\n [ 22 ]\n\x0c While at least 60 percent of respondents37 indicated that previous Academy\n leaders implemented sufficient programs to prevent sexual assaults, increase\n awareness, and encourage reporting of sexual assaults, approximately 75% of the\n respondents also indicated that previous leaders did not handle sexual assault\n cases or punish offenders appropriately, nor did they assist sexual assault victims\n or treat them fairly. Those respondents who indicated that they had been\n assaulted were even more negative towards previous command actions and\n significantly fewer of these assaulted cadets indicated they did not know. In\n addition, for the respondents who indicated assault including rape or attempted\n rape, the views on past command action are even lower.\n\n The respondents were asked whether prior to January 2003, certain actions had\n been taken at the Academy to prevent sexual assaults and uninvited and unwanted\n sexual attention.38 Seventy-six percent (439 of 579) of the respondents indicated\n that the Academy has made it clear that this behavior will not be tolerated.\n Eighty-six percent (499 of 577) indicated that the Academy has provided\n awareness and prevention training. Twenty percent (117 of 576) indicated that\n penalties are enforced against unit commanders or superiors who tolerate this\n behavior. Nearly half of the respondents did not know whether complaints were\n investigated, whether penalties are enforced against offenders, and whether\n penalties are enforced against unit commanders or superiors that tolerate sexual\n assaults and unwanted, uninvited sexual attention. Further results are provided in\n Table 12a.39\n\n Table 12a - All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Actions Taken by Previous Command\n Don\xe2\x80\x99t No\n Preventive Actions Yes No know Response\n a. Making it clear that this behavior will 439 104 36 0\n not be tolerated. 75.8% 18.0% 6.2% 0.0%\n b. Investigating complaints. 201 116 261 1\n 34.7% 20.0% 45.1% 0.2%\n c. Enforcing penalties against offenders. 150 169 258 2\n 25.9% 29.2 44.6% 0.3%\n d. Enforcing penalties against unit\n 117 147 313 2\n commanders or superiors who tolerate\n 20.2% 25.4% 54.1% 0.3%\n this behavior.\n e. Providing awareness and prevention 499 57 20 3\n training. 86.2% 9.8% 3.5% 0.5%\n\n Tables 12b and c reflect the same information broken out by respondents who\n indicated they were sexually assaulted and those who did not.\n\n\n\n\n37\n These figures are based on the total respondents who rendered an opinion; these figures do not include\n the cadets who indicated they did not know.\n38\n Survey Question 4, \xe2\x80\x9cPrior to January 2003, at your academy, have these actions been taken to prevent\n sexual assaults and uninvited, unwanted sexual attention?\xe2\x80\x9d\n39\n Corresponds with Question 4 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 23 ]\n\x0c Table 12b - Cadets Not Sexually Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Actions\n Taken by Previous Command\n\n Don\xe2\x80\x99t No\n Preventive Actions Yes No know Response\n a. Making it clear that this behavior will 369 71 30 0\n not be tolerated. 78.5% 15.1% 6.4% 0.0%\n b. Investigating complaints. 164 81 224 1\n 34.9% 17.2% 47.7% 0.2%\n c. Enforcing penalties against offenders. 126 122 220 2\n 26.8% 26.0% 46.8% 0.4%\n d. Enforcing penalties against unit\n 100 106 262 2\n commanders or superiors who tolerate\n 21.3% 22.6% 55.7% 0.4%\n this behavior.\n e. Providing awareness and prevention 414 37 17 2\n training. 88.1% 7.9% 3.6% 0.4%\n\n Table 12c - Cadets Sexually Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Actions Taken by Previous\n Command\n Don\xe2\x80\x99t No\n Preventive Actions Yes No know Response\n a. Making it clear that this behavior will 70 33 6 0\n not be tolerated. 64.2% 30.3% 5.5% 0.0%\n b. Investigating complaints. 37 35 37 0\n 33.9% 32.1% 33.9% 0.0%\n c. Enforcing penalties against offenders. 24 47 38 0\n 22.0% 43.1% 34.9% 0.0%\n d. Enforcing penalties against unit\n 17 41 51 0\n commanders or superiors who tolerate\n 15.6% 37.6% 46.8% 0.0%\n this behavior.\n e. Providing awareness and prevention 85 20 3 1\n training. 78.0% 18.4% 2.8% 0.9%\n\n When the cadets were asked what action was taken against the offender regarding\n their sexual assault incident(s), no respondents indicated that the offender was\n court-martialed or received non-judicial punishment. Three offenders were\n dismissed from the Academy, two left the Academy voluntarily, and one received\n cadet discipline. Respondents indicated that in 15 incidents, no action was taken\n against their offender. Eleven respondents indicated that the action taken against\n the offender(s) that assaulted them was too lenient, and six indicated the action\n taken was appropriate to the circumstances.\n The respondents were also asked how much they agreed or disagreed that, prior to\n January 2003, the Academy agencies/entities listed in Table 13a40, effectively\n handled matters related to sexual assaults.\n\n\n\n40\n Corresponds with Question 9 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 24 ]\n\x0c Table 13a - All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Academy Agencies\n Agencies/entities effectively\n handled matters related to Strongly Don\xe2\x80\x99t No\n sexual assaults Agree Agree Disagree Know Response\n a. Cadet/midshipman\n 97 139 20 321 2\n Victim/Witness Assistance\n 16.8% 24.0% 3.5% 55.4% 0.3%\n Office\n b. Cadet/midshipman Counseling 115 192 37 233 2\n Center 19.9% 33.2% 6.4% 40.2% 0.3%\n 45 128 111 293 2\n c. Academy Medical facilities 7.8% 22.1% 19.2% 50.6% 0.3%\n 31 97 85 362 4\n d. Academy Legal personnel 5.4% 16.8% 14.7% 62.5% 0.6%\n 32 71 140 332 4\n e. AFOSI 5.5% 12.3% 24.2% 57.3% 0.6%\n 28 73 76 397 5\n f. Security Forces 4.8% 12.6% 13.1% 68.6% 0.9%\n\n According to the data, approximately 92 percent of the cadets who rendered an\n opinion about the Victim/Witness Assistance Office and the Cadet Counseling\n Center indicated they handle sexual assault matters effectively. While only 5\n respondents previously indicated they reported their sexual assault to AFOSI, 140\n of the 243 respondents (58%) who rendered an opinion about AFOSI, do not\n believe they effectively handle sexual assault matters. Table 13b reflects the\n views of respondents who indicated they were sexually assaulted.\n\n Table 13b - Cadets Sexual Assaulted\xe2\x80\x93\n Views on Academy Agencies (109 Cadets)\n Agencies/entities effectively handledStrongly I Don\'t\nmatters related to sexual assaults Agree Agree Disagree Know\na. Cadet/midshipman Victim/Witness 22 35 7 45\nAssistance Office 20.2% 32.1% 6.4% 41.3%\n 24 37 12 36\nb. Cadet/midshipman Counseling Center 22.0% 33.9% 11.0% 33.0%\n 7 23 33 46\nc. Academy Medical facilities 6.4% 21.1% 30.3% 42.2%\n 5 21 24 59\nd. Academy Legal personnel 4.6% 19.3% 22.0% 54.1%\n 5 13 37 54\ne. OSI, CID or NCIS 4.6% 11.9% 33.9% 49.5%\nf. Security Forces, Military Police, 5 15 27 62\nMasters at Arms 4.6% 13.8% 24.8% 56.9%\n\n The participants were asked whether they believed training in sexual assault-\n related topics was adequate, needed improvement, or whether training was not\n offered. Although the responses indicated that each topic is trained at the\n Academy, it is also apparent that not all cadets received training in all of the\n\n\n [ 25 ]\n\x0c topics. Most notable was a lack of training in the roles of AFOSI, security forces,\n and legal offices regarding sexual assaults. The areas in which most respondents\n believed training was adequate was \xe2\x80\x9cunderstanding sexual assault (definition),\xe2\x80\x9d\n followed by \xe2\x80\x9cHotline\xe2\x80\x99s role in sexual assaults,\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cself-defense training.\xe2\x80\x9d Only\n 316 of 578 (55%) of respondents indicated that training on sexual assault\n reporting was adequate and 107 of 571 (19%) thought training on amnesty\n programs was adequate. Tables 14a and b41 reflect the training responses for all\n respondents and then for those 109 respondents indicating they were sexually\n assaulted. Some contrast is noted in items a, b, k, and m, where sexual assault\n victims\xe2\x80\x99 answers were lower in adequacy, and higher in needs improvement\n categories, while their responses in items c, d, e, and f closely resembled those of\n all respondents.