Military Personnel: Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations
to Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further Management Action Needed
(24-MAY-06, GAO-06-540).
Due to concerns about domestic violence in the military and its
adverse effect on mission readiness, Congress required the
Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a task force to assess
the services' response to domestic violence and recommend
improvements. The task force issued three reports containing 194
recommendations. The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense
Authorization Act required GAO to review DOD's progress in
implementing the recommendations. This report discusses (1) DOD's
ability to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary
actions, (2) the resources DOD has provided to implement the
recommendations, and (3) DOD's specific actions to ensure victim
confidentiality and the education of commanding officers, senior
enlisted personnel, and chaplains. GAO also examined whether DOD
has established an oversight framework to monitor implementation.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-540
ACCNO: A54685
TITLE: Military Personnel: Progress Made in Implementing
Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further
Management Action Needed
DATE: 05/24/2006
SUBJECT: Data collection
Data integrity
Databases
Disciplinary actions
Domestic violence
Internal controls
Military officers
Military policies
Military training
Reporting requirements
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-540
* Results in Brief
* Background
* DOD's Ability to Report on Domestic Violence Incidents and C
* Resources Provided and Progress Made, but Challenges Exist t
* Resources Provided for Office Overseeing Implementation of R
* Progress Made in Implementing Domestic Violence Recommendati
* Limited Personnel in Office Overseeing Implementation
* Implementation Policies Not Effectively Communicated
* Steps Taken to Ensure Confidentiality and Provide Domestic V
* New Restricted Reporting Policy Not Yet in Force
* Additional Efforts Are Needed to Ensure Training Is Received
* DOD Has Not Established an Oversight Framework to Monitor Co
* Conclusions
* Recommendations for Executive Action
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
* Appendix II: Resources Provided to Implement Task Force Reco
* Appendix III: 194 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Re
* Appendix IV: DOD's Directive-Type Memoranda and Policy Imple
* Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense
* Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* GAO Contact
* Acknowledgments
* Order by Mail or Phone
Report to Congressional Committees
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
May 2006
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence,
but Further Management Action Needed
GAO-06-540
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 8
DOD's Ability to Report on Domestic Violence Incidents and Commander
Actions Is Hampered by Incomplete Data 9
Resources Provided and Progress Made, but Challenges Exist to Implementing
the Remaining Task Force Recommendations 12
Steps Taken to Ensure Confidentiality and Provide Domestic Violence
Training, but Additional Efforts Needed 20
DOD Has Not Established an Oversight Framework to Monitor Compliance and
Evaluate Implementation of Recommendations 25
Conclusions 26
Recommendations for Executive Action 27
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 32
Appendix II Resources Provided to Implement Task Force Recommendations 37
Appendix III 194 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Recommendations
39
Appendix IV DOD's Directive-Type Memoranda and Policy Implementing the
Task Force Recommendations 54
Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense 56
Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60
Tables
Table 1: Installations Visited During the Review 32
Table 2: Resources and Projects to Implement Task Force Recommendations 37
Table 3: Community Collaboration Recommendations 39
Table 4: Education and Training Recommendations 43
Table 5: Offender Accountability Recommendations 45
Table 6: Victim Safety Recommendations 47
Table 7: Other Recommendations 50
Table 8: DOD's Memoranda Implementing Task Force Recommendations 54
Figure
Figure 1: Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Recommendations by
Themes and Implementation Status 14
Abbreviations
DOD Department of Defense
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
May 24, 2006
The Honorable John Warner Chairman The Honorable Carl Levin Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter Chairman The Honorable Ike Skeleton Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives
Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) have expressed concerns about
domestic violence in the military and its adverse effect on unit morale
and mission readiness. DOD defines domestic violence as "[a]n offense
under the United States Code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or
State law that involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force
or violence against a person of the opposite sex, or a violation of a
lawful order issued for the protection of a person of the opposite sex,
who is (a) a current or former spouse; (b) a person with whom the abuser
shares a child in common; or (c) a current or former intimate partner with
whom the abuser shares or has shared a common domicile." Further, to
separate criminal from noncriminal incidents, DOD's definition of domestic
abuse encompasses (1) domestic violence as defined above, or (2) a pattern
of behavior resulting in emotional/psychological abuse, economic control,
and/or interference with personal liberty that is directed toward a person
of the opposite sex who meets the same criteria as defined for domestic
violence.1 Serious adverse consequences for servicemembers who commit acts
of domestic violence can range from nonjudicial punishments that could
remove a servicemember from normal duties to criminal sanctions that could
result in imprisonment.
1DOD adopted the definitions for domestic violence and domestic abuse in
2004.
Following a number of reported high-profile domestic violence cases
involving soldiers who killed their spouses, Congress required DOD to take
several actions to address concerns about domestic violence in the
military. Specifically, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 required DOD to, among other things, (1) establish a central
database of information on domestic violence incidents reported to a
commander, military law enforcement, or officials responsible for clinical
treatment or support services and the action(s) taken by the commanding
officers when disciplinary measures were required, and to report this
information to the administrator of the database annually; and (2)
establish a Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence to assess the
military's response to domestic violence and make recommendations for
improvement.2 The task force issued three reports over the next 3 years,
which collectively contained almost 200 recommendations. To highlight its
concerns, the task force stated in its first report that domestic violence
is an offense against the institutional values of the military services of
the United States that degrades the overall readiness of our armed forces.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20043 required us
to review DOD's progress in implementing the task force recommendations.
In accordance with that act and agreements with your offices, this report
discusses (1) DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents in
the military and disciplinary actions taken by commanders to address these
incidents, (2) the extent to which DOD has provided resources to the
office overseeing the implementation of the task force's recommendations
and the extent to which the recommendations have been implemented, and (3)
the specific actions that DOD has taken on recommendations to ensure the
confidentiality for victims of domestic violence and the education of
commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains. The report
also discusses the extent to which DOD has established an oversight
framework to guide and evaluate its implementation of the recommendations.
To determine DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents in the
military and command disciplinary actions, we reviewed and analyzed
information on and reports from DOD's Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System, which contains data on criminal incidents of domestic violence,
and the Family Advocacy Program Central Registry.4 In addition, we
reviewed DOD's three reports to Congress on reported domestic violence
incidents in the military, which were issued in November 2001 for fiscal
year 2000 data, February 2003 for fiscal year 2001 data, and July 2004 for
fiscal year 2002 data. To assess the reliability of the data in DOD's
systems, we (1) reviewed existing information about the data and the
system that produced them and (2) interviewed agency officials
knowledgeable about the data. We concluded that the data from the Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System database were not reliable enough to
enable DOD to accurately report on the number of domestic violence
incidents in the military.
2 Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 591, 594 (1999).
3 Pub. L. No. 108 -136, at 575 (2003).
To determine the extent to which DOD (1) provided resources to the office
overseeing implementation, (2) implemented the task force recommendations,
and (3) established an oversight framework, we interviewed knowledgeable
DOD officials, including those in DOD's Family Violence Policy Office and
Family Advocacy Program Office, and analyzed relevant documents and data.
These documents and data included budget information; DOD's strategic plan
for implementing the task force recommendations; DOD's Reports on
Implementation of Recommendations of the Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence submitted on August 8, 2005, and February 15, 2006; training
materials for chaplains and commanding officers; and related metrics,
applicable laws, regulations, policy memoranda, and other documents DOD
and the services used to support implementation of the task force's
recommendations and evaluation of that implementation.
Additionally, we visited at least 2 military installations for each
service in the United States and 5 overseas, for a total of 15
installations. During these visits, we conducted nongeneralizable small
group discussions with and obtained supporting documentation from various
installation officials, including commanding officers, chaplains, victim
advocates, family advocacy program managers, and staff judge advocates. We
also conducted focus groups with military police and senior enlisted
personnel at these installations. We performed our work in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards from July 2005 through
March 2006. More details on our scope and methodology are presented in
appendix I.
4 The Family Advocacy Central Registry collects clinical information about
the initial allegation of domestic abuse, support and services provided to
victims of such abuse, and treatment, such as anger management classes,
given to alleged abusers.
Results in Brief
DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary
actions taken by commanders is hampered because the systems that the
department uses to collect domestic violence information do not contain
complete data. Specifically, in an effort to satisfy the requirement in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, DOD, in June
2000, established the central domestic violence database in its Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System (which contains criminal incidents).
However, our analysis revealed that this database does not contain
complete data that would enable DOD to accurately report on the number of
domestic violence incidents in the military and the command disciplinary
actions that were taken. DOD officials informed us that its domestic
violence database of criminal incidents lacks complete data because some
of the services' law enforcement systems that feed into it are not yet
operational. In addition, we determined that a number of installations
were not reporting command disciplinary actions into the law enforcement
data systems as required by DOD guidance. In its 2002 report to Congress
on reported domestic violence incidents, DOD stated that of the 2,173 Army
and Air Force incidents for which sufficient evidence existed to take
disciplinary action, 1,027, or 47 percent, had no actions identified.
Notwithstanding the task force recommendation and the legislative
requirement to report on the number of incidents, DOD has not developed
plans to address the data limitations. Without complete data on reported
incidents of domestic violence and the steps taken by commanding officers
to address these incidents, Congress and DOD will lack the visibility and
information needed to understand the magnitude of the domestic violence
problem, identify domestic violence trends, and address emerging issues.
To ensure that complete data exist and can be reported annually as
required, we are recommending that DOD (1) develop a comprehensive
management plan to address deficiencies in the domestic violence data
captured in its law enforcement systems, and (2) take appropriate steps to
ensure that command actions related to domestic violence incidents are
entered in the law enforcement systems as required. DOD generally
concurred with these recommendations.
DOD has provided funding that has been used to implement many of the task
force's recommendations, but personnel shortages and ineffective
communication of related policies have hindered the department's efforts.
Since fiscal year 2003, DOD has provided the Family Violence Policy Office
approximately $23 million to implement the task force's recommendations.
Among its investments, DOD used the money to fund a contract to provide
additional victim advocate and shelter services and training for various
DOD professionals. This funding helped the department implement many of
the task force recommendations during the past 3 years. Specifically, our
analysis of the status of DOD's actions to implement the task force's
recommendations showed that 94 had been completed, 60 had pending actions,
and 40 had no actions planned because DOD either disagreed with the
recommendations or determined they were not applicable to the department.
Despite the funding to date and reported progress, personnel shortages and
ineffective communication of its policies could hinder DOD's efforts to
implement the pending task force recommendations and to improve its
response to domestic violence. Although retaining key personnel is a good
internal control principle, as of March 2006, DOD had not fully staffed
the office overseeing implementation of the task force recommendations.