\n\n Table 14a- All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Sexual Assault Training\n Needs N/A Not No\n Training Adequate Improvement Trained Response Totals\na. Understanding sexual assault 502 65 11 1\n(definition) 86.7% 11.2% 1.9% 0.2% 579\n 316 233 29 1\nb. Reporting sexual assault 54.6% 40.2% 5.0% 0.2% 579\nc. Investigating sexual assaults 134 244 198 3\n(OSI, CID, NCIS role) 23.1% 42.1% 34.2% 0.6% 576\nd. Police role in sexual assaults\n 115 228 228 8\n(Security Forces, Military 579\n 19.9% 39.4% 39.4% 1.4%\nPolice, Masters at Arms)\ne. Command\xe2\x80\x99s role in handling 161 272 140 6\nsexual assaults 27.8% 47.0% 24.2% 1.0% 579\nf. Medical personnel\xe2\x80\x99s role in 286 188 98 7\nsexual assaults 49.4% 32.5% 16.9% 1.2% 579\ng. Counseling center\xe2\x80\x99s role in 386 144 46 3\nsexual assaults 66.7% 24.9% 7.9% 0.5% 579\nh. Hotline\xe2\x80\x99s role in sexual 460 85 30 4\nassaults 79.5% 14.7% 5.1% 0.7% 579\ni. SJA/Legal office\'s role in 146 220 208 5\nsexual assaults 25.2% 38.0% 35.9% 0.9% 579\nj. Victim/Witness Assistance 207 197 169 6\nProgram 35.8% 34.0% 29.2% 1.0% 579\nk. Dormitory security 354 128 91 6\nprocedures 61.1% 22.1% 15.7% 1.0% 579\n 451 107 16 5\nl. Self-defense training 77.9% 18.4% 2.8% 0.9% 579\n 107 307 157 8\nm. Amnesty programs 18.5% 53.0% 27.1% 1.4% 579\n\n\n\n41\n Corresponds with Question 27 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 26 ]\n\x0c Table 14b - Cadets Indicating Sexually Assault \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Sexual Assault Training\n Needs N/A Not No\n Training Adequate Improvement Trained Response Totals\na. Understanding sexual assault 83 22 4 0\n(definition) 76.1% 20.2% 3.7% 0.0% 109\n 44 58 7 0\nb. Reporting sexual assault 40.4% 53.2% 6.4% 0.0% 109\nc. Investigating sexual assaults 26 47 36 0\n(OSI, CID, NCIS role) 23.9% 43.1% 33.0% 0.0% 109\nd. Police role in sexual assaults\n 18 45 43 3\n(Security Forces, Military 109\n 16.5% 41.3% 39.4% 2.8%\nPolice, Masters at Arms)\ne. Command\xe2\x80\x99s role in handling 28 54 25 2\nsexual assaults 25.7% 49.5% 22.9% 1.8% 109\nf. Medical personnel\xe2\x80\x99s role in 52 35 19 3\nsexual assaults 47.7% 32.1% 17.4% 2.8% 109\ng. Counseling center\xe2\x80\x99s role in 68 34 6 1\nsexual assaults 62.4% 31.2% 5.5% 0.9% 109\nh. Hotline\xe2\x80\x99s role in sexual 81 20 6 2\nassaults 74.3% 18.4% 5.5% 1.8% 109\ni. SJA/Legal office\'s role in 25 49 33 2\nsexual assaults 22.9% 45.0% 30.3% 1.8% 109\nj. Victim/Witness Assistance 36 48 23 2\nProgram 33.0% 44.0% 21.1% 1.8% 109\nk. Dormitory security 49 42 16 2\nprocedures 45.0% 38.5% 14.7% 1.8% 109\n 84 20 3 2\nl. Self-defense training 77.1% 18.3% 2.8% 1.8% 109\n 11 74 23 1\nm. Amnesty programs 10.1% 67.9% 21.1% 0.9% 109\n\n The respondents were asked to provide their level of agreement that certain\n groups of Academy personnel made honest and reasonable efforts to prevent or\n stop uninvited and unwanted sexual attention at the Academy. The groups\n included the current and previous senior Academy leaders, commissioned\n officers, faculty members, and cadets. Most respondents (556 of 576 [96%])\n agreed that the current senior leadership made honest and reasonable efforts to\n prevent or stop uninvited and unwanted sexual attention. In contrast, 267 of 577\n (46%) respondents agreed that the previous senior leadership made honest and\n reasonable efforts in this area. The Table 15a42 reflects the results of this\n question.\n\n\n\n\n42\n Corresponds with Question 3 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 27 ]\n\x0c Table 15a - All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Leadership and Fellow Cadets\n\n Strongly Strongly No\n Persons or Groups Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Response\na. Current Senior leadership 330 226 12 10 1\nof my Academy 57.0% 39.0% 2.1% 1.7% 0.2%\nb. Previous Senior leadership 57 210 209 101 2\nof my Academy 9.8% 36.3% 36.1% 17.4% 0.3%\nc. Commissioned officer\n 132 329 90 26 2\nchain of command below the\n 22.8% 56.8% 15.5% 4.5% 0.3%\nCommandant\nd. Academy faculty members 187 329 51 11 1\n 32.3% 56.8% 8.8% 1.9% 0.2%\ne. My cadet leadership chain 124 321 94 39 1\n 21.4% 55.4% 16.2% 6.7% 0.2%\nf. My fellow cadets 119 293 127 39 1\n 20.6% 50.6% 21.9% 6.7% 0.2%\n\n When the data are reviewed from the perspective of those cadets who indicated\n they were sexually assaulted, and those who did not, differences of opinion are\n evident regarding commissioned officers, the cadet leadership chain, and fellow\n cadets. Approximately 20 percent more of the respondents who were not sexually\n assaulted agreed that these groups made honest and reasonable efforts to prevent\n or stop uninvited and unwanted sexual attention at the Academy. The Tables 15b,\n c, d, and e below reflect this breakout.\n\nTable 15b - Cadets Not Sexual Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Views of Leadership and Fellow Cadets\n Strongly Strongly No\n Persons or Groups Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Response\na. Current Senior 273 180 9 8 0\nleadership of my Academy 58.1% 38.3% 1.9% 1.7% 0.0%\nb. Previous Senior 48 175 175 71 1\nleadership of my Academy 10.2% 37.2% 37.2% 15.1% 0.2%\nc. Commissioned officer\n 113 279 60 17 1\nchain of command below\n 24.0% 59.4% 12.8% 3.6% 0.2%\nthe Commandant\nd. Academy faculty 155 269 37 9 0\nmembers 33.0% 57.2% 7.9% 1.9% 0.0%\ne. My cadet leadership 106 273 70 21 0\nchain 22.6% 58.1% 14.9% 4.5% 0.0%\nf. My fellow cadets 107 250 91 22 0\n 22.8% 53.2% 19.4% 4.7% 0.0%\n\n\n\n\n [ 28 ]\n\x0cTable 15c - Cadets Indicating Sexually Assaulted \xe2\x80\x93 Views of Leadership and Fellow\n Cadets\n Strongly Strongly No\n Persons or Groups Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Response\na. Current Senior 57 46 3 2 1\nleadership of my Academy 52.3% 42.2% 2.8% 1.8% 0.9%\nb. Previous Senior 9 35 34 30 1\nleadership of my Academy 8.3% 32.1% 31.2% 27.5% 0.9%\nc. Commissioned officer\n 19 50 30 9 1\nchain of command below\n 17.4% 45.9% 27.5% 8.3% 0.9%\nthe Commandant\nd. Academy faculty 32 60 14 2 1\nmembers 29.4% 55.1% 12.8% 1.8% 0.9%\ne. My cadet leadership 18 48 24 18 1\nchain 16.5% 44.0% 22.0% 16.5% 0.9%\nf. My fellow cadets 12 43 36 17 1\n 11.0% 39.5% 33.0% 15.6% 0.9%\n\nTable 15d - Cadets Sexually Assaulted But Not Rape/Attempt \xe2\x80\x93 Views of Leadership\n and Fellow Cadets\n Strongly Strongly\n Person or Group of Persons Agree Agree Disagree Disagree\na. Current Senior leadership of my 35 28 3 0\nAcademy 53.0% 42.4% 4.6% 0.0%\nb. Previous Senior leadership of 7 17 23 19\nmy Academy 10.6% 25.8% 34.9% 28.8%\nc. Commissioned officer chain of 12 30 20 4\ncommand below the Commandant 18.2% 45.5% 30.3% 6.1%\n 19 34 11 2\nd. Academy faculty members 30.2% 51.5% 16.7% 3.0%\ne. My cadet/midshipmen 14 22 16 14\nleadership chain 21.2% 33.3% 24.2% 21.2%\n 7 25 23 11\nf. My fellow cadets/midshipmen 10.6% 37.9% 34.9% 16.7%\n(Note: Total cadets in this group amount to 66)\n\n Table 15e \xe2\x80\x93 Cadets\xe2\x80\x99 Sexual Assaults Include Rape/Attempt \xe2\x80\x93 Views of Leadership\n and Fellow Cadets\n Strongly Strongly No\nPerson or Group of Persons Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Response\na. Current Senior leadership of my 22 18 0 2 1\nAcademy 51.2% 41.9% 0.0% 4.7% 2.3%\nb. Previous Senior leadership of my 2 18 11 11 1\nAcademy 4.7% 41.9% 25.6% 25.6% 2.3%\n\n\n\n\n [ 29 ]\n\x0cc. Commissioned officer chain of 7 20 10 5 1\ncommand below the Commandant 16.3% 46.5% 23.3% 11.6% 2.3%\n 13 26 3 0 1\nd. Academy faculty members 30.2% 60.5% 7.0% 0.0% 2.3%\ne. My cadet/midshipmen leadership 4 26 8 4 1\nchain 9.3% 60.5% 18.6% 9.3% 2.3%\n 5 18 13 6 1\nf. My fellow cadets/midshipmen 11.6% 41.9% 30.2% 14.0% 2.3%\n\n The participants were asked a series of questions related to reporting sexual\n assaults listed in Table 16a43, and indicate how much they agreed or disagreed\n with each statement.\n\n Table 16a - All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Cadet Loyalty and Sexual Assault\n Reporting\n Strongly Strongly No\n Most cadets are willing to\xe2\x80\xa6 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree response\n a. report a sexual assault\n 45 150 282 101 1\n incident regardless of loyalty\n 7.8% 25.9% 48.7% 17.4% 0.2%\n to the offender\n b. report a sexual assault\n 20 121 347 90 1\n incident even if the victim\n 3.5% 20.9% 59.9% 15.5% 0.2%\n told them in confidence\n c. provide information that\n might implicate themselves or 23 94 301 159 2\n other in lesser infractions, 4.0% 16.2% 52.0% 27.5% 0.3%\n such as underage drinking\n\n The data indicate that the respondents perceive that most cadets are not willing to\n report sexual assaults, and are not willing to provide information about sexual\n assaults that might implicate themselves in lesser infractions. These views are\n even stronger for cadets who indicated they had been sexually assaulted,\n particularly those whose assault included rape or attempted rape. Tables 16b and\n c show the responses broken out first by those cadets who indicated they had not\n been sexually assaulted and by cadets whose sexual assault included rape or\n attempted rape.