According to officials in the Family Violence Policy Office, without
adequate personnel, they will not be able to implement all of the pending
recommendations in a timely manner. In addition, DOD's method of
communicating its new domestic violence guidance has produced inconsistent
practices among DOD and the services. DOD issued 16 interim directive-type
memoranda to implement changes in response to the task force
recommendations. The department communicated these memoranda to the
services via mail to the Service Secretaries offices and e-mail or Web
pages. However, some installation officials stated that memoranda and
guidance sent by e-mail and Web pages were not reaching their level in a
timely manner and had ultimately resulted in them not knowing about and,
thus, not consistently following current policies and guidance. For
example, in response to a task force recommendation, DOD initially allowed
distribution of military protective orders to law enforcement and family
advocacy personnel, but reversed this policy due to privacy concerns. This
policy change, however, was not effectively communicated, causing many
inconsistent practices throughout the installations we visited. Without an
overall communication strategy that promotes clear and consistent policy
among DOD and the services, there may continue to be inconsistencies in
knowledge on DOD's domestic violence guidance. We are recommending that
DOD (1) develop a plan to ensure adequate personnel are available to
implement the remaining task force recommendations and (2) establish a
strategy for communicating its policies, to include clearly articulating
its policy regarding the distribution of military protective orders. In
commenting on a draft of our report, DOD concurred with the first
recommendation. However, due to privacy concerns, DOD partially
nonconcurred with an earlier version of the second recommendation, which
asked the department to reconsider the task force's recommendation on
providing copies of the military protective orders to law enforcement and
family advocacy officials. Since DOD stated that it has considered the
issue of providing the protective orders and continues to believe there
are privacy concerns, we modified our original recommendation to emphasize
the department's need to clearly communicate its policy regarding
distribution of military protective orders.
DOD is taking steps, such as issuing policy, to address the task force's
specific recommendations to ensure confidentiality for victims and to
train its commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains;
however, the department's final policy on confidentiality did not take
effect until April 2006, and additional efforts are needed to ensure that
appropriate training is received. In its efforts to ensure
confidentiality, DOD issued its Restricted Reporting Policy for Incidents
of Domestic Abuse on January 22, 2006. This policy is to allow victims to
report incidents of domestic abuse to health care providers, victim
advocates, and other specified people so that victims can benefit from
access to medical care or victim advocacy services and support without
initiating the investigative process or notifying the victim's or alleged
offender's commanding officer. The intent of the policy is to encourage
victims to seek help that they might not otherwise receive because they
feared for the family's overall financial welfare and that the alleged
offender's military career might be jeopardized. However, the policy did
not take effect until April 22, 2006. With respect to its training
efforts, DOD has issued guidance requiring training for commanding
officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains. The military services
are providing educational options for commanding officers and senior
enlisted personnel such as Web-based training and training events held at
the installations. In addition, chaplains, who have a special role in
assisting domestic violence victims, are receiving training at their basic
officer's course, and periodically through continuing professional
military education. However, complete data on which chaplains have
received training are not available. Without complete data, DOD can not be
assured of the extent to which these personnel have been trained and
provided with resources that will assist them in effectively dealing with
domestic violence issues. Some Army and Navy chaplains told us that they
may notify command about domestic violence cases identified during a
privileged communication. According to the Army regulation,5 however, such
communications given to chaplains as a formal act of religion or as a
matter of conscience are protected and are not to be disclosed without
permission of the person making the communication. A breach of this
confidence would be contrary to the Army regulation. Without additional
guidance and emphasis within chaplain training to clarify this issue, DOD
will be unable to ensure that all chaplains are prepared to handle private
information provided by victims or offenders, which could deter both
victims and offenders from seeking assistance. Accordingly, we are
recommending that DOD, in conjunction with the services, (1) develop
procedures and metrics to ensure that accurate, consistent, and timely
domestic violence training data are collected for chaplains; and (2)
develop additional guidance and training materials for chaplains
clarifying their privileged communication responsibilities. DOD did not
concur with the first recommendation and partially nonconcurred with the
second recommendation, both of which were originally directed to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and family advocacy
program officials. DOD commented that these two recommendations were more
appropriately directed to the Military Departments. We agree. We have
revised our report to direct the recommendations to the services. However,
in our view, these recommendations are also appropriately directed to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who has oversight
responsibility and stewardship for domestic violence issues.
5 Army Regulation 165-1, Religious Activities: Chaplain Activities in the
United States Army, Mar. 25, 2004.
While some progress has been made in implementing the task force
recommendations, DOD has not established an oversight framework to monitor
compliance with the recommendations and evaluate its implementation
efforts. DOD's draft domestic violence instruction requires the Military
Community and Family Policy office to monitor compliance with and
periodically evaluate domestic violence efforts. However, the draft
instruction does not communicate how this should be done. Although DOD
officials told us that the service headquarters monitor and evaluate the
performance of the family advocacy program offices through their
accreditation process, they acknowledged that the service accreditation
reports are not sent to DOD and that the department has limited visibility
into the services' domestic violence efforts. Further, the Family Violence
Policy Office has not established a formal process for monitoring and
reporting progress of the overall implementation of the task force
recommendations. Without an overall management framework and a process for
monitoring and reporting on implementation of the recommendations, DOD and
Congress have limited visibility and oversight to evaluate implementation
efforts and make needed improvements and thus, ensure the success of its
efforts. We are recommending that DOD develop and implement, in
conjunction with the services, a DOD-wide oversight framework that
includes a results-oriented evaluation plan for assessing the
effectiveness of the implemented recommendations, and a process for
monitoring and reporting on ongoing implementation efforts. DOD concurred
with this recommendation.
DOD's comments and our evaluation of them are discussed in detail in a
later section of this report. The full text of the department's written
comments is contained in appendix V.
Background
Following a number of high-profile domestic violence cases involving
soldiers stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, who killed their wives,
Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000, required the
Secretary of Defense to establish the Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence. The task force was chartered as a 3-year effort to assist the
Secretary of Defense in identifying ways to prevent domestic violence in
the military, when possible, and in responding more effectively when
domestic violence occurs. In March 2000, 24 members were appointed to the
task force. These members included 12 senior officials from the four
services and 12 senior officials from the civilian sector who were experts
in the area of domestic violence.
The act also required the task force to develop a strategic plan for DOD
that included recommendations for improving DOD's domestic violence
efforts in areas such as victim safety programs, domestic violence
training for military commanders, and domestic violence responses at
overseas military installations. The task force also assessed and made
recommendations regarding the roles and responsibilities that command,
chaplain, law enforcement, legal, and medical personnel have with regard
to addressing domestic violence incidents. From February 2001 through
February 2003, the task force issued three reports containing 194
recommendations for improving DOD's response to domestic violence.
The task force identified four primary themes with regard to the
recommendations made in the three reports:
o Community collaboration-addresses coordination and
collaboration issues among all military organizations, such as
family advocacy and legal offices, in relation to domestic
violence, as well as coordination between military and civilian
communities.
o Education and training-addresses training issues for commanding
officers, senior enlisted personnel, Family Advocacy Program
staff, and first responders, such as military police.
o Offender accountability-identifies measures to improve
individual offender accountability and program accountability, as
well as improve dispositions and case management.
o Victim safety-addresses issues related to victim safety
programs, confidentiality for victims, and other policies to
enhance victim safety.
In January 2003, within the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Military Community and
Family Policy Office established the Family Violence Policy Office
to coordinate implementation of the task force's recommendations,
many of which were aimed at improving DOD's Family Advocacy
Program. The Family Advocacy Program, also under the Military
Community and Family Policy Office, provides services that
contribute to the health of military families, treats victims of
domestic violence, and offers rehabilitation and treatment for
abusers. The Family Advocacy Program Director works in conjunction
with service headquarters managers to oversee the execution of the
program within each service.
DOD's ability to report domestic violence incidents involving
servicemembers and the disciplinary actions taken by commanders is
hampered because the data systems that the department uses to
collect domestic violence information contain incomplete data. The
National Defense Authorization Act of 20006 required DOD to
develop a centralized domestic violence database of information on
incidents of domestic violence involving members of the Armed
Forces. This includes domestic violence incidents reported to a
commander, a law enforcement authority of the Armed Forces, or a
family advocacy program official. Under the act, the Secretaries
of the military departments are required to report this
information annually to the administrator of the database. DOD is
also required, under Section 591, to report information from the
database, along with its responses to each of the three task force
reports.7 In an effort to satisfy the legislation, DOD established
the central domestic violence database within its Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System.8 This database contains domestic
violence incidents that are criminal in nature including:
infractions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, state law, or
violation of a protection order.
Although DOD established the central domestic violence database in
June 2000,9 it is not yet fully operational and it does not
contain complete information about reported incidents of domestic
violence. DOD officials stated that the information contained in
the database on the number of incidents is not complete because
some of the law enforcement systems used by the services that feed
into the central database are not yet operational. These are the
Air Force's Office of Special Investigation system, which is
expected to be operational by August 2006; the Army's Judge
Advocate General Office system, which is still in development; and
the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Office system, which is
expected to be operational by June 2006. As a result, the central
domestic violence database does not contain any information about
domestic violence incidents that would be captured in these
systems.
The central domestic violence database captures incidents of a
criminal nature that were responded to by military law enforcement
personnel; but it does not contain information on incidents
reported to Family Advocacy personnel such as emotional abuse or
domestic violence incidents that occur off the installation. To
obtain this information, as required in the act,10 DOD must
supplement data from the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System
with data from the Family Advocacy Program Central Registry, which
contains clinical data on domestic violence incidents. However,
the Central Registry data system previously provided incomplete
domestic violence data because until January 2006, the Central
Registry only contained reported incidents of abuse involving
current spouses. It did not contain domestic violence data as
defined by DOD's 2004 definition that involved former spouses and
intimate partners with whom the alleged offender shared a child or
a common domicile. Therefore, prior to 2006, DOD did not provide
complete information on all reported instances of domestic
violence.
DOD used information from the two systems in preparing its reports
to Congress on the number of incidents of domestic violence in the
military and commanders' actions taken in responding to them
during fiscal years 2000 through 2002. However, DOD officials who
have responsibility for gathering these data acknowledged that the
statistics contained in these reports were questionable. Moreover,
they informed us that since the last report to Congress on fiscal
year 2002 incidents, no attempts had been made to match up the
information from the two systems, despite a June 8, 2000,
memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness that directed them to do so. Our analysis
confirmed that neither system had complete data to enable DOD to
accurately determine the extent of reported domestic violence
incidents in the military.
Beyond these concerns, our review of information in the Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System and supporting service law
enforcement systems revealed that a number of installations were
not reporting disciplinary actions taken by the commanders as
required.11 For example, in the fiscal year 2002 report that DOD
released to Congress, DOD reported that of the 2,173 Army and Air
Force incidents for which sufficient evidence existed to take
disciplinary action, 1,027, or 47 percent had no actions listed.
DOD and service instructions require that command disciplinary
actions be entered into the law enforcement systems. Moreover,
these systems contain a data field to record commanders' actions
in responding to domestic violence incidents. However, during our
site visits, we found that some commander disciplinary actions
were not being entered into the data field and some of the law
enforcement officials we interviewed stated that they were unaware
that they were required to do so. These officials acknowledged the
importance of including this information to provide visibility
over what disciplinary actions had been taken and that there was a
field available in the system for them to do so. At one
installation, we found that hard copies of the commander
disciplinary actions were maintained in a file in the Provost
Marshall's office, but this information had not been entered into
the law enforcement database.
Officials who oversee the DOD central domestic violence database
and the Central Registry data system, as well as Family Violence
Policy Office personnel, are aware of the problems with obtaining
complete information about domestic violence incidents and
commander disciplinary actions. However, officials in the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness have
not developed a plan for correcting the deficiencies and ensuring
that (1) the central database on domestic violence in the Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System and service law enforcement
systems have complete and accurate data and (2) all commander
disciplinary actions related to domestic violence incidents are
reported into these systems. Without complete data on reported
incidents of domestic violence and the steps taken by commanding
officers to address these incidents, Congress and DOD will lack
the visibility and information needed to understand the magnitude
of the domestic violence problem, identify domestic violence
trends, and proactively address these issues as they emerge.