\n\n Table 16b - Cadets Indicating No Sexual Assault \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Cadet Loyalty and\n Sexual Assault Reporting\n Strongly Strongly No\n Most cadets are willing to\xe2\x80\xa6 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree response\na. report a sexual assault incident 40 135 226 68 1\nregardless of loyalty to the offender 8.5% 28.7% 48.1% 14.5% 0.2%\n\n\n\n43\n Corresponds with Question 10 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 30 ]\n\x0cb. report a sexual assault incident\n 15 105 286 63 1\neven if the victim told them in\n 3.2% 22.3% 60.9% 13.4% 0.2%\nconfidence\nc. provide information that might\nimplicate themselves or others in 19 85 251 113 2\nlesser infractions, such as underage 4.0% 18.1% 53.4% 24.0% 0.4%\ndrinking\n\n Table 16c \xe2\x80\x93 Rape/Attempted Rape Victims\xe2\x80\x99 Views on Cadet Loyalty and Sexual\n Assault Reporting (43 Cadets)\n Strongly Strongly\n Most cadets are willing to\xe2\x80\xa6 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree\na. report a sexual assault incident 1 4 20 18\nregardless of loyalty to the offender 2.3% 9.3% 46.5% 41.9%\nb. report a sexual assault incident\n 1 3 25 14\neven if the victim told them in\n 2.3% 7.0% 58.1% 32.6%\nconfidence\nc. provide information that might\nimplicate themselves or others in 0 0 21 22\nlesser infractions, such as underage 0.0% 0.0% 46.8% 51.8%\ndrinking\n\n Respondents were asked in Question 5 to indicate how safe they felt in various\n locations and situations, and the vast majority (over 90%) indicated they \xe2\x80\x9cvery\n safe\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9csafe\xe2\x80\x9d in every situation except being \xe2\x80\x9calone on academy grounds during\n hours of darkness\xe2\x80\x9d (Item 5f). In this instance only 69 percent selected \xe2\x80\x9cvery safe\xe2\x80\x9d\n or \xe2\x80\x9csafe\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9420 percent felt only \xe2\x80\x9csomewhat safe\xe2\x80\x9d, and another 10percent felt either\n \xe2\x80\x9cunsafe\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery unsafe.\xe2\x80\x9d Table 17a44 details the responses to this question.\n\n Table 17a - All Respondents \xe2\x80\x93 Views of Safety\n Very Somewhat Somewhat Very No\nHow safe do you feel\xe2\x80\xa6 Safe Safe Safe Unsafe Unsafe Response\na. In your dormitory room with 520 52 1 5 1 0\nyour roommate 89.8% 9.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0%\n 427 106 32 8 5 1\nb. Alone in your dormitory room 73.7% 18.3% 5.5% 1.4% 0.9% 0.2%\nc. In common areas within the 448 105 22 1 1 2\ndormitory 77.4% 18.1% 3.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%\nd. In a dormitory room with a\nmember of your cadet or 436 124 14 4 1 0\nmidshipmen chain of command 75.3% 21.4% 2.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0%\nwho is of the opposite sex\ne. Alone on academy grounds 469 99 8 1 1 1\nduring daylight hours 81.0% 17.1% 1.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%\n\n44\n Corresponds with Question 5 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 31 ]\n\x0cf. Alone on academy grounds 216 183 116 51 12 1\nduring hours of darkness 37.3% 31.6% 20.0% 8.8% 2.1% 0.2%\ng. Alone in the office with a\n 436 116 19 5 1 2\ncommissioned officer, or a\n 75.3% 20.0% 3.3% 0.9% 0.2% 0.3%\ncivilian instructor\n\n Table 17b details the responses of those cadets who indicated sexual assault in\n Question 11. The numbers are not quite as high, but in every situation\xe2\x80\x94except\n Item 5f\xe2\x80\x9486 percent or more indicated they felt \xe2\x80\x9cvery safe\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9csafe.\xe2\x80\x9d For Item\n 5f, only 54 percent felt \xe2\x80\x9cvery safe\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9csafe\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9430 percent felt only \xe2\x80\x9csomewhat\n safe,\xe2\x80\x9d and another 15 percent felt \xe2\x80\x9cunsafe\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery unsafe.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n Table 17b - Cadets Indicating Sexual Assault \xe2\x80\x93 Views of Safety\n\n Very Somewhat Somewhat Very No\n How safe do you feel\xe2\x80\xa6 Safe Safe Safe Unsafe Unsafe Response\na. In your dormitory room with 84 21 1 3 0 0\nyour roommate 77% 19% 1% 3% 0.0% 0.0%\nb. Alone in your dormitory 64 30 9 4 2 0\nroom 59% 27% 8% 4% 2% 0.0%\nc. In common areas within the 64 38 6 1 0 0\ndormitory 59% 35% 5 1% 0.0% 0.0%\nd. In a dormitory room with a\nmember of your cadet or 61 40 6 2 0 0\nmidshipmen chain of command 56% 37% 5% 2% 0.0% 0.0%\nwho is of the opposite sex\ne. Alone on academy grounds 66 39 3 0 0 1\nduring daylight hours 61% 36% 3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%\nf. Alone on academy grounds 32 27 33 13 3 1\nduring hours of darkness 29% 25% 30% 12% 3% 0.9%\ng. Alone in the office with a\n 62 36 9 1 0 1\ncommissioned officer, or a\n 57% 33% 8% 1% 0.0% 0.9%\ncivilian instructor\n\n Respondents were also asked to identify their biggest personal safety fear. A total\n of 365 cadets (63.0% of all respondents) indicated no fears about personal safety,\n while 14.2 percent (82 of 579) indicated the fear of being hazed or unjustifiably\n harassed. Only 8.8 percent indicated the fear of being sexually assaulted,\n although these numbers were nearly double for those cadets who indicated\n experiencing sexual assault or rape. Table 1845 shows the response tabulations for\n cadets who indicated experiencing no assault, assault, or rape/attempted rape.\n\n\n45\n Corresponds with Question 6 of survey questionnaire at Attachment C.\n\n\n\n [ 32 ]\n\x0cTable 18 - All Respondents by Victim/Non-Victim Groups \xe2\x80\x93 Views on Fears\n\n Sexually Not Total/\n BIGGEST personal safety fear Rape\n Assaulted Assaulted %\nI have no fears about my 13 34 331 365\npersonal safety 30.2% 31.2% 70.4% 63.0%\nThat I will be hazed or 10 27 55 82\nunjustifiably harassed 23.3% 24.8% 11.7% 14.2%\nThat I will be physically 5 8 19 27\nassaulted in a non-sexual manner 11.6% 7.3% 4.0% 4.7%\nThat I will be sexually assaulted 7 17 34 51\n 16.3% 15.6% 7.2% 8.8%\nOther 8 22 31 53\n 18.6% 20.2% 6.6% 9.2%\nDid not respond 0 1 0 1\n 0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.2%\nTotal 43 109 470 579\n 100% 100% 100% 100%\n\nC. Comments on Reasons for Not Reporting Sexual Assaults\n These comments relate to survey Question 26, which asked, \xe2\x80\x9cFrom your\n perspective, other than embarrassment or shame, what do you think is the number\n ONE reason why some victims, at your academy, do not report sexual assaults?\xe2\x80\x9d\n (This comment field is associated with the \xe2\x80\x9cOther\xe2\x80\x9d response.)\n\n Of the 109 cadets who indicated that they were victims of sexual assault, 19\n provided comments regarding reasons for not reporting sexual assaults. Eight of\n the 19 indicated that their assault included rape or attempted rape.\n\nLeadership and Handling of Sexual Assaults\n Of the 19 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault and who\n provided comments on reporting, 5 of them (including 3 whose assault included\n rape or attempted rape), made comments regarding the Academy leadership prior\n to January 1, 2003 and their handling of sexual assaults. Three cadets stated that\n they believed that nothing would be done about the sexual assault. Another cadet\n commented that her chain of command downplayed the incidents of inappropriate\n touching and indecent exposure by a male cadet she reported. She indicated the\n worst part was not what the assailant did to her, but that her chain of command\n did nothing to help her.\n\n Another cadet thought the reason cadets do not report sexual assault now is due to\n \xe2\x80\x9cfear of being ostracized and picked out by the senior leadership as a test subject\n for more studies and surveys.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n [ 33 ]\n\x0cRepercussions\n Of the 19 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault and who\n provided comments on reporting, 8 of them (including 2 whose assault included\n rape or attempted rape), indicated that some form of repercussion was the reason\n victims did not report sexual assaults. Five cadets indicated that victims did not\n report for fear of getting themselves or others in trouble for violations of rules;\n four of these cadets made reference to victims putting themselves in bad\n situations, such as underage drinking, fraternization, or making bad decisions.\n Three cadets feared being ostracized or looked down on by peers and\n commissioned officers, such as one\xe2\x80\x99s AOC. One of the three cadets also feared\n being blamed by her peers for having been sexually assaulted. Another cadet\n feared her assailant would come back to get her.\n\n Other comments respondents gave for not reporting sexual assault were:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cIf you report now you have to prosecute, and most people don\xe2\x80\x99t want to\n deal with teh [sic] lengthy process but still want help.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThere is no reason that someone should not report. They would have\n complete backing from everyone here at the Academy. I find it hard to\n believe that someone got reprisal after reporting.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6The reporting procedures are not clear and by the time they are figured\n out, the person has convinced themselves its not worth reporting when it\n truly is.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nD. Comments Regarding Reprisal\n In Question 23 of the survey, sexual assault victims were asked, \xe2\x80\x9cAfter you\n reported that you were sexually assaulted, did you experience any reprisal as a\n result?\xe2\x80\x9d If respondents indicated \xe2\x80\x9cyes,\xe2\x80\x9d then the subsequent question asked them\n what form of reprisal they suffered. Response Item 24.j. was \xe2\x80\x9cOther\xe2\x80\x9d and allowed\n cadets to provide specifics in a memo field. Although four cadets provided\n comments in Item 24.j, only one cadet who indicated that her assault included\n rape or attempted rape commented on the reprisal she had experienced. She\n characterized her coming forward as the worst mistake she had ever made,\n indicating that her command did nothing to protect her confidentiality and nothing\n to stop the offending cadet from spreading lies about her. As a result, she has\n been ostracized and cannot advance within the squadron. Another cadet who\n indicated that her assault included rape or attempted rape responded that although\n she did not receive punishments yet, she felt that if the question were asked, she\n would get into trouble for something that she did a long time ago. She stated that\n it is very unlikely that they will find her rapist, and in the end, he will walk away\n with nothing and she will be punished.\n\nE. Comments Regarding Cadet Safety\n Of the 109 cadets who indicated that they were victims of sexual assault, 69\n provided comments regarding safety in response to survey questions 6 and 7.\n\n\n\n [ 34 ]\n\x0c Twenty-five of the 69 indicated the sexual assault they experienced included rape\n or attempted rape.\n\nUnfavorable Comments\n Of the 69 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault and who\n provided comments on safety, 42 of them (including 16 whose assault included\n rape or attempted rape), made unfavorable comments regarding safety at the\n Academy.\n\n For 16 of the 42 female cadets (including 8 whose assault included rape or\n attempted rape), their biggest personal safety fear was being hazed or\n unjustifiably harassed. See the following examples of their comments:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cBecause of all this attention, I feel that it has brought a lot of attention to\n females and they are being blamed for this. Some males still do not think\n that females should be here.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI fear that I will not be treated professionally. There are officers and\n cadets here that are out for themselves and will hurt anyone in their\n process of self domination.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cComments and actions that have been made in the past, ones that I have\n reported, that have gone unchecked, that do not fall under sexual assult\n [sic], but make me very uncomfortable.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n For 9 of these 42 female cadets (including 2 whose assault included rape or\n attempted rape), their biggest personal safety fear was being sexually assaulted.\n Examples of their comments follow:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cMy entire time at this school I do not feel that the guys here have taken\n assault seriously.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cSomeone assaulted me and my chain of command told me that I was the\n one that had the problem, and if I was uncomfortable with the situation, I\n should leave because I would not make a good officer.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cIt happened to me and I am afraid it will happen again and happen on\n base.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n For 6 of these 42 female cadets (including 4 whose assault included rape or\n attempted rape), their biggest personal safety fear was being physically assaulted\n in a non-sexual manner. See the following example of their comments:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThe academy is so immense, I am afraid that a civilian will get on base\n and try to assault or attack female cadets while they are running or\n walking outside in the dark or in the surrounding areas.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n The remaining 10 of the 42 female cadets46 (including 2 whose assault included\n rape or attempted rape) selected \xe2\x80\x9cOther\xe2\x80\x9d for their biggest personal safety fear.\n46\n One cadet did not respond to the question regarding your biggest personal safety fear, but did provide\n comments.\n\n\n\n [ 35 ]\n\x0c Four had concerns about being on the Academy grounds at night, particularly in\n areas with poor lighting such as the parking lot. Another cadet commented on\n cadet loyalty:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThe Academy teaches everyone to be loyal to one another and anyone\n who does not try to keep someone else out of trouble, regardless of the\n other persons wrongdoing, is bound to be ostrasized. [sic] I have seen it\n happen before and I have experienced it personally.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nFavorable Comments\n Of the 69 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault and who\n provided comments on safety, 17 of them (including 5 whose assault included\n rape or attempted rape), made favorable comments regarding safety at the\n Academy. Sixteen of the 17 had no personal safety fears, and one selected\n \xe2\x80\x9cOther.\xe2\x80\x9d Examples of their comments follow:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI have never felt threatened by the male cadets at the Academy.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI trust all the people, males and females alike, that I work with and\n always feel safe on academy grounds.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOther Comments on Safety\n Of the 69 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault and who\n provided comments on safety, 10 of them (including 4 whose assault included\n rape or attempted rape), made other comments regarding safety at the Academy.\n One cadet, who indicated that her assault included rape or attempted rape,\n selected sexual assault as her biggest fear and said her reason was \xe2\x80\x9cbeing a female\n in a prodominately [sic] male environment. Two cadets who indicated that they\n have no fears, gave the following reasons:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThe worst has already happened and I cannot fear something or someone\n I do not know anymore.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI do not put myself in situations that lead to my safety being\n jeopardized.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nF. General Comments\n Of the 109 cadets who indicated that they were victims of sexual assault, 58\n provided general comments at the end of the survey.\n\nEnvironment\n Of the 58 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault and who\n provided general comments at the end of the survey, 32 of them (including 12\n whose assault included rape or attempted rape), made comments regarding the\n general environment at the Academy. Of the 32 comments, 9 of them were\n favorable. See the following examples:\n\n\n\n [ 36 ]\n\x0c "I feel completelysafein my dorm room.\n "This is a very safeenvironment;I haveneverfelt threatened,"\n . "I feel safearoundmy squadronbrothers.. "\n\n Therewerealso21 unfavorablecommentsmade,7 of which addressedsexual\n harassment.Seethe following examples:\n "It is the culture herethat is the problem;we aredegradedfrom day\n "\n one...\n\n\n\n "There is not a day that goes by that someonedoes not make a sexual\n comment to me, even if they are joking."\n\n "The problem is that there is an unseen level of power that upperclassmen\n have to the underclassmen...also to the fact that people turn a blind eye to\n assault..."\n "The main problemsI encounteredwereasa four degreeandthey were\n from upperclassmenwith whom I was in unprofessionalrelationships\n with."\n\nLeadership\n Of the 58 cadets who indicatedthey were victims of sexual assault, and who\n provided general comments at the end of the survey, 14 of them (including 6\n whose assault included rape or attempted rape), made comments regarding the\n Academy leadership, both past and present. Regarding the past leadership, two\n favorable comments were made:\n "I do not believe that the Academy staff prior to January 2003 was\n condoning ANY sort of sexual assault."\n "General Dallagher was the greatestally we ever had ..\n\n Six unfavorablecommentswerealsomade,including:\n "The way prior senior leadership handled these caseswas in need of much\n improvement."\n "My officer chain of command was very insensitive... The former training\n group commander even threatenedto give me an honor violation for the\n letterthat I hadwritten my congressman\n andthe IG.. ."\n "Past leadership was a HUGE problem."\n Regarding the current leadership, two unfavorable comments were made:\n\n . "Gen Weida and and SECAF and others have made the\n monumental mistake of assuming that this is a mans [sic] problem...this is\n a womans [sic] problem that can be remedied when those who have not\n\n\n\n\n (37\n\x0c gone through it are willing to stand up and believe those who have and\n protect the environment in which we live.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThe officer chain of command, especially from the Group AOCs down,\n are not committed to this problem. My own group AOC has made\n insensitive comments about sexual assault, so how can I expect anyone\n else to care.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Six favorable comments were also made, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI am very confident in the new leadership at the academy and fell they\n will work hard to change things.