Over the past 3 years, DOD provided the Family Violence Policy
Office about $23 million, which it has used to make progress
toward implementing many of the task force's recommendations.
Nonetheless, two challenges-shortages in critical staff and
ineffective strategies for communicating new domestic violence
policies- threaten progress and limit assurance of consistent
application of its new policies.
From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, the Military
Community and Family Policy Office provided the Family Violence
Policy Office with approximately $23 million to implement the task
force's recommendations. The largest portion, about $17 million,
was for funding a contract to provide victim advocate services and
shelter services to victims of domestic violence. Program analysts
from the Military Community and Family Policy Office told us that
this contract provides on-call services from within the local
community, supporting approximately 45 full-time and 40 part-time
on-call advocates each month. The Family Violence Policy Office
was also provided approximately $3 million to train various DOD
professionals in 2005. The cost of this training included funds
for a contractor to perform conference planning, facilitation, and
administrative management support services for these events .
Additionally, the Family Violence Policy Office was provided
$400,000 to develop a DOD-wide domestic violence public awareness
campaign. Appendix II provides a detailed breakdown of the
expenditures of the Family Violence Policy Office in implementing
the task force recommendations.
Our analysis of DOD's actions in implementing the task force
recommendations shows that DOD, as of March 2006, had implemented
almost two-thirds of the recommendations they planned to carry
out. While this shows progress, the recommendations vary in their
relative importance to improving DOD's efforts to address domestic
violence; and thus, the implementation of some recommendations may
not have as significant an impact on DOD's efforts as will the
implementation of others. Notwithstanding this point, of the 194
recommendations made by the task force, we found DOD had completed
actions on 94 recommendations, had actions pending on 60
recommendations, and had not taken actions on 40 recommendations
because the department either disagreed with the recommendations,
the recommendation was not applicable to the department, or DOD
felt that the recommended action was already undertaken. We
counted recommendations as completed if we found evidence of
action taken on the recommendation by DOD. Actions taken included
guidance, policy memoranda, training materials, or other
supporting documentation DOD issued to implement the task force
recommendation. Additionally, we found, for the most part,
documentation, focus group discussions, or interviews that showed
the service and installation levels were implementing or had
efforts to begin implementing DOD's guidance on the completed
actions.
Figure 1 shows our analysis of DOD's implementation status of the
194 recommendations. The recommendations are grouped by the four
primary task force themes previously discussed in this report;
recommendations that did not fit directly into one of these themes
were classified as "other." The "other" category contains items
such as issues related to overseas installations and program
management.12
Figure 1: Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Recommendations
by Themes and Implementation Status
As figure I shows, DOD has made the most progress in implementing
recommendations pertaining to community collaboration and victim
safety. DOD officials stated that their original focus was placed
on addressing victim safety issues, in particular, because it was
critical to ensure victims are protected from further abuse. A
listing of all 194 recommendations and our analysis of DOD's
status in completing them are included in appendix III.
The Family Violence Policy Office believed that they had completed
more recommendations than we identified in our analysis.
Specifically, DOD officials provided a department-level status
matrix that indicated that they had completed 121 of the 194 task
force recommendations. Our numbers differ because DOD identified
27 of the recommendations as complete when we found DOD actually
had stated that it did not agree with 26 of the recommendations or
took no action because the recommendation was already being done
or did not apply to them, and one recommendation was still
pending. For example, the task force recommended that DOD
centrally track military protective orders. DOD essentially
disagreed with the recommendation, stating that it had determined
that it would not be feasible to centrally record and track
military protective orders because there were too few such orders
to justify creating another database. Nevertheless, DOD
categorized this recommendation as complete, while we categorized
this recommendation as one with which they disagreed. We have
grouped the 26 recommendations and the one pending action with
those that were identified as requiring no action and pending,
respectively in appendix III, which shows our analysis of DOD's
status for the recommendations.
Despite its investment to date and reported progress, potential
personnel shortages in the DOD office implementing the
recommendations could hinder the department's timely
implementation of the remaining recommendations. The personnel in
this office have an essential role in implementing the domestic
violence recommendations, with responsibility for, among other
things, (1) drafting, revising, and coordinating DOD policy in
response to domestic violence recommendations; (2) drafting
training curricula and monitoring implementation of those
curricula for family advocacy program staff, health care
officials, and law enforcement, among others; and (3) drafting and
coordinating public affairs strategies to inform the military
community about the revised DOD response to domestic violence in
the military.
Officials in the Military Community and Family Policy Office and
those in the Family Violence Policy Office told us that,
originally in 2003, five positions had been provided for the team
implementing the task force recommendations. This included one
permanent position for the office supervisor; one term position
for a program analyst; and three positions for senior-level
officers on detail assignments from the services-one each from the
Army, Navy, and Air Force. Position descriptions for military
personnel stress that these individuals were to serve as military
experts in implementing domestic violence programs. However,
officials in the Family Violence Policy Office told us the Navy
officer retired in 2004, and the Air Force officer was detailed to
another OSD position in 2005. The Navy did not "backfill" or
replace its position, stating that the position was needed within
their service, and officials in the Family Violence Policy Office
stated that OSD had placed the Air Force position within another
area of DOD because OSD had a greater need for that position
there. Thus, since 2005, the Family Violence Policy Office has
been reduced to three positions.
During our review, officials in the Family Violence Policy Office
stated that the officer detailed from the Army is expected to
retire in May 2006 and the term position is expected to expire in
July 2006. The office had requested and obtained approval from the
OSD Military Community and Family Policy Office to fill the Army
position and renew the term position, stating that these positions
were needed to complete implementation of the remaining
recommendations in a timely manner. The officials further noted
that the remaining recommendations they will be implementing are
more challenging than those already implemented and will require
personnel experienced in domestic violence issues. For example,
they explained that implementation of the recommendations aimed at
revamping the Case Review Committee and the Offender Intervention
require more research and analysis with experts within and outside
of DOD. Without adequate personnel, the officials estimate that it
may take more than 3 years to implement the remaining 60 task
force recommendations. However, as of March 2006, officials in the
Family Violence Policy Office told us that approval to fill the
soon-to-be-vacant positions had not been obtained from the final
approval authority at Washington Headquarters Services. Retaining
key personnel who can affect the ability of a program to function
effectively is a good internal control principle.13
DOD also faces a challenge in effectively communicating the
policies that it has developed in response to the task force's
recommendations. DOD's method of communicating its policy changes
has not been effective in ensuring consistent practices or
promoting widespread understanding of the new policies among DOD
and the services.
As of March 2006, DOD had issued 16 directive-type memoranda as
interim guidance to quickly communicate information about changes
resulting from implementation of the task force recommendations.
(See app. IV for a list of these memoranda). Almost all of the
directive-type memoranda set target dates for DOD to issue later
guidance implementing the interim policies. In most cases, final
guidance such as a directive was expected to be issued within 180
days after each memorandum was signed; however, as of March 2006,
the final guidance had not been issued and most of the interim
guidance is now more than 2 years old. Since the memoranda are
interim guidance, they have been communicated to the services and
throughout DOD through mail to the Service Secretaries and
informally via e-mails and special Web pages14 rather than being
formally posted on the official DOD directives Web site.15 Under
internal control guidance, organizations should consistently apply
policies, and sound management practices of leading organizations
offer federal agencies a methodology for establishing effective
communications to promote consistency.16 However, some DOD and
service officials we met with stated that existing DOD guidance
was not always consistent with the directive-type memoranda
implementing the task force recommendations and that this
inconsistency has sometimes caused confusion at the installation
level. In addition, we found that information in the
directive-type memoranda was not always communicated to the
installations in a timely manner and had resulted in some of the
officials not knowing about and, thus not following current
policies consistently.
We identified several inconsistencies in implementing the
recommendations as a result of DOD's policy changes not being
communicated effectively, including the following:
o DOD's Family Advocacy Program Directive 6400.1 has not been
updated to reflect DOD's interim guidance that implements the task
force recommendations, even though a number of the task force
recommendations had called for these changes to be made in this
directive. Family Advocacy officials told us they will not update
their directive until the Family Violence Policy Office issues a
new instruction, incorporating all of the interim guidance issued
in the directive-type memoranda. As a result, some DOD and service
officials stated that inconsistent guidance from these two offices
has been a source of confusion. A prime example is that while
DOD's new definition of domestic violence was issued in 2004,
staff at some of the installations we visited said that they did
not become aware of the definition until late 2005 or January
2006. Consequently, some victims of domestic violence who were
covered under the new definition, since 2004, may not have been
considered for services.
o The task force also recommended that DOD establish a policy
that written copies of military protective orders be forwarded
immediately to both law enforcement and family advocacy officials.
While DOD initially issued a policy in March 2004 allowing
distribution to law enforcement, it reversed this policy in July
2004 due to concerns with the military protective order's use and
dissemination. DOD's August 8, 2005, status report on
recommendations further stated that the Privacy Act17 does not
allow distribution of the military protective orders to family
advocacy and law enforcement. This policy change, however, was not
effectively communicated, causing many inconsistent practices
throughout the installations we visited. For example, contrary to
the July 2004 guidance, DOD's September 2005 domestic violence
training materials provided to commanders, judge advocates, and
law enforcement personnel contained information on leadership
responsibilities, which stated that a copy of each order is to be
forwarded to law enforcement and family advocacy. Further, policy
information on DOD's Web sites that allowed the orders to be
distributed to law enforcement was not changed until we notified
DOD officials of the inconsistency. Additionally, we found
inconsistent practices between the services. For example, the
Army's regulations18 allowed distribution of the protective orders
to family advocacy and law enforcement officials. On the other
hand, the Navy did not provide copies to family advocacy. However,
a Navy instruction,19 which predated the DOD July 2004 guidance,
allowed distribution to law enforcement. Navy officials stated
that their guidance will be revised to reflect DOD requirements
not to provide copies to law enforcement, upon release of DOD's
Domestic Violence instruction. Finally, our discussions with OSD
and service lawyers revealed that they believe providing copies of
protective orders to family advocacy and law enforcement officials
would not be a violation of the Privacy Act.
o The task force recommended that "DOD mandate the military
services to provide awareness education to military spouses
regarding the transitional compensation program."20 DOD said that
no action was required on this recommendation "[s]ince Congress
established the transitional compensation program; the services
have routinely educated dependent family members about it."
However, during our installation visits we found inconsistent
communication of this information. Discussion groups with victim
advocates and interviews with family advocacy officials revealed
that a few installations elected not to inform military members or
spouses about transitional compensation until a specific victim
had a documented, validated domestic violence case in which they
would be eligible to receive benefits. The victim advocates stated
that this was done to prevent potential abuse of the program. Some
of the other installations were quite liberal about providing
information on the program. They said they felt providing the
information may encourage more people to come forward if they knew
help was available.
o The task force also recommended that DOD develop guidance for
commanding officers on how to properly document domestic violence
issues in separation papers to help facilitate transitional
compensation. The directive-type memorandum issued by DOD to
implement this recommendation states that commanding officers
should be trained on transitional compensation, but it does not
specifically require training them on how to "properly document
separation papers." Some victim advocates at installations we
visited said that commanding officers do not always use proper
documentation to ensure that victims will receive transitional
compensation and that some victims have been denied these funds
because of lack of documentation. DOD officials in the Family
Violence Policy Office told us that guidance on waiver
requirements, as recommended by the task force, is included in a
draft instruction from the Military Personnel Policy Directorate
on transitional compensation. We found inconsistencies in victim
advocates' knowledge of the waiver associated with transitional
compensation requirements because this information had not been
effectively communicated to the advocates.
DOD officials in the Family Violence Policy Office, Family
Advocacy Program Office, as well as officials in the four services
acknowledged that communication could be a problem and may result
in inconsistencies. They also noted that formal instructions take
years to draft and coordinate and that mailing the interim
guidance to service secretaries, e-mailing it to key points of
contacts, and placing the guidance on the Web pages were the best
avenues to follow. However, in our view, without an overall
communication strategy that provides a clear and consistent
understanding of policy among DOD and the services, there may
continue to be confusion and inconsistencies among DOD and the
services on implementing the task force's recommendations.
DOD is taking steps to address specific task force recommendations
to ensure confidentiality for victims of domestic violence and to
train commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and
chaplains on how to respond to such incidents. In its efforts to
ensure confidentiality, DOD has developed a restricted reporting
policy that allows victims to report incidents of domestic abuse,
which includes domestic violence, to health care and victim
advocacy specialists without mandatory disclosure to command or
law enforcement officials. However, the policy was not implemented
until April 2006. Further, in its efforts to provide additional
domestic violence training, DOD issued guidance requiring training
for commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains,
but tracking and documenting these training efforts have not
always occurred.
The task force had a number of recommendations asking DOD to
explore options for creating a system of confidential services,
privileged communications, and exemptions to mandatory reporting.
The goal of these recommendations was to provide victims of
domestic violence with access to a credible avenue for receiving
support, information, options, and resources to address the
violence in their lives. In response to the task force's
recommendations, on January 22, 2006, DOD issued its Restricted
Reporting Policy for Incidents of Domestic Abuse to ensure that
domestic violence victims are protected, treated with dignity and
respect, and provided with support, advocacy, and care.
Under the new policy, victims can choose either unrestricted
reporting or restricted reporting. Unrestricted reporting uses
current reporting channels-e.g., chain of command, Family Advocacy
Program, or law enforcement-and is for victims of domestic abuse
who want to pursue an official investigation of an incident.
Restricted reporting allows adult victims of domestic abuse to
disclose the abuse to health care providers, victim advocates, or
supervisors of victim advocates, and receive medical treatment and
victim advocacy services without notifying the alleged offender's
commanding officer or law enforcement. The new policy allows
victims to receive relevant information, medical attention, and
support while having additional time to make a more informed
decision about reporting the incident. The task force found that
victims were often reluctant to seek services because they had
fears about the potential adverse impact the reported incident may
have on the servicemember's career and the family's financial
well-being, as well as concerns about their personal safety.
However, the restricted reporting policy did not take effect until
April 22, 2006, in order for the services to have time to develop
consistent policies and an implementation strategy. Consequently,
at the time of our review, it was too soon to assess what effects
this policy will have on reported cases of domestic violence. The
new policy, nonetheless, was a topic of great concern during our
discussions at the 15 installations included in our study.
Installation commanders, commanding officers, legal officers,
provost marshals or heads of security forces, chaplains, family
advocacy program managers, victim advocates, and health care
providers all shared their views about the advantages and
disadvantages of the restricted reporting policy. Their views
varied considerably and ranged from unequivocal support for the
policy, to uncertainty because of licensing and ethical concerns,
to outright objection.
Those who expressed support for the policy said they did so
because they felt the policy promoted victim confidentiality,
safety, and support. Some unit commanders, for example, stated
that the policy would allow the victims to receive medical care
and time to decide if they wanted to press charges. In addition,
chaplains at some installations voiced approval for the policy
because it opened another avenue for victims to receive assistance
without getting others involved.
Conversely, officials who objected to the restricted reporting
policy said they did so because they believed the policy would not
encourage victims to "officially" report the incident, and thus
would send the wrong message to aggressors, as well as diminish
the commanding officers' ability to hold offenders accountable.
Specifically, legal officers serving as prosecutors and commanding
officers at several installations told us that they objected to
the policy because, while permitting victims to receive some types
of assistance was positive, it allowed aggressors to remain free
from disciplinary actions and to be able to continue the pattern
of domestic violence. The legal officers also expressed concern
about the evidence that would not be captured at the crime scene
when domestic violence occurs because the incident was not
reported immediately.
One area of concern raised during our installation visits dealt
with specific licensing issues and ethical dilemmas. For example,
health care providers expressed concerns that the new restricted
reporting policy may conflict with state licensing requirements
mandating them to report incidents of domestic violence to
civilian authorities. They also expressed reservations about the
policy in cases where they had to provide medical aid to a
severely injured individual who appeared to be untruthful about
the source of the injury. While this policy is similar to DOD's
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program policy, many
officials in our discussion groups said that similar reporting may
not be appropriate. According to these individuals, the
perpetrator of sexual assault does not usually reside with the
victim; therefore unreported incidents are less likely to place a
victim in a situation for further abuse, unlike domestic violence
where a victim would return home to the alleged abuser. Some of
the health care providers expressed concerns that they might be
placed in a position in which they had to send a battered victim
back into a dangerous situation.
During the time of our installation visits-i.e., from October 2005
through February 2006-the restricted reporting policy was issued
and addresses some of the concerns and issues from our discussion
groups. For example, the policy states that confidentiality will
be suspended for specific reasons, such as to prevent or lessen a
serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the victim
or another person or when required by state statute. While some of
the issues are addressed in the policy, the level of support this
policy will provide victims of domestic violence, the potential
impact restricted reporting will have on law enforcement
investigations, as well as the impact the policy will have on a
commander's ability to hold perpetrators accountable, will be
determined during implementation.
Beyond confidentiality, the task force made over 10
recommendations that focused on training for commanding officers,
senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains to respond to domestic
violence issues. To respond to the task force recommendations to
train commanding officers and senior enlisted personnel, DOD
issued guidance directing the services to require these officials
to receive such training. Specifically, the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a
directive-type memorandum titled "Domestic Abuse Response and
Intervention Training for Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted
Personnel" in February 2004. This memorandum required training on
specified topics, such as dynamics of domestic violence, common
misconceptions of victim safety, and responses to alleged domestic
abuse. The military services are addressing this requirement by
providing several educational options, including Web-based
training, training at the professional military education schools,
and training at installations led by instructors.
In addressing the task force recommendation to train chaplains,
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness issued a directive-type memorandum titled "Domestic
Abuse Training for Chaplains" on January 29, 2004, which required
training for chaplains on specified topics. One of the primary
topics that chaplains received training on was privileged
communication,21 because of the special role chaplains play in
providing assistance to victims of domestic violence. Chaplains we
spoke with said they received this training at their basic
officer's course, periodically through continuing professional
military education, and at installations.
While training on domestic violence issues is being provided to
commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains, DOD
does not have complete data on which chaplains have received
training because the Military Community and Family Policy Office
did not require tracking or documenting training provided to
chaplains. Although internal control guidance states that
management should document and track agency initiatives to
ascertain if they are achieved and provide follow-up actions, the
Family Violence Policy Office and Family Advocacy Office did not
develop training metrics. Without accurate training data and
documentation, DOD lacks visibility over whether chaplains have
been adequately trained and are being provided with resources that
will assist them in handling domestic violence issues.
Furthermore, during our discussion groups with chaplains, which
included a mix of experienced and junior officers, we found that
some chaplains did not fully understand their responsibilities
concerning privileged communication. For example, the Army
regulation states that such privileged communication is not to be
disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure
furthers the purpose of the communication, or to those reasonably
necessary for the transmission of the communication. The
regulation also states that the chaplain and chaplain assistant
will not divulge privileged communication without the written
consent of the person(s) authorized to claim the privilege. Some
Army and Navy chaplains we interviewed stated that they may notify
the chain of command about a privileged communication. For
example, one chaplain mentioned that there was no Army requirement
that chaplains report information discussed during a privileged
communication and others stated that the current Army regulation
for chaplains speaks to this. The chaplain further stated that
some Army chaplains had decided for themselves what they would and
would not report and would explain this to people that they
counseled. A Navy chaplain also stated that under certain
conditions he would notify the commanding officer if an individual
admitted being involved in domestic violence, even if the person
made the statement as a matter of religious conscience. Other
chaplains in our discussion groups told us that a breach of
privileged communication could ruin the reputation of chaplains
and lead to no one seeking their help.
The task force, in its 2002 report, also had similar findings and
recommended that DOD issue guidance clarifying clergy
confidentiality. An official at the Chaplain Board told us that,
since it takes so long to issue DOD-wide guidance, DOD is not
likely to issue additional guidance addressing confidentiality and
privileged communication because the services have issued
guidance, which is consistent with the Military Rules of
Evidence.22 However, when we discussed privileged communication
with chaplains, many referred to service guidance, as well as the
Military Rules of Evidence; but some were unclear as to what their
responsibilities were. Additional guidance and emphasis during
chaplain training could facilitate a consistent understanding by
chaplains of their responsibilities regarding confidentiality.
Without taking action, DOD may be unable to ensure that all
chaplains are prepared to handle private information provided by
victims or offenders, which could deter both from seeking
assistance.
DOD has not established an oversight framework to monitor
compliance with and evaluate implementation of the task force
recommendations on domestic violence. The task force's initial
2001 report recommended that DOD strategically use regional
oversight and monitoring visits at both the DOD and service levels
to improve the department's oversight of its efforts to address
domestic violence. DOD's draft domestic abuse instruction requires
the Military Community and Family Policy Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to monitor
compliance with the instruction and periodically evaluate domestic
violence efforts. The draft instruction, however, does not
communicate how this should be done and the Military Community and
Family Policy Office has not established a formal process for
doing this.
Officials in the Family Violence Policy Office stated that action
on the task force recommendation for oversight is pending and told
us they were exploring options for addressing it, such as having
the DOD Inspector General perform reviews every 2 or 3 years.
These officials and those from the Family Advocacy Program told us
that the services' headquarters monitor and evaluate their own
installation family advocacy program offices through their
accreditation processes.23 However, they acknowledged that the
service accreditation reports are not sent to DOD and that the
department has limited visibility into service domestic violence
efforts. The Military Community and Family Policy Office is
considering asking officials from the Family Advocacy Program
Office and the Family Violence Policy Office to go on some of the
services' accreditation visits to provide oversight of the
implementation efforts. The task force mentioned, however, that to
be effective, program evaluation must be ongoing and fully
integrated.
Although the DOD Family Advocacy Office has established output
metrics that somewhat relate to certain recommendations, DOD has
not established results-oriented performance measures that could
enable it to evaluate compliance with the recommendations. One
example of an established DOD metric is the number of briefings to
new unit commanders and senior enlisted personnel on domestic
abuse and child abuse. A DOD Family Advocacy Program official
stated that this metric is intended to be an output measure
related to the Government Performance and Results Act24 and is
only indirectly related to a recommendation in the task force
reports. This metric is not a results-oriented performance measure
that would capture the results or evaluate the effectiveness of
the briefings in increasing these officers' awareness of domestic
violence issues. Without an overall management framework for
monitoring and reporting on implementation, DOD and Congress will
continue to have limited visibility and oversight to evaluate the
changes associated with the recommendations and to make
improvements. As a result, DOD may be unable to ensure that all of
the accepted task force recommendations are implemented to produce
the desired improvements in assisting domestic violence victims
and holding offenders accountable.