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI think the current leadership has already made a huge difference, a\n difference for the better.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI trust the leadership now and I believe they will do the right thing when\n the a [sic] female reports a sexual assult [sic].\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nReporting\n Of the 58 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault, and who\n provided general comments at the end of the survey, 15 of them (including 9\n whose assault included rape or attempted rape), made comments regarding the\n reporting of sexual assaults. See the following examples:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI was scared to report because I was afraid that I would be forced out of\n the academy. I did however report to my AOC and counseling center so I\n could receive appropriate treatment.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI believe that the Academy has gone completely to the other side of the\n spectrum. They went from not reporting things to report and if unwilling,\n threatening them to come forward. The victim no longer has any rights\n what so ever and that makes them feel even more victimized.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6the girls who report it are often harrassed [sic] even more after they\n report it.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThe women who came forward are made fun of by the cadet wing for\n being promiscuous or fraternizing and much of the blame is placed on\n them. Seeing this attitude, I think that another female cadet would be\n scared to come forward in this environment, seeing how these other\n women were ostracized.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI was shocked to hear that some people thought that they could not report\n their sexual assault or that they were punished after reporting. I know for\n a fact that none of the guys here would stand for sexual assaults to happen\n to anyone here.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nInvestigation and Prosecution\n Of the 58 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault, and who\n provided general comments at the end of the survey, eight of them (including 2\n\n\n [ 38 ]\n\x0c whose assault included rape or attempted rape), made comments regarding the\n investigation of sexual assaults at the Academy. Of the six comments, two of\n them were somewhat favorable:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI do not remember who conducted the investigation,47 but it was\n conducted in the TRG office and was conducted pretty professionally.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cOver all it doesn\xe2\x80\x99t seem like the cadet is treated with any consideration\n with regards to classes and other military requirements. OSI was more\n considerate than the legal offices.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Six of the comments were more unfavorable:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cOSI and TRW have lied and mislead me many times\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThe problem was mainly with the way that the leadership and\n investigating authorities handled it.\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cOSI attempted to make a friend of mine believe that her assault did not\n happen. OSI does not need to take any part in the investigation if they will\n not believe the person who got assaulted in the first place.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cI reported the sexual assault that happened to me my freshman year, and\n while this happened away from USAFA by military individual, OSI did\n NOT investigate the matter. They basically told me to look into it myself\n and nothing was done.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6for the cases investigated and punished, the victim ended up walking\n tours for her misactions (drinking, fraternization, et cetera) at the same\n time that the perpetrator was marching his tours for rape, assault, whatever\n was charged. Under no circumstances should a felony crime be punished\n at any academy by marching in a circle for a few hours.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nAcademy Policies\n Of the 58 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault and who\n provided general comments at the end of the survey, 15 of them (including 9\n whose assault included rape or attempted rape), made comments regarding the\n Academy policies. Of the 15 comments, 5 addressed policy changes in general, 5\n were negative comments about segregation policies, 5 were negative comments\n about the open door policy in the dorms, 2 addressed use of phones in the dorms,\n 1 addressed lack of timely communication of policy changes, 1 addressed the\n amnesty clause, and 1 expressed concern for confidentiality. See the following\n examples:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cThe majority of the new procedures and policies in the Agenda for\n Change are ridiculous and do not even begin to address the real problems\n for females at the academy.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cWhy punish everyone for the mistakes of few\xe2\x80\xa6Ask me how I feel before\n you decide to change my entire life.\xe2\x80\x9d\n47\n It does not appear that the investigating office was AFOSI.\n\n\n\n [ 39 ]\n\x0c "...some of the policiestheyare implementinghereare causinga bigger\n rift betweenthe malesandthe females..."\n . "I will be forcedto live in a girls hallway...They say it is for purposesof\n integrity andhumandignity, but what they do not realizeis 1HEY TAKE\n A WAY OUR DIONITY AS HUMAN BEINGS BY SEPARATINGUS\n FROM mE PEOPLErnA T WE KNOW AND TRUST AND WORK\n WITH EVERY DAY..."\n "There are many changesoccurring now that seem to be irrelevant to\n sexual assault. Such changesinclude keeping doors open and clustering\n women around the bathroom. The problem with making changesthat\n affect cadets and not sexual assault is that when cadets have to deal with\n those changes,they blame the victims.t\'\n\n "I don\'t think the open door policy helps. It is very hard to study... when\n your squad...is very, very loud."\n\n "...1 think our privacy has been revoked with the bad rule of always\n having to have the door open."\n\n "One of the most important things that can be done at the academy is to\n put phones in every room. Even if there is never an attack in the room,\n just the thought that someonecould call for help if it is needed is a great\n comfort to a potential victim...and a great deterent [sic) to a potential\n attacker,"\n\nVictim Assistance\n Of the 58 cadets who indicated they were victims of sexual assault, and who\n provided general comments at the end of the survey, six of them (including 5\n whose assault included rape or attempted rape), made comments regarding\n assistanceto victims. Seethe following examples:\n\n "I feel that the hotline provided for cadets is more than adequate. The\n representativesare more than willing to talk to anyone and they can put a\n victim at easebetter than any high ranking official can, It is unfortunate\n that the one thing cadets can actually use here is being questioned and\n tainted\n \' with the idea that if someoneconfides in them they have to report\n It ,"\n "CASIE and the victim advocate were amazing. I don\'t know what I\n would have done without them."\n .. , victimsadvocate,\n hasbeena blessingfor\n survivorsof sexualassault.Sheis completly[sic] devotedto helpingthem\n in any way possible. Without her,manysurvivorswould not still be here.\n In the shortperiodsince hasbeenhere,shehasspenta great\n deal of time talking\n that they need. . to individual survivors\n shewill and\n be agettingtheto\n hugehelp help to them\n us."\n\n "r believe that the Academy has gone completely to the other side of the\n spectrum. They went from not reporting things to making cadets report\n\n\n\n [40)\n\x0cand if unwilling, threatening them to come forward. OSI and TRW have\nlied and mislead me many times and I have come to the conclusion that if\nmy story comes out, no one will want to tell any one what has happened to\nthem and people will go with out help unless something is changed.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n [ 41 ]\n\x0cAttachment A \xe2\x80\x93 Survey Proctor Statement\n\n Introduction\n Good morning/afternoon, I am a representative of the DoD Inspector\n General and we are evaluating the policies and practices regarding sexual assault\n reporting, investigation, and related issues at the three Service Academies,\n beginning with the Air Force Academy. Our evaluation is separate from any\n other review you may have been part of this year. Our efforts include some of our\n own independent fieldwork as well as taking a look at how the Air Force has\n responded to the issues regarding sexual assaults at the Academy. In order for us\n to assess the climate and identify issues and areas that need attention, it is\n important for us to understand your views and experiences here at the Academy.\n This anonymous survey you will complete today is our way to do that and is a\n very important aspect of our review. The results of this survey will help us to\n assess conditions, identify problems, and recommend solutions to Congressional,\n DoD, and Military Service leaders and policy makers.\n My purpose this morning/afternoon is to provide you general information\n about the survey and instructions on how to complete the survey. I will\n summarize the main points that you will later see in the survey introduction.\n The focus group for our survey is female cadets and midshipmen, since\n they are the ones who have the most potential to become victims of sexual assault\n or some other unwanted sexual attention at the academies. You are part of a\n random sample of the females in your class participating in our survey. The\n survey asks questions about whether you have been the victim of sexual assaults\n and about issues related to sexual assault and sexual harassment at your academy.\n Most people will consider some of the questions in this survey to be very\n personal. We are asking these questions to gain an understanding of your views\n and experiences at your Service Academy and to identify problems for which we\n can recommend solutions. Good recommendations can be made only if everyone\n answers all the questions on the survey that apply to them. Therefore, it is critical\n that you answer each question honestly and completely, in order for the results to\n be valid.\n I assure you that your responses to survey questions are anonymous.\n There is no capability to associate any survey response with a participant. Do not\n use any personal or unit names anywhere on this survey. Again, we stress the\n importance of you providing complete and honest answers.\n If you have any additional comments you would like to make, we strongly\n encourage you to use the comment section at the end of the survey. Additionally,\n if you would like to speak to a representative from our office, contact information\n is provided on a separate handout we will provide you upon completion of the\n survey.\n\n\n\n\n [ 42 ]\n\x0cSurvey Access and Instructions\n When you checked-in outside the briefing room, you drew a sealed\nenvelope containing a randomly generated access code that is required in order to\naccess the Web-based survey. This code cannot be associated with you. Once\nagain, this is an anonymous survey. As you fill out the survey, you will have\nseveral opportunities to type in comments regarding specific questions. We ask\nyou NOT to use any punctuation, especially commas, when typing in these fields.\nTo separate your sentences, you can simply insert more spaces or go to the next\nline. It should take you between 15 and 30 minutes to complete this survey on-\nline, depending on the amount of comments you provide. Once you begin the\nsurvey, you will need to complete it before you click the "Submit Survey" button\nat the end of the survey questionnaire. There is no capability to save and return to\npartially completed surveys. Once you submit the survey, the access code you\nreceived will be disabled so you may dispose of it accordingly. If you have\nquestions while completing the survey, ask the proctor in the computer lab. Once\nagain, your responses count so please answer each question honestly and\ncompletely.\n\n Do you have any questions at this time? -- Please proceed to the door of\nthe computer lab and you will be directed to one of the two survey rooms.\n\n(For USAFA, alternate between the two labs where the cadets will complete the\nsurvey.)\n\n\n\n\n [ 43 ]\n\x0cAttachment B \xe2\x80\x93 Categories for Comment Analysis\n\nIncident Reporting\n For Reporting, we identified 10 categories based on a review of the comments\n received. These categories and their descriptions are listed in Table B-1.\n\n\n Table B-1 - Categories for Written Comments (Reporting)\n Category Description\n Confidentiality Any comments regarding Confidentiality or protecting victim\n identity; not wanting others to know\n Lack of Action Comments regarding lack of prosecution or other actions taken\n against offender/subject\n Leadership Comments regarding the Academy leadership, Superintendent,\n Commandant, AOC, Chain of Command\n Blame Victim Feelings that it\'s the victim\'s fault or that victim is lying\n Reprisal Any comments regarding reprisal, being ostracized, looked at\n negatively by peers\n Stress Comments regarding the stressful and lengthy process of reporting\n and prosecuting; not wanting to deal with it\n Embarrassment Any comments regarding the victim\'s feeling of embarrassment or\n shame\n Punishment Comments about the victim being punished for related\n infractions/violations; Amnesty\n Help Wanted Comments about victims wanting help or assistance (whether they\n report or not)\n Other Anything that doesn\'t clearly fit into one of the specific categories\n\n\nTraining\nFor Training, we identified seven categories, based on a review of the comments. These\ncategories and their description are listed in Table B-2.\n\n Table B-2 - Categories for Written Comments (Training)\n Category Description\n Non-Training Any comments that do not address training issues\n Report and Comments regarding training or the understanding of reporting\n Prosecute procedures and/or the prosecution process or what actions can be\n taken against offender/subject\n CASIE Any comments regarding CASIE or the cadet hotline\n\n\n\n\n [ 44 ]\n\x0c Amnesty Any comments regarding training or knowledge of amnesty or "not\n getting in trouble" for related infractions such as drinking or\n fraternization\n Self Defense Any comments regarding self defense training\n SA Handout Any comments regarding the need for sexual assault materials to be\n provided IN WRITING, i.e. written reporting procedures, key phone\n list, etc...\n Other Anything that doesn\'t clearly fit into one of the specific categories\n\n\nCadet Safety\n For Cadet Safety, we identified three categories for use in the two database tables:\nPositive, Negative, and Other. (No description was necessary).\n\nGeneral Comments\n For General Comments, we identified 10 categories for use in the five tables; the\nfirst seven stem from focus areas for our evaluation: Reporting, Prosecution, Leadership,\nEnvironment, Investigation, Victim Assistance, and Training. Two more were\nsubsequently added (Policy Changes and Survey) based on sampling of the responses.\nWe also added a \xe2\x80\x9ccatch-all\xe2\x80\x9d category (Other) for those comments that did not fit into one\nof the specific categories.\n\n Table B-3 - Categories for Written Comments (General)\n Category Description\n Reporting Any comments regarding reporting or reasons not to report;\n Confidentiality\n Prosecution Prosecution or other actions taken against offender/subject\n Leadership Command climate, leadership, Training Wing (TRW),\n Superintendent, Commandant\n Environment Safety, Respect for others, Feelings toward male cadets\n Investigation Any comments regarding OSI or the investigation\n Victim Victim assistance programs, Victim rights, CASIE, Amnesty\n Assistance\n Policy Segregation/Separation of male and female cadets, Open Door\n Changes Policy, Response to Media\n Survey Comments regarding survey or requests for survey corrections\n Training Comments regarding training, education, awareness, communication\n Other Anything that doesn\'t clearly fit into one of the specific categories\n\n\n\n\n [ 45 ]\n\x0cAttachment C Survey Instrument\n\nSURVEY INSTRUCTIONS\nThis is a Web-based Survey. You will enter the data into this survey on-line. Once you\nbegin the survey, you will need to complete it before you click the "Submit Survey"\nbutton at the end of the survey questionnaire. There is no capability to save and return to\npartially completed surveys. Once you submit the survey, the accesscode you received\nwill be disabled.\n\nIf you have questions regarding this survey, contact a proctor at the survey location\n\nIf you haveadditiona~stions or concernscontactthe surveyprojectmanagerat (703)\n604-- (DSN 664.->; emaill_@dodig.osd.mil.\n\nSURVEY INTRODUCfION\n\nThis survey by the DoD Inspector General is being administered to assessthe policies\nand practices regarding sexual assault reporting, investigation, and related issuesat the\nNation\'s Service Academies. The survey asks questions about whether you have been the\nvictim of sexual assaultsand about issuesrelated to sexual assault and sexual harassment\nat the Academy.\n\nARE SURVEY RESPONSESANONYMOUS?\nYes. Your responses\n to surveyquestionsarecompletelyanonymous. Thereis no\ncapability to associateany survey responseswith a participant. Do not use any personal\nor unit names anywhere on this survey.\n\nWHY ME?\nYou are part of a sample of cadets and midshipmen who representthe female members of\nthe Service Academics. The only infonnation used to sample individuals for this survey\nwas to group dtem by Service Academy. gender. and class year. Enough women were\nscientifically sampled for this survey so that valid conclusions can be made about the\nviews and experiencesof female Service Academy cadets and midshipmen.\n\nWHY SHOULD I BOTHER?