Understanding the size and nature of domestic violence is
essential to DOD's ability to improve its response to this
important issue. Yet the department currently lacks the
information needed to determine reported domestic violence
incidents. To date, DOD does not have a database containing
complete information on reported incidents and what actions are
being taken to discipline those who commit these violent acts. In
addition, the lack of sufficient personnel threatens the timely
implementation of the pending task force recommendations. Further,
the absence of clear and effective communication of the policy
changes made in response to the task force recommendations has
hindered servicemembers' awareness of their responsibilities in
providing assistance to victims and holding offenders accountable.
The failure to track the training of the chaplains who respond to
domestic violence incidents impairs DOD's visibility over whether
chaplains are being provided with the tools to effectively deal
with domestic violence and understand their obligations concerning
privileged communications. Finally, the absence of an oversight
framework limits DOD's ability to assess its efforts to achieve
the desired results in improving the prevention of and response to
domestic violence. Without further management action to address
all of these deficiencies, DOD may be unable to effectively
identify and respond to concerns about domestic violence among
servicemembers.
To enhance implementation of the task force recommendations and
improve the effectiveness of domestic violence efforts, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take the following seven
actions:
o Develop, in conjunction with the service secretaries, a
comprehensive management plan to address deficiencies in the data
captured in DOD's domestic violence database that focuses on
ensuring that accurate and complete data exist and that all
instances in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System and
Family Advocacy Program Central Registry are matched and reported
annually, as required in DOD's Manual 7730.47-M;
o take appropriate steps, in conjunction with the service
secretaries, to ensure all commander actions related to domestic
violence incidents are entered in law enforcement systems;
o develop a plan to ensure adequate personnel are available to
implement pending task force recommendations;
o establish a communication strategy for effectively informing
DOD and service officials about new guidance implementing the task
force recommendations, to include
o issuing a revised DOD family advocacy program
directive that is consistent with interim guidance
for implementing the task force recommendations; and
o clearly articulating its policy regarding the
distribution of military protective orders using a
method that will ensure consistent application by all
services and DOD;
o develop, in conjunction with the service secretaries,
procedures and metrics to ensure that accurate, consistent, and
timely domestic violence training data are collected for
chaplains;
o develop, in conjunction with the service secretaries, chaplain
guidance and training materials that highlight and clarify
chaplain responsibilities concerning privileged communication; and
o develop and implement, in conjunction with the services, a
DOD-wide oversight framework that includes a results-oriented
evaluation plan for the implemented recommendations, and a process
for ongoing monitoring of and reporting on implementation.
In written comments on a draft of our report (reprinted in app.
V), DOD expressed concern that GAO had attempted to define,
differentiate, and prioritize what it considered important task
force recommendations and had focused on perceived deficiencies
rather than progress. The department further noted that GAO's
review had assumed that DOD should implement all recommendations
of the task force exactly as written and stated that after each
report the department clearly indicated the recommendations it
agreed with, did not agree with, and would study. DOD also stated
that it never suggested that it could not or would not modify any
of the task force recommendations. DOD noted that GAO had sought
to penalize the department for deviating from the narrowest
reading of individual recommendations. We disagree. To the
contrary, our report is very clear on the progress the department
has made in implementing the recommendations. Moreover, the scope
and methodology for our study (explained in app. I) clearly
details the approach that we used to assess this progress.
Further, in mentioning that the recommendations vary in their
relative importance to improving DOD's efforts to address domestic
violence issues, we simply noted that the implementation of some
recommendations may not have as significant an impact on DOD's
efforts as will the implementation of others. Additionally, we did
not assume that DOD could not modify task force recommendations.
As the report states, when counting recommendations as being
completed by DOD, we included instances where actions taken to
implement the recommendations were different from language that
the task force suggested. Specifically, we stated that completed
actions were grouped into two categories: (1) actions that DOD
took that directly implemented the task force recommendations and
(2) completed actions taken that DOD believed met the intent of
the recommendation. We also made it clear in our report that there
were 40 recommendations that DOD did not take action on because
they did not agree with the recommendation, the recommendation was
not applicable to DOD, or the recommended action was already being
done. In addition, we noted in the report that there were 60
recommendations where DOD had actions pending.
Regarding our recommendations, DOD concurred that the department
would take steps to ensure commander actions related to domestic
violence are entered into law enforcement databases, develop a
plan to ensure adequate personnel are available to implement
pending task force recommendations, and establish an oversight
framework to monitor progress and implementation of the task force
recommendations. DOD stated that it had issued policy requiring
documentation of commander actions, conducted training to
communicate this policy, and would continue to aggressively
communicate this policy to the services. DOD also indicated that
it was committed to providing resources to implement the task
force recommendations and had requested extensions for current
personnel to do so. We believe this approach could satisfy the
intent of our recommendation if DOD has a defined plan to provide
personnel in the event the requested personnel extensions are not
granted. DOD said it is developing an initial oversight process to
monitor progress and implementation and it anticipates completion
will be in fiscal year 2007 or 2008. As DOD develops this
oversight process, we reiterate the need for it to include
results-oriented performance measures that can enable it to
evaluate compliance with the recommendations.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation calling for the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop
a comprehensive management plan to address data deficiencies in
DOD's domestic violence database. DOD stated that this
recommendation is more appropriately directed to the Military
Departments, noting that it requires the services to submit data,
but that the systems used by the services are insufficient and
unfunded. We agree. While we believe the recommendation is
appropriately directed to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, who has oversight and stewardship for the
department's centralized domestic violence database, we have
expanded our recommendation to include the services.
DOD partially nonconcurred with our recommendation to establish a
communication strategy for informing DOD and service officials
about new guidance, to include issuing a revised family advocacy
program directive and reconsidering the task force recommendation
on providing military protective orders to law enforcement and
family advocacy officials and communicating associated policies to
the services. Specifically, DOD agreed with the need to issue a
revised Family Advocacy Program Directive. However, the department
disagreed with the need to reconsider the task force's
recommendation to provide military protective orders. DOD stated
that it has considered the issue of providing the protective
orders to law enforcement and family advocacy officials and
continued to believe there are privacy concerns. Given its
position, we are no longer recommending that the department
reconsider the task force's recommendation in that regard.
However, because of inconsistent practices found among the
services regarding whether distribution of these orders was
allowed to law enforcement and family advocacy personnel, we
continue to believe that the department needs to clarify and more
effectively communicate its policy on this issue and, therefore,
we are revising our recommendation to emphasize this point.
DOD partially nonconcurred with our recommendation to develop, in
concert with the Family Advocacy Director and four service family
advocacy program managers, guidance and training materials
clarifying chaplain responsibilities regarding privileged
communications. DOD stated that the family advocacy program
managers were not the proponents of chaplains' privileged
communications. We agree and have modified our recommendation to
include the services, as well as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness. DOD also stated that each military
department has policy addressing clergy confidentiality and DOD
does not contemplate developing such a policy. DOD further stated
that it has issued policy requiring this training and noted that
DOD and the services will continue to address this issue at
relevant training events. Because we, like the task force, found
some chaplains did not fully understand their responsibilities
concerning privileged communications, we continue to believe that
DOD needs to issue a departmentwide policy on privileged
communications, and that DOD and the services need to develop
training materials that highlight and clarify chaplain
responsibilities for these communications.
DOD nonconcurred with our recommendation to develop, in concert
with the Family Advocacy Director, four service family advocacy
program managers, and the chaplaincy board, procedures and metrics
to ensure that accurate, consistent, and timely domestic violence
training data are collected for chaplains. DOD stated that the
family advocacy program managers were not the proponents of
chaplain training and that this recommendation is more
appropriately directed to the Military Departments. We agree.
While we believe the recommendation is appropriately directed to
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who
has oversight over domestic abuse matters, we have modified our
recommendation to include the services. In addition, DOD further
stated that it is inappropriate for the department to engage in
routine operator-level activity such as tracking training
statistics. However, it is important to note that the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has established
metrics for tracking domestic abuse training for commanding
officers and senior enlisted personnel and, in light of this fact,
we continue to believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness should also maintain procedures and
metrics on domestic abuse training for chaplains, who play a
critical role in assisting domestic violence victims.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov .
Should you or your staff have any questions about this report,
please contact me at 202-512-6304. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VI.
Valerie C. Melvin Acting Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management
In conducting our review of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
progress in implementing recommendations from the Defense Task
Force on Domestic Violence, we contacted officials at the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness'
Family Violence Policy Office and Family Advocacy Program, Defense
Manpower Data Center; Army's Military Community and Family Support
Center; Commander of Naval Installations; Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Force Management and Personnel; and
Marine Corps Family Advocacy Program Office. We made 15 site
visits to installations in the United States, Germany, Japan, and
South Korea to collect documentation to assess the status of DOD's
efforts to implement the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence's
recommendations. We selected locations based on the number of
incidents of spouse abuse reported to the Family Advocacy Program
office from 2000 through 2004,1 suggestions from DOD and service
officials, and location-i.e., at least two installations per
service domestically and at least one per service overseas. At
each of these locations, we interviewed key personnel in positions
such as installation commanders, provost marshals, commanders,
legal officers, victim advocates, family advocacy managers, health
care officials, chaplains, military police, and senior enlisted
personnel because they were identified by the task force as having
specific responsibilities pertaining to victim safety or offender
accountability. Table 1 lists all of the installations we visited.
Table 1: Installations Visited During the Review
Source: GAO.
To determine DOD's ability to report on domestic violence in the
military and the disciplinary actions taken by commanders to
address these incidents, we reviewed and analyzed laws,
directives, and other DOD and service policies and guidance for
reporting domestic violence incidents including DOD's Manual for
Defense Incident-Based Reporting System 7730.47-M and DOD's Manual
for Child Maltreatment and Domestic Abuse Incident Reporting
System 6400.1-M-1. We also reviewed and analyzed DOD domestic
violence data obtained from the Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System, Family Advocacy Program Central Registry, and reports to
Congress on DOD domestic violence. To assess the reliability of
the criminal and clinical data systems, we (1) reviewed existing
information about the data and systems that produced them and (2)
interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We also
reviewed information on the collection methods used to gather,
record, and report the data mentioned above and verified the
reliability of the data in the Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System and Family Advocacy Program Central Registry. We concluded
that the data from both data systems were not complete enough to
provide an accurate number of domestic violence incidents or
commander actions.
To determine the extent to which DOD has implemented the
recommendations of the task force as well as the amount of
resources provided to the office responsible for implementing the
recommendations, we reviewed Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence reports and spoke with members of the defense task force
that made the recommendations to DOD. In addition, we prepared a
matrix summarizing the recommendations; obtained DOD's status in
implementing the recommendations,2 along with supporting
documentation and evidence to corroborate implementation; and we
interviewed or conducted focus groups with officials at the
selected installations mentioned above to understand the guidance
and training received by the officials and assess how they are
implementing the recommendations. We also obtained from the
installations supporting documentation for many of the implemented
recommendations, including copies of memoranda of agreements with
civilian law enforcement agencies, training materials, and
guidance on military and civilian protection orders. Furthermore,
we interviewed officials at the DOD Family Violence Policy Office,
the office responsible for implementing the recommendations, and
examined budget information to ascertain the funding and resources
provided to this office.