\nWe will use the results of this survey to assessconditions, identify problems, and\nrecommend solutions to congressional, DaD and Military service leaders and policy\nmakers. While your answers on this survey are completely anonymous, survey results\nwill influence policy discussionsand may result in changesthat affect you and other\nService academy cadets and midshipmen like you. Your respoale counts. It is critical\n\n\n\n [46]\n\x0cthat you answer each question honestly and completely, in order for the results to be\nvalid.\n\nAREN\xe2\x80\x99T SOME OF THE QUESTIONS VERY PERSONAL?\n\nMost people will consider some of the questions in this survey to be very personal. We\nare asking these questions to gain an understanding of your views and experiences at your\nService Academy and to identify problems for which we can recommend solutions. Good\nrecommendations can be made only if everyone answers all the questions on the survey\nthat apply to them. Again, we stress the importance of you providing complete and\nhonest answers.\n\nABBREVIATIONS:\nAOC Air Officer Commanding\nAFOSI - Air Force Office of Special Investigations\nCID - US Army Criminal Investigation Command\nNCIS - Naval Criminal Investigative Service\nTAC - Tactical Officer\n\n\nSECTION 1\n\n1. What is your class year?\n 2003 128\n 2004 117\n 2005 154\n 2006 180\nTotal 579\n\nSECTION 2\nSexual Assault - For purposes of this survey, sexual assault is defined as the touching of\nanother without their consent in a sexual manner, including attempts, in order to arouse,\nappeal to, or gratify the lust or sexual desires of the accused, the victim, or both. Sexual\nassault includes, but is not limited to, rape, sodomy, fondling, unwanted touching of a\nsexual nature, and indecent sexual acts that the victim does not consent to, or is explicitly\nor implicitly forced into. It is immaterial whether the touching is directly upon the body\nof another or is committed through the person\'s clothing.\n\n\n\n\n [ 47 ]\n\x0c2. Since you have been at the Academy, have you received any of the following kinds of\nUNINVITED AND UNWANTED sexual attention?\n NUMBER OF INCIDENTS\n Type Of Uninvited, Unwanted 1 to2 3 to 5 6 or more\nSexual Attention Never times times times Missing\na. Actual or attempted sexual assault 455 101 21 2 0\nb. Pressure for sexual favors 449 91 24 14 1\nc. Leaning over, cornering, pinching or\nbrushing against, unwanted touching 374 124 53 27 1\nd. Sexually suggestive looks, gestures\nor body language 316 141 54 67 1\ne. Letters, telephone calls, emails,\ninstant messaging or materials of a\nsexual nature 354 116 53 56 0\nf. Pressure for dates 392 116 41 30 0\ng. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or\nquestions 180 155 77 165 2\nh. Sexual whistles, calls, hoots or yells 279 166 62 69 3\ni. Attempts to get your participation in\nany other sexual activities 477 72 16 12 2\nj. Other sexual attention (Specify\nbelow - do not use commas) 494 17 4 9 55\n\n3. The below listed individuals or groups of individuals make honest and reasonable\nefforts to prevent or stop UNINVITED AND UNWANTED sexual attention. (Provide an\nanswer to each)\n\n Strongly Strongly\nPERSON or GROUP of PERSONS Agree Agree Disagree Disagree\na. Current Senior leadership of my Academy 330 226 12 10\nb. Previous Senior leadership of my Academy 57 210 209 101\nc. Commissioned officer chain of command\nbelow the Commandant 132 329 90 26\nd. Academy faculty members 187 329 51 11\ne. My cadet/midshipmen leadership chain 124 321 94 39\nf. My fellow cadets/midshipmen 119 293 127 39\n\n\n\n\n [ 48 ]\n\x0c4. Prior to January 2003, at your academy, have these actions been taken to prevent\nsexual assaults and uninvited, unwanted sexual attention? (Provide an answer to each)\n I Don\'t\n Yes No Know Totals\na. Making it clear that this behavior will not\nbe tolerated. 439 104 36 579\nb. Investigating complaints. 201 116 261 578\nc. Enforcing penalties against offenders. 150 169 258 577\nd. Enforcing penalties against unit\ncommanders or superiors who tolerate this\nbehavior. 117 147 313 577\ne. Providing awareness and prevention\ntraining. 499 57 20 576\n\n5. How safe do you feel in the following situations? (Provide an answer to each)\n Somewhat Somewhat Very\n Very Safe Safe Safe Unsafe Unsafe\na. In your dormitory room with your\nroommate. 520 52 1 5 1\nb. Alone in your dormitory room. 427 106 32 8 5\nc. In common areas within the\ndormitory. 448 105 22 1 1\nd. In a dormitory room with a\nmember of your cadet or\nmidshipmen chain of command who\nis of the opposite sex. 436 124 14 4 1\ne. Alone on academy grounds during\ndaylight hours. 469 99 8 1 1\nf. Alone on academy grounds during\nhours of darkness. 216 183 116 51 12\ng. Alone in the office with a\ncommissioned officer, or a civilian\ninstructor. 436 116 19 5 1\n\n6. At the academy, what is your BIGGEST personal safety fear? (Select the best answer)\nI have no fears about my personal safety 365\nThat I will be physically assaulted in a non-sexual manner 27\nThat I will be sexually assaulted 51\nThat I will be hazed or unjustifiably harassed 82\nOther 53\n\n\n\n\n [ 49 ]\n\x0c7. Regarding question 6, why do you feel that way? (do not use commas)\nMemo Field for Textual Data\n\n8. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Prior to January\n2003, the Academy\xe2\x80\x99s leaders\xe2\x80\xa6 (Provide an answer for each)\n Strongly I Don\'t\n Agree Agree Disagree Know\na. handled sexual assault cases appropriately 19 67 310 182\nb. in general, punished offenders appropriately 25 66 266 221\nc. implemented sufficient programs to prevent\nsexual assaults 96 238 172 70\nd. increased awareness and encouraged\nvictims and others to report sexual assaults 113 203 216 45\ne. effectively assisted sexual assault victims 31 85 254 208\nf. treated sexual assault victims fairly 27 70 263 216\ng. did not tolerate sexual assaults 75 183 176 143\nh. had a good process for reporting sexual\nassaults 59 134 243 141\n\n9. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements: Prior to January\n2003, the Academy agencies/entities listed below, effectively handled matters related to\nsexual assaults\xe2\x80\xa6(Provide an answer for each)\n Strongly I Don\'t\n Agree Agree Disagree Know\na. Cadet/midshipman Victim/Witness\nAssistance Office 97 139 20 321\nb. Cadet/midshipman Counseling Center 115 192 37 233\nc. Academy Medical facilities 45 128 111 293\nd. Academy Legal personnel 31 97 85 362\ne. OSI, CID or NCIS 32 71 140 332\nf. Security Forces, Military Police, Masters\nat Arms 28 73 76 397\n\n10. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements: Most\ncadets/midshipmen are willing to\xe2\x80\xa6 (Provide an answer to each)\n Strongly Strongly\n Agree Agree Disagree Disagree\na. report a sexual assault incident regardless of\nloyalty to the offender 45 150 282 101\nb. report a sexual assault incident even if the\nvictim told them in confidence 20 121 347 90\n\n\n [ 50 ]\n\x0cc. provide information that might implicate\nthemselves or others in lesser infractions, such\nas underage drinking 23 94 301 159\n\nSexual Assault - For purposes of this survey, sexual assault is defined as the touching of\nanother without their consent in a sexual manner, including attempts, in order to arouse,\nappeal to, or gratify the lust or sexual desires of the accused, the victim, or both. Sexual\nassault includes, but is not limited to, rape, sodomy, fondling, unwanted touching of a\nsexual nature, and indecent sexual acts that the victim does not consent to, or is explicitly\nor implicitly forced into. It is immaterial whether the touching is directly upon the body\nof another or is committed through the person\'s clothing.\n\n11. Using the definition provided, since becoming a cadet/midshipman, have you been\nsexually assaulted?\nYes (If yes, please continue with question 12) 109\nNo (If no, please click here to skip to question 26) 470\n\nRape - For purposes of this survey, rape is defined as an act of sexual intercourse with a\nfemale, by force and/or without her consent (conscious or unsconcious). Penetration,\nhowever slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.\n\n12. Did the assault involve rape or attempted rape?\nYes 43\nNo 66\n Total 109\n\n13. Keeping the definition of sexual assault in mind, since becoming a cadet/midshipman,\nhow many times have you been the victim of sexual assault?\nOnce 68\nTwice 23\nThree times 9\nFour or more times 9\nTotal 109\n\nFor the following questions (14 through 25) regarding sexual assault(s), if you have been\nsexually assaulted one time, use the 1st incident column only. If you have been the victim\nof more than one sexual assault, then please use the remaining columns for additional\nincidents as appropriate.\n\n\n\n\n [ 51 ]\n\x0c14. The sexual assault(s) occurred in:\n If Applicable\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident Totals\n a. 1999 12 0 0 0 12\n b. 2000 22 10 2 0 34\n c. 2001 27 10 4 3 44\n d. 2002 38 13 7 5 63\n e. 2003 8 7 5 1 21\n Totals 107 40 18 9 174\n\n15. Where did the sexual assault(s) occur?\n\n IF APPLICABLE\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident Totals\na. On Installation in dorm 42 15 5 3 65\nb. On Installation (Not in dorm) 25 15 6 3 49\nc. Off Installation at an Academy\nSponsored Event 7 1 2 1 11\nd. Off Installation (Not Academy\nevent) 33 10 4 2 49\nTotals 107 41 17 9 174\n\n16. The offender(s) was a\xe2\x80\xa6(Check all that apply)\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident Totals\na. cadet/midshipman who was senior\nto me 38 16 8 3 65\nb. cadet/midshipman who was not\nsenior to me 49 22 8 5 84\ne. Military personnel not assigned to\nthe installation 3 1 0 0 4\ng. civilian not affiliated with the\ninstallation 7 1 1 0 9\nh. unidentified person 7 0 0 0 7\nc. Staff or faculty member\nd. Civilian assigned to installation\nf. Other installation military person 3 1 0 0 4\nTotals 107 41 17 8 173\nNote: Items c, d, and f were combined to ensure the anonymity of the respondents\n\n\n [ 52 ]\n\x0c17. Did you report the sexual assault(s) to the authorities?\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident Total\na. Yes 22 8 2 1 33\nb. No 86 33 16 8 143\nTotals 108 41 18 9 176\n\nIf you were the victim of one sexual assault incident and answered no to question 17, or if\nyou are the victim of multiple incidents of sexual assault, and did not report any of those\nincidents to the authorities, then please go to question 25. Otherwise, please complete\nquestions 18 through 24 by making selections in the appropriate incident columns.\n\n\n18. To which AUTHORITIES did you report that you were sexually assaulted? (Check\nall that apply)\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\nAuthorities Incident Incident Incident Incident Total\na. Command (AOC, TAC, Company\nCommander) 12 4 0 1 17\nb. Academy staff & faculty member (Not\nincluding AOC, TAC, Company\nCommander) 9 2 1 0 12\nc. Military hotline run by cadets/midshipmen 8 2 0 0 10\nd. Military hotline NOT run by\ncadets/midshipmen 1 0 0 0 1\ne. Person in cadet/midshipmen chain of\ncommand 4 1 0 1 6\nf. Upperclassman not in chain of command 5 3 1 0 9\ng. Academy Counseling Center 11 4 0 0 15\nh. Installation Medical Personnel 5 4 0 0 9\ni. Off-Installation Medical Personnel 0 2 0 0 2\nj. Off-Installation Counseling Center 1 0 0 0 1\nk. OSI, CID, or NCIS 4 1 0 0 5\nl. Security Forces, Military Police, or Master\nat Arms 2 1 0 0 3\nm. Academy Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Office 0 1 0 0 1\nn. Installation chaplain/clergy 4 0 0 0 4\no. Non-Installation chaplain/clergy 0 0 0 0 0\np. Civilian Law Enforcement Agency 1 1 0 0 2\nq. N/A, I did not report this particular\nincident 7 4 4 2 17\n\n\n\n [ 53 ]\n\x0cr. Other (please explain - do not use\ncommas) 3 2 0 0 5\nTotals 70 28 2 2 119\n\n19. Did a military criminal investigative organization (OSI, CID, or NCIS) or a civilian\nlaw enforcement agency conduct a criminal investigation?\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident Total\na. Yes 6 3 0 0 9\nb. No 15 3 1 1 20\nc. Unknown 1 0 0 0 1\nd. N/A, I did not report this particular\nincident* 9 6 4 2 21\n*This selection is appropriate for victims of multiple incidents who reported at least one\nincident, but not all incidents.\n\n20. If a criminal investigation was not conducted, do you know why? (Select the best\nanswer)\n IF APPLICABLE\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident\na. I chose not to report it to law\nenforcement officials 18 6 2 0\nb. I declined to provide a statement to law\nenforcement officials 0 0 0 0\nc. I don\xe2\x80\x99t know 4 1\nd. N/A, a criminal investigation was\nconducted 4 3 2 2\n\n21. What action was taken against the offender(s) regarding your sexual assault(s)?\n(Select one answer per offender)\n IF APPLICABLE\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident\na. Offender was court-martialed and convicted 0 0 0 0\nb. Offender was court-martialed and acquitted 0 0 0 0\nc. Offender received Article 15 punishment 0 0 0 0\nd. Offender was dismissed from the Academy (no\nfurther action taken) 2 1 0 0\ne. Offender was allowed to voluntarily leave\nAcademy (no further action taken) 2 0 0 0\n\n\n\n [ 54 ]\n\x0cf. Offender received administrative action from the\nAcademy (tours, demerits, restriction, etc.), but no\nfurther action was taken 1 0 0 0\ng. No action taken against the offender 7 4 3 1\nh. I don\xe2\x80\x99t know, I was not informed 1 3 0 0\ni. Offender was never identified 1 0 0 1\nj. N/A, I did not report this particlar incident 11 3 1 1\nk.Other (please explain - do not use commas) 6 2 1 0\n\n22. I feel that the action taken against the offender(s) was...(Select the best answer)\n IF APPLICABLE\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident\na. Too lenient 7 3 1\nb. Appropriate given the circumstances 4 2\nc. Too severe\nd. N/A, The offender was not identified 1 1\ne. N/A, I don\xe2\x80\x99t know what if any action was taken 3 3\nf. N/A, I did not report this particular incident 15 5 4 2\n\n23. After you reported that you were sexually assaulted, did you experience any reprisal\nas a result?\n IF APPLICABLE\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident\na. Yes 9 5 1 0\nb. No 14 3 0 1\nc. N/A, I did not report this particular incident 7 5 4 2\n\n24. If yes, what reprisal did you suffer? (Check all that apply)\n IF APPLICABLE\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident\na. Reprisal from upperclassmen in my chain of\ncommand 2 2 1 0\nb. Reprisal from upperclassmen NOT in my chain\nof command 4 4 1 0\nc. Reprisal from Academy staff or faculty 2 0 0\nd. Reprisal from command officials (AOC, TAC,\nCompany Commander) 2 1 0 0\n\n\n\n [ 55 ]\n\x0ce. Ostracized by peers 6 5 2 1\nf. Punished unfairly for other unrelated\ninfractions/violations 5 2 1 0\ng. Punished unfairly for other infractions/violations\nyou committed 2 1 0 0\nh. I did not suffer reprisal 3 0 0 1\ni. N/A, I did not suffer repercussions 13 5 0 0\nj. Other (do not use commas) 2 0 0 0\n\n25. If you did NOT report the sexual assault(s), why not? (Check all that apply)\n 1st 2nd 3rd 4th\n Incident Incident Incident Incident Totals\na. Feared reprisal from upperclassmen in\nmy chain of command 16 10 6 3 35\nb. Feared reprisal from upperclassmen\nNOT in my chain of command 17 10 8 4 39\nc. Feared reprisal from Academy staff or\nfaculty 14 4 1 1 20\nd. Feared reprisal from command\nofficials (AOC, TAC, Company\nCommander) 21 8 5 2 36\ne. Feared being ostracized by peers 41 14 9 5 69\nf. Feared being punished for other\ninfractions/violations I committed 24 6 4 2 36\ng. Believed that nothing would be done\nabout the sexual assault 39 14 7 4 64\nh. Not aware of reporting procedures 11 7 4 1 23\ni. Embarrassment 51 19 8 4 82\nj. Fear that a significant other would find\nout 8 3 2 1 14\nk. Does not apply \xe2\x80\x93 I reported it 8 4 12\nl. Other (please explain - do not use\ncommas) 25 8 4 2 39\nTotals 275 107 58 29 469\n\n\n\n\n [ 56 ]\n\x0cSECTION 3\n\n26. From your perspective, other than embarrassment or shame, what do you think is the\nnumber ONE reason why some victims, at your academy, do not report sexual assaults?\n(Select the best answer)\nReasons Totals\na. Feared reprisal from upperclassmen in the chain of command 12\nb. Feared reprisal from upperclassmen NOT in the chain of command 14\nc. Feared reprisal from Academy staff and faculty 5\nd. Feared reprisal from command officials (AOC, TAC, Company\nCommander) 24\ne. Feared being ostracized by peers 190\nf. Feared being punished for other infractions/violations committed 155\ng. Believed that nothing would be done about the sexual assault 57\nh. Not aware of reporting procedures 3\ni. Fear that a significant other would find out 5\nj. Other (please explain - do not use commas) 108\nTotal 573\n\nSECTION 4\n\n27. Prior to January 2003, if you have had the below listed training, please indicate\nwhether you believe the training was adequate or in need of improvement. (Provide an\nanswer to each item)\n Needs N/A Not\n Training Adequate Improvement Trained Totals\na. Understanding sexual assault (definition) 502 65 11 578\na. Reporting sexual assault 316 233 29 578\nc. Investigating sexual assaults (OSI, CID,\nNCIS role) 134 244 198 576\nd. Police role in sexual assaults (Security\nForces, Military Police, Masters at Arms) 115 228 228 571\ne. Command\xe2\x80\x99s role in handling sexual\nassaults 161 272 140 573\nf. Medical personnel\xe2\x80\x99s role in sexual\nassaults 286 188 98 572\ng. Counseling center\xe2\x80\x99s role in sexual\nassaults 386 144 46 576\nh. Hotline\xe2\x80\x99s role in sexual assaults 460 85 30 575\ni. SJA/Legal office\'s role in sexual assaults 146 220 208 574\nj. Victim/Witness Assistance Program 207 197 169 573\n\n\n [ 57 ]\n\x0ck. Dormitory security procedures 354 128 91 573\nl. Self-defense training 451 107 16 574\nm. Amnesty programs 107 307 157 571\n\nSection 5\nGeneral Comments\nMemo Field for General Comments\n\n\n\n\n [ 58 ]\n\x0cAttachment D \xe2\x80\x93 Letter from Senate Governmental\n Affairs Committee\nLetter dated February 24, 2003, from Susan M. Collins, Chairman, and Joseph I.\nLieberman, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs\n\n\n\n\n [ 59 ]\n\x0cAttachment E \xe2\x80\x93 Letter from Senate Armed\n Services Committee\nLetter dated February 27, 2003, from Senator John Warner, Chairman, Senate Committee\non Armed Services, and Senator Wayne Allard.\n\n\n\n\n [ 60 ]\n\x0c'