To facilitate the data-gathering process for all four questions,3
we developed and pretested our questions and data collection
instruments at Fort Mead and Andrews Air Force Base, both located
in Maryland. We identified the content of the instruments through
a review of the task force report recommendations, service
guidance, and other policy manuals. We ultimately used three types
of data collection instruments at the 15 installations visited.
Specifically:
o Focus group protocols were used to solicit information from two
homogeneous groups: military police and senior enlisted personnel.
The focus group protocol was used to increase the likelihood that
the questions were asked and procedures were conducted in a
standardized manner, regardless of which GAO analyst conducted the
focus groups during the 15 site visits. For each focus group we
required a minimum of 6-10 participants. Participants were assured
of anonymity and therefore encouraged to openly share their
opinions.
o Advanced questions were sent to six types of officials at the
installations we visited: unit commanders, legal officials, Family
Advocacy Program managers, victim advocates, chaplains, and health
care officials. The questionnaires were sent ahead of our visit
and these groups were asked to fill out the questionnaires and
return them to us before the interview. The purpose of the
questionnaires was to obtain specific information such as training
and budget information.
o Separate discussion group interview protocols were created for
eight types of officials: installation commanders, provost
marshals, unit commanders, legal officials, Family Advocacy
Program managers, victim advocates, chaplains, and health care
officials. When possible, we also interviewed civilian law
enforcement officials around the military installation. While some
of the questions were the same or very similar for some issues,
the content of the discussion group interview protocols was
tailored to the type of official interviewed.
To determine the efforts DOD has taken to ensure the
confidentiality of victims and the education and accountability of
commanding officers and chaplains, we used the methodology for the
second question as well as reviewed and analyzed DOD's recently
issued confidentiality policy, which provides limited
confidentiality for victims. We also conducted discussion groups
with commanding officers and chaplains at the installations
visited to ascertain the training these officials have received
and to address the accountability of these individuals. We
reviewed and analyzed domestic violence training materials
obtained from installation officials and officials at the service
training schools to determine (1) the efforts DOD takes to educate
commanding officers and chaplains, (2) whether such training is
standardized, and (3) whether the training covers topics
recommended by the task force on domestic violence. Additionally,
we reviewed accreditation reports for installation Family Advocacy
Program programs, where available, and other materials documenting
the effectiveness of training programs, such as reports to DOD on
training metrics.
To determine the extent to which DOD has developed an overall
framework to guide and evaluate implementation, we interviewed
officials in the DOD Family Violence Policy Office, which is the
office responsible for implementing the defense task force
recommendations. We also reviewed and analyzed DOD regulations and
guidance and reports submitted to the OSD Family Advocacy Program
office to ascertain if DOD has an overall framework to guide and
evaluate implementation of the recommendations. The Government
Performance and Results Act of 19934 and Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government5 provided model criteria for
determining the adequacy of the oversight framework.
We conducted our review from July 2005 through March 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
The Military Community and Family Policy Office has managed and
provided the Family Violence Policy Office with approximately $23
million to implement task force recommendations since mid-2003.
Table II shows funding and projects for fiscal years 2003 through
2005.
DOD's Ability to Report on Domestic Violence Incidents and Commander Actions Is
Hampered by Incomplete Data
6 Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 594 (1999).
7 Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 591 (1999).
8 An official in DOD's Law Enforcement Policy and Support Office told us
that the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System was designed and
constructed to collect and report crime data under a number of statutes,
including the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 and the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994. We were told, however, that
because the services are not reporting information needed to make up the
total input to the law enforcement database, collection and/or reporting
for this are done manually "offline" instead of through the Defense
Incident-Based Reporting System.
9 DOD's Manual for Defense Incident-Based Reporting System, 7730.47M,
dated July 25, 2003, discusses requirements for the centralized database
on domestic violence.
10 Pub. L. No. 106-65, at 594 (1999).
11 Department of Defense Directive-Type Memorandum, Establishment of DOD
Database on Domestic Violence and Procedures for Submitting Domestic
Violence Data, June 8, 2000.
Resources Provided and Progress Made, but Challenges Exist to Implementing the
Remaining Task Force Recommendations
Resources Provided for Office Overseeing Implementation of Recommendations
Progress Made in Implementing Domestic Violence Recommendations
12 This category also included special interest items such as the domestic
violence definition, prevention of domestic violence, severity of abuse,
recommended research, and process model.
Limited Personnel in Office Overseeing Implementation
Implementation Policies Not Effectively Communicated
13 See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
14 The special Web pages provide news and information for flag and general
officers-i.e., http://www.commanderspage.com ; while, another-i.e.,
http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil -provides servicemembers and their
families with information on all quality-of-life issues, including
domestic violence.
15 As of March 30, 2006, DOD had posted Directive Type Memoranda on its
official Directives Web site; however, this link only had 3 of the 16
domestic violence directive-type memoranda.
16 See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
17 The Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-579 (1974) is the primary act
that regulates the federal government's use of personal information. It
places limitations on agencies' collection, disclosure, and use of
personal information in systems of records.
18 Army Regulation 608-18 (Sept. 27, 2004).
19 OPNAVINST 1752.2A (Jul. 17, 1996).
20 Congress established the transitional compensation program for abused
spouses/family members of military personnel as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-160, at 554
(1993). The law authorizes temporary payments for families in which the
servicemember has been discharged administratively or by court-martial for
dependent-related abuse.
Steps Taken to Ensure Confidentiality and Provide Domestic Violence Training,
but Additional Efforts Needed
New Restricted Reporting Policy Not Yet in Force
Additional Efforts Are Needed to Ensure Training Is Received
21 A communication to a chaplain given as a formal act of religion or as a
matter of conscience that is made in confidence and not intended to be
disclosed to others is a privileged communication.
22 The Military Rule of Evidence 503, Communications to Clergy, states
that a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose in legal proceedings
and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication to a
clergy or to a clergyman's assistant if such a communication is made
either as a formal act of religion or as a matter of conscience.
DOD Has Not Established an Oversight Framework to Monitor Compliance and
Evaluate Implementation of Recommendations
23 Accreditation is a process of education and improvement for service
organizations that are committed to achieving quality in management and
services. It demonstrates that the service has met accepted standards of
operation in the Family Advocacy Program.
Conclusions
24 Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993).
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Service Installation
Army Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Fort Hood, Texas
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii
Yongsan Garrison, South Korea
Navy Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan
Marine Corps Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, California
Marine Corps Base, Hawaii
Camp S. D. Butler, Japan
Air Force Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii
Ramstein Air Base, Germany
Kadena Air Base, Japan
1 We did not verify these numbers.
2 We assessed DOD's progress in implementing the recommendations included
in its status matrix submitted on February 15, 2006. DOD continues to
complete recommendations and submitted an updated matrix March 21, 2006;
however, our time frames precluded us from corroborating this additional
information.
3 We assessed (1) DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents
in the military and disciplinary actions taken by commanders to address
these incidents, (2) the extent to which DOD has provided resources to the
office overseeing implementation of the task force's recommendations and
the extent to which the recommendations have been implemented, (3) the
specific actions that DOD has taken on the recommendations to ensure the
confidentiality of victims and the education and accountability of
commanding officers and chaplains, and (4) the extent to which DOD has
established an oversight framework to monitor compliance with and evaluate
implementation of the recommendations.
4 Pub. L. No. 103-62 (Aug. 3, 1993).
5 See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-0021.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Appendix II: Resources Provided to Implement Task Force Recommendations
Appendix II: Resources Provided to Implement Task Force Recommendations
Table 2: Resources and Projects to Implement Task Force Recommendationsa
Projects Purpose FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 Total
Marine Corps Provide secure $175,000 $175,000
Web-enabled Web for the
reporting Marine Corps
system child and
spouse abuse
reporting
system
Air Force Fund a 250,000 250,000
Central comprehensive
Registry for development
Child/Spouse plan for
Abuse establishing
an abuse
central
registry
Marine Corps Provide 76,000 76,000
case Marines with
management case
system management
software software for
managing
child/spouse
abuse reports
Family Fund a 400,000 400,000
violence DOD-wide
prevention domestic
fund violence
public
awareness
campaign
Family Fund the 350,000 350,000
advocacy evaluation of
conference a 3-day joint
service family
advocacy
training
conference for
about 600-650
participants
Family Fund 200,000 200,000
advocacy initiatives
demonstration with potential
project for worldwide
application to
improve DOD's
response to
domestic
violence
Domestic Fund marketing 600,000 600,000
violence/child to reach
abuse internet military
support members and
their families
on the topic
of domestic
violence
Family Fund a 535,094 535,094
advocacy Web-based
training for interactive
commanders domestic
interactive violence
training training for
commanding
officers and
senior
enlisted
personnel
Texas council Fund a 429,000 429,000
on family standardized
violence domestic
violence
intervention
public
awareness
hotline
campaign
Child abuse Fund posters 100,000 100,000
hotline for child
marketing abuse and
safety hotline
Family Fund a 5-day 81,154 81,154
advocacy joint service
command family
assistance advocacy
team training command
assistance
training
conference for
70 people
Family Fund domestic 155,000 155,000
advocacy violence
demonstration incident
project reduction
projects such
as
collaboration
among military
and civilian
police
Victim Fund travel 19,000 $23,100 42,100
advocate
training for
chaplains
(travel costs)
Victim Fund a series 2,640,906 2,640,906
training for of conferences
professionals for
professionals
in 2005
Victim Fund the 4,571,000 7,500,000 4,800,000 16,871,000
advocates and establishing,
shelter administering,
and monitoring
of
installations
that
participate in
the program to
provide victim
advocates
and/or shelter
services to
victims of
domestic
violence
Joint domestic Fund the 396,000 396,000
violence family abuse
shelter shelter in
Hawaii
Travel Fund travel 75,000 3,500 11,000 89,500
Total funding $7,842,248 $10,318,406 $5,230,100 $23,390,754
per fiscal
year
Source: Department of Defense.
aProgram analysts in DOD's Military Community and Family Policy Office
noted that contract and staff costs were unknown for fiscal year 2003 and
staff costs were for a General Schedule 12 and 15 for both fiscal years
2004 and 2005.
Appendix III: 194 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Recommendations
Appendix III: 194 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence Recommendations
Tables 3 through 7 contain the task force recommendations broken out by
descriptive categories: Community Collaboration, Education and Training,
Offender Accountability, Victim Safety, and Other. Each table groups the
recommendations, by our analysis of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
actions taken. We split the Completed Actions group into two sections (1)
actions that DOD took that directly implemented the task force
recommendations and (2) completed actions taken that they believe meet the
intent of the recommendation. The No Action Required group consists of
recommendations DOD classified as complete, but actually disagreed with
and took no action; recommendations DOD shows as having no action required
because the recommendation was not applicable to DOD; or those
recommendations where DOD indicated that the recommended actions were
already being done. The Pending Actions group consists of those
recommendations in which DOD, at the time of our review, was still working
on or weighing its response. Not all tables contain recommendations that
fit under each group identified above.
Table 3: Community Collaboration Recommendations
Completed actions
Recommendation Documentation to support that
implementation is complete
Make violation of a valid civilian Directive-Type Memorandum:
order of protection by a military Implementation of the Armed Forces
member an offense under Uniform Code Domestic Security Act, November 10,
of Military Justice. 2003
Use standard Military Protective Directive-Type Memorandum: Military
Order. Protective Orders, March 10, 2004
Require written Military Protective Directive-Type Memorandum: Military
Order. Protective Orders, March 10, 2004
Require initial training for Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
commanding officers with annual Abuse Response and Intervention
refreshers. Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
With Defense Task Force on Domestic Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Violence, develop standardized Abuse Response and Intervention
curricula. Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
Require initial domestic violence Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
training for Senior enlisted Abuse Response and Intervention
personnel in key billets with annual Training for Commanding Officers and
refreshers. Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
With Defense Task Force on Domestic Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Violence, develop standardized Abuse Response and Intervention
curricula. Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
Task Force provided DOD with proposed Directive-Type Memorandum:
language to send to Congress to amend Implementation of the Armed Forces
Section 103, title 18, to make it a Domestic Security Act, November 10,
crime to violate a civilian order of 2003
protection on federal property.
Train commanding officers on Military Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Protective Orders. Abuse Response and Intervention
Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004.
Forward law enforcement domestic DOD provided documentation that the
violence issues to Joint Security Defense Enterprise-Wide Working
Chiefs Counsel. Group and Joint Security Chiefs
Counsel consented to support
domestic violence efforts as a
result of meetings held with each on
March 19 and 24, 2003, respectively.
Create, with Department of Justice, DOD partnered with the Department of
an initiative, including financial Justice and Federal Law Enforcement
incentives, to encourage Training Center to create a
collaborative agreements between train-the-trainer module based on a
civilian law enforcement/judicial coordinated community response to
agencies and military installations domestic violence. In addition to
in the areas of information sharing, training, DOD and Office of Violence
training material and opportunities, Against Women at the Department of
programs, and other domestic violence Justice are conducting coordinated
resources. community response projects in two
communities with large military
populations, Jacksonville, FL (Navy)
and Clarksville, TN (Army).
Explore use of state-of-the-art DOD provided documentation that they
training platforms such as Web-based explored options and are developing
training. Web-based domestic violence training
for commanding officers.
Ensure maximum use of DOD responded that the services
treatment/intervention resources in report increased collaboration and
civilian communities overseas when use of host nation resources
available and appropriate. overseas, where available.
Adopt and widely disseminate the Directive-Type Memorandum:
Commanding Officer's Establishing Protocols for Law
Protocol/Guidelines. Enforcement and Command Responses to
Domestic Violence Involving Military
Members on Active Duty, October 22,
2004
Seek partnerships to develop domestic Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
violence prevention and education Abuse Response and Intervention
programs. Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
Recommendation Documentation we found to support
actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation
Amend DODD 6400.1 to require Directive-Type Memorandum:
installation/regional commanders to Establishing Domestic Violence
seek Memorandum of Understanding with Memoranda of Understanding Between
local communities to address Military and Local Civilian
responses to domestic violence. Officials, January 29, 2004
Create an enclosure to DODD 6400.1 Directive-Type Memorandum:
that provides examples of Memorandum Establishing Domestic Violence
of Understanding and guidance in Memoranda of Understanding Between
negotiating the creation and Military and Local Civilian
implementation of such memoranda. Officials, January 29, 2004
Require copy of military protective Directive-Type Memorandum: Military
order to be provided to victim within Protective Orders, March 10, 2004
24 hours of issuance. provides a copy to the victim but
not in 24 hours.
Issue official instructions as Directive-Type Memorandum:
follows: Military installation Establishing Domestic Violence
officials should seek to establish Memoranda of Understanding Between
relationships which foster Military and Local Civilian
collaboration with community based Officials, January 29, 2004
services for victims of domestic
violence; local law enforcement
departments; local prosecutor's
office(s); and local criminal, civil,
and domestic violence court(s). The
ultimate goal being the improvement
of command awareness of domestic
violence issues, improvement of the
delivery of services to and safety of
victims, and increased accountability
of offenders.
Adopt the standard Military Directive-Type Memorandum: Military
Protective Order on page 32-33 of the Protective Orders, March 10, 2004
Defense Task Force's Second Year
Report.
Adopt a policy that commanding Directive-Type Memorandum:
officers remove and bar civilian Establishing Protocols for Law
domestic violence offenders from the Enforcement and Command Responses to
installation. Domestic Violence Involving Military
Members on Active Duty, October 22,
2004
Require notification to gaining Directive-Type Memorandum:
commander of pending transfer of Establishing Protocols for Law
service member with open Family Enforcement and Command Responses to
Advocacy Program (domestic violence) Domestic Violence Involving Military
case to ensure needed services are Members on Active Duty, October 22,
available at new duty station. 2004, and Directive-Type Memorandum:
Domestic Abuse Response and
Intervention Training for Commanding
Officers and Senior Enlisted
Personnel, February 3, 2004
Request that the Defense DOD provided documentation that the
Enterprise-Wide Working Group create Defense Enterprise-Wide Working
a sub working group of the Defense Group and Joint Security Chiefs
Criminal Investigative organizations Counsel consented to support
to address domestic violence issues. domestic violence efforts as a
result of meetings held with each on
March 19 and 24, 2003, respectively.
Establish procedures for returning Directive-Type Memorandum:
service/family members to continental Establishing Protocols for Law
United States following domestic Enforcement and Command Responses to
violence incident depending on Domestic Violence Involving Military
severity and availability of Members on Active Duty, October 22,
services. 2004. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 571
(2003), Travel and Transportation
for Dependents Relocating for
Reasons of Personal Safety,
stipulates that a spouse victim of
domestic violence can request
shipment of household goods and/or
motor vehicle provided (1) a
commander determines the member
committed the abuse in question, (2)
a safety plan and counseling have
been provided to the victim, (3) the
safety of the dependent is at risk,
and (4) relocation is advisable. The
member must consent in writing
before transportation will be
provided.
Develop a standard state-of-the-art Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
curriculum for all commanding Abuse Response and Intervention
officers and key billeted senior Training for Commanding Officers and
enlisted personnel. Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
Ensure services provide written Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
guidance to training/education Abuse Response and Intervention
commands for domestic violence Training for Commanding Officers and
training. Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004. DOD is also developing
Web-based training modules for
commanding officers.
No action required
Recommendation Documentation we found that does not
support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's
support for no action required
Establish standard policy of DOD stated that enforcement of
enforcement of warrants/orders on warrants and orders varies so
military installations. significantly by location the issue
is best handled by local memorandum
of understanding instead of standard
DOD policy.
Establish and fund a domestic DOD officials disagreed with the
violence response coordinator recommendation and will not take
position at each major installation. action. DOD noted that tasks are
currently performed by a combination
of law enforcement personnel, victim
advocates, and Family Advocacy
Program staff.
Centrally record and track Military DOD essentially disagreed with the
Protective Orders. recommendation and will not take
action. DOD noted that Office of
Secretary of Defense determined it
would not be feasible to create
another database.
Require copies to Family Advocacy DOD essentially disagreed with the
Program and installation military recommendation and will not take
police. action. DOD stated in its August 8,
2005, report responding to the task
force recommendations that the
Privacy Act restricts distribution
of military protective orders and
that the victim must provide orders
to Family Advocacy Program and law
enforcement if desired. The Office
of Secretary of Defense and service
lawyers told us in interviews that
this distribution would not
necessarily be a violation of the
Privacy Act. The July 14, 2004,
Directive-Type Memorandum,
Clarifying Guidance Concerning the
DD Form 2873, Military Protective
Order, does not authorize
distribution to the Family Advocacy
Program or military police.
Provide a list of suggested duties DOD disagreed with the
for the Domestic Violence Response recommendation and will not take
Coordinator. action. DOD stated that tasks are
currently performed by a combination
of law enforcement personnel, victim
advocates, and Family Advocacy
Program staff.
Recommend the establishing of such DOD disagreed with the
positions at installation level. recommendation and will not take
action, but DOD identified it as
complete. DOD stated that tasks are
currently performed by a combination
of law enforcement personnel, victim
advocates, and Family Advocacy
Program staff.
Reconstitute DOD-level Family DOD disagreed with the
Advocacy Committee. recommendation and will not take
action, but identified as complete.
DOD stated that other means are
currently in place to achieve this.
Require quarterly meetings of DOD disagreed with the
DOD-level Family Advocacy Committee. recommendation and will not take
action. DOD stated that other means
are currently in place to achieve
this.
Require service-level Family Advocacy DOD disagreed with the
Committees. recommendation and will not take
action. DOD stated that other means
are currently in place to achieve
this.
Require installation-level Family DOD disagreed with the
Advocacy Committee. recommendation and will not take
action. DOD stated that other means
are currently in place to achieve
this.
Charter DOD-level Family Advocacy DOD disagreed with the
Committee to collaborate among recommendation and will not take
services to improve services, victim action. DOD stated that other means
safety, and offender accountability. are currently in place to achieve
this.
Select standardized delivery models DOD essentially disagreed with the
as specified for training. recommendation and will not take
action. However, they issued
Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Abuse Response and Intervention
Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004, but this directive does not
address a standard delivery model.
Request Congress enacts legislation DOD stated that the recommendation
making it a crime to disobey a was directed toward Congress, but
civilian order of protection on OSD issued Directive-Type
federal property. Memorandum: Implementation of the
Armed Forces Domestic Security Act,
November 10, 2003.
Pending actions
Make domestic violence Memorandum of
Understandings with local communities
an item of special interest for the
DOD and Service Inspector Generals.
Do not assign overseas service/family
members undergoing domestic violence
program unless services available in
gaining command.
Do not assign overseas service/family
members pending court action for
domestic violence offense.
Provide promotion materials that
advertise family services that
portray total community.
Provide promotional materials in
language and population served.
Encourage installation
representatives to coordinate with
local, diverse organizations.
Encourage input of foreign-born
spouses in design of outreach
materials on domestic violence.
Evaluate Services "best practices."
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Table 4: Education and Training Recommendations
Completed actions
Recommendation Documentation we found to support
implementation as complete
With Defense Task Force Domestic Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Violence, develop domestic violence Abuse Identification and Assessment
awareness education for all health Training for Health Care Providers,
care staff. February 6, 2004
Require initial domestic violence Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
training for New Parent Support Abuse Identification and Assessment
Program nurses. Training for Health Care Providers,
February 6, 2004
Recommend that DOD issue a policy Deputy Secretary of Defense issued
memorandum regarding Domestic Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Violence. Violence, November 19, 2001
DOD, with Defense Task Force on Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Domestic Violence, develops domestic Abuse Training for Chaplains,
violence training for chaplains. January 29, 2004
Highlight senior leadership policy on Deputy Secretary of Defense issued
nontolerance of domestic violence. memorandum on Domestic Violence,
November 19, 2001
Implement standardized medical Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
forensic training for health care Abuse Identification and Assessment
providers in first responder roles. Training for Health Care Providers,
February 6, 2004
Explore state-of-the-art training DOD responded that upon completion
platforms such as Web-based training of commander Web-based training
for forensic medical training. module, consideration will be given
to expanding this platform
Develop standardized domestic Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
violence training curriculum for Abuse Training for Chaplains,
chaplains using outline provided. January 29, 2004
Recommendation Documentation we found to support
actions taken that DOD believes met
the intent of the recommendation
Initiate domestic violence Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
evidence-based training for Staff Violence Prosecution Training, March
Judge Advocates. 18, 2002
Conduct Lautenberg Awareness Directive-Type Memorandum:
Campaign. Department of Defense Policy for
Implementation of Domestic Violence
Misdemeanor Amendment to the Gun
Control Act for Military Personnel,
November 27, 2002
Require annual Lautenberg Awareness Directive-Type Memorandum:
Education. Department of Defense Policy for
Implementation of Domestic Violence
Misdemeanor Amendment to the Gun
Control Act for Military Personnel,
November 27, 2002
Include domestic violence awareness Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
education in basic officer and Abuse Response and Intervention
enlisted schools. Training for Commanding Officers and
Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
Include domestic violence awareness Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
education in all professional Abuse Response and Intervention
military education schools, local Training for Commanding Officers and
training, etc. Senior Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
With Chaplain working group and Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic
Defense Task Force on Domestic Abuse Training for Chaplains,
Violence, develop domestic violence January 29, 2004
training for Chaplains' Basic Courses
and ensure training for those
overseas.
No action required
Recommendation Documentation we found that does not
support implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and DOD's
support for no action required
DOD mandate transitional compensation DOD stated that this is already
awareness education for spouses. being done. Since Congress
established the transitional
compensation program, the services
have routinely educated dependent
family members about it.
Emphasize the need to reach spouses DOD stated that Family Advocacy
residing off the installation. Program provides outreach to spouses
residing off of the installation.
Ensure cultural diversity education DOD stated that cultural diversity
for those overseas. education is provided by local,
national, and family center staff.
Request Congress fully fund New DOD stated that it had previously
Parent Support Program. requested and been denied full
funding for New Parent Support
Program.
The Defense Task Force on Domestic DOD noted that the recommendation is
Violence Victim Safety Workgroup for the Defense Task Force on
continues to investigate the issue of Domestic Violence, not DOD.
transitional compensation.
Pending actions
Develop domestic violence
instructions for initial training for
military police.
Ensure local military police patrol
officers receive domestic violence
training.
Create domestic violence mobile
training teams for military police.
Develop a list of state-of-the-art
domestic violence equipment for
military police.
Study adoption of indicator-based
screening for domestic violence.
Provide law enforcement first
responders with audio visual
equipment.
Provide training on the use of audio
visual equipment.
Develop policy on clergy
confidentiality.
Develop standard DOD policy on clergy
confidentiality.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Table 5: Offender Accountability Recommendations
Completed actions
Recommendation Documentation we found to support
implementation as complete
Investigate every domestic Directive-Type Memorandum: Establishing
violence incident to Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command
determine if a crime was Responses to Domestic Violence Involving
committed. Military Members on Active Duty, October 22,
2004
Ensure services comply with Directive-Type Memorandum: Enlistment
interim guidance on waivers Waivers for Domestic Violence-Related
for domestic violence-related Convictions, January 22, 2002
convictions.
Review the Lautenberg A 2001 Office of Undersecretary of Defense
waivers. Personnel and Readiness review of service
enlistment waivers found the Services to be
in compliance with the interim guidance
concerning Lautenberg and enlistment
waivers.
Develop guidance for formal Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic Violence
and informal fatality and Child Abuse Fatality Reviews, February
reviews. 12, 2004
Require results and system Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic Violence
change recommendations to be and Child Abuse Fatality Reviews, February
completed in a timely manner. 12, 2004
Evaluate data collection Evaluation determined Defense Incident-Based
methods. Reporting System and Family Advocacy Program
Central Registry are not interchangeable and
forced substitution would be a mistake.
Establish a law enforcement Directive-Type Memorandum: Establishing
protocol for domestic Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command
violence investigations. Responses to Domestic Violence Involving
Military Members on Active Duty, October 22,
2004
Incorporate into education Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse
programs factors for legal Response and Intervention Training for
and commanding officers to Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted
consider in responding to Personnel, February 3, 2004
domestic violence as a crime.
Recommendation Documentation we found to support actions
taken that DOD believes met the intent of
the recommendation
Develop guidance to capture DODD 7730.47 Defense Incident-Based
data required by Section 594, Reporting System establishes guidance to
Public Law 106-65. capture data required by National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub.
L. No. 106-65, at 594 (1999).
Formally evaluate repeat Directive-Type Memorandum: Domestic Abuse
offenders/treatment failures Response and Intervention Training for
for continued service. Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted
Personnel, February 3, 2004
Issue final Lautenberg Directive-Type Memorandum: Department of
guidance. Defense Policy for Implementation of
Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Amendment to
the Gun Control Act for Military Personnel,
November 27, 2002
Develop guidelines for Directive-Type Memorandum: Establishing
commanding officers in Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command
domestic violence Responses to Domestic Violence Involving
substantiation Military Members on Active Duty, October 22,
determinations. 2004. DOD later responded that since
commanders are required to consult with
legal, this is an automatic process because
the military attorneys consult the Uniformed
Code of Military Justice and the Manual for
Courts Martial and this document contains a
list of factors to consider when determining
whether to substantiate a case.
No action required
Recommendation Documentation we found that does
not support implementation status
as complete but as disagreed and
DOD's support for no action
required
Study whether Defense Incident-Based DOD disagreed with the intent of
Reporting System should replace the this recommendation and said the
Family Advocacy Program central study determined that Defense
registry. Incident-Based Reporting System
and the Family Advocacy Program
central registry are not
interchangeable, and forced
substitution of one for the other
would be a mistake.
Expand Family Advocacy Program database DOD disagreed with the need to
to comply with section 594 requirements use the Family Advocacy Program
if Defense Incident-Based Reporting database to meet the requirements
System is delayed. of section 594 of Pub. L. No.
106-65 (1999).
Fatality reviews. DOD stated that the Defense Task
Force on Domestic violence made
no specific recommendations, but
pledged to continue researching
issue in conjunction with DOD's
goal of implementing domestic
violence fatality reviews.
Pending actions
Train law enforcement, legal, and
command to collaborate on domestic
violence crime determination.
Require comprehensive, effective
batterer intervention.
Develop criteria for differing
interventions.
Develop criteria for risk/lethality
assessments.
Develop criteria for success in offender
behavior after intervention.
Require domestic violence program
evaluation.
Establish advisory committee to oversee
program evaluation.
Establish a protocol for evaluating
field-based domestic violence programs.
Use regional oversight and monitoring
visits.
With organizations experienced in
domestic violence prevention programs,
develop an ongoing domestic violence
awareness campaign.
Target a program of domestic violence
education to grades E1-E4.
With Department of Defense Education
Activity incorporate domestic violence
awareness into dependent schools.
Incorporate criteria provided by Defense
Task Force on Domestic Violence into
policy update for domestic violence case
management.
Fully implement Defense Incident-Based
Reporting System at the earliest
possible date.
Seek to improve civil-military
cooperation to foster victim safety.
Work with the Department of Justice to
implement Military Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction Act of 2000 to ensure
proper emphasis for domestic violence.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Table 6: Victim Safety Recommendations
Completed actions
Recommendation Documentation we found to
support implementation as
complete
Working with Services and Defense Task Under Secretary of Defense for
Force on Domestic Violence expand the Personnel and Readiness issued
availability of the National Domestic a policy memorandum: Domestic
Violence Hotline. Violence Awareness Month,
October 1, 2004, and
Directive-Type Memorandum:
Domestic Abuse Victim Advocacy
Program, February 17, 2005
highlights the importance and
availability of the National
Domestic Violence Hotline.
Working with Services and Defense Task Training and information has
Force on Domestic Violence expand the been provided to National
availability of National Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Hotline.
Hotline by providing specialized marketing
and outreach including 1) ensuring that the
hotline information and community domestic
violence resources are included in the
materials issued by family services, health
care, Family Advocacy Program, law
enforcement, as well as the relevant
policies communicated from the commanding
officers. Identifying information necessary
to enable the National Domestic Violence
Hotline to assist military spouse/partner
callers who are victims of domestic
violence, to incorporate the provision of
appropriate training to the hotline staff.
Explore options to create system of Deputy Secretary of Defense
confidential services for victims of issued Directive-Type
domestic violence. Memorandum: Restricted
Reporting Policy for Incidents
of Domestic Abuse, January 22,
2006
Include in installation welcome packets DOD responded that services
information on domestic violence. routinely include domestic
violence information, Family
Advocacy Program and local
community service information,
and information on the
National Domestic Violence
Hotline in installation
welcome packets.
Issue specific information on Family DOD responded that Services
Advocacy Program services. routinely include domestic
violence information, Family
Advocacy Program and local
community service information,
and information concerning the
National Domestic Violence
Hotline in installation
welcome packets.
Direct Services to advise domestic violence Directive-Type Memorandum:
victims of legal resources. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005
Document that information on legal Directive-Type Memorandum:
resources was provided. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005
Collaborate with National Domestic Violence DOD provided documentation
Hotline in assessing materials to expand that they have collaborated
awareness and use of hotline. and will continue ongoing
collaboration with the
National Domestic Violence
Hotline.
Pursue funding for marketing outreach. DOD provided documentation
that, at the time of our
review, there were two
domestic violence awareness
programs funded and one is
specifically with National
Domestic Violence Hotline.
Explore hotlines overseas. DOD responded that Military
One Source is accessible at
all military locations.
Mandate that each Service provide and Directive-Type Memorandum:
emphasize a Victim Advocate Program. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005,
based in part on results of
feasibility study.
Seek statutory authority for payment of Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 571
travel expense, shipment of household (2003), provides the statutory
goods, and, when overseas, privately owned authority and stipulations
vehicle, for victims when warranted. specified in the
recommendations, and are
reflected in Joint Federal
Travel Regulation change
number 208, June 1, 2004.
Specify certain minimum stipulations on Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 571
authority. (2003) provides the statutory
authority and stipulations
specified in the
recommendations, and are
reflected in Joint Federal
Travel Regulation change
number 208, June 1, 2004.
Develop policy for safety plans by the Directive-Type Memorandum:
Services. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005
Adopt safety plan provided by the Defense Directive-Type Memorandum:
Task Force on Domestic Violence. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005
Ensure availability of victim advocates to DOD and Services have civilian
aid in safety planning and risk employees and contracts in
assessments. place to ensure availability
of Victim Advocates.
Ensure access to either on- or Directive-Type Memorandum:
off-installation sheltering services. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005,
and Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law
Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence
Involving Military Members on
Active Duty, October 22, 2004
Ensure dissemination of shelter Directive-Type Memorandum:
information. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005,
and Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law
Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence
Involving Military Members on
Active Duty, October 22, 2004
Develop policy emphasizing Directive-Type Memorandum:
self-determination in safety planning. Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005,
and Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law
Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence
Involving Military Members on
Active Duty, October 22, 2004
Ensure all continental United States Family Directive-Type Memorandum:
Advocacy Program staff know about local Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
shelters. Program, February 17, 2005,
and Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law
Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence
Involving Military Members on
Active Duty, October 22, 2004
Recommendation Documentation we found to
support actions taken that DOD
believes met the intent of the
recommendation
Develop policy on who should be removed Directive-Type Memorandum:
from military housing following a domestic Establishing Protocols for Law
violence incident. Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence
Involving Military Members on
Active Duty, October 22, 2004
Issue statement from Secretary of Defense Office of Secretary of Defense
on victim safety. memorandum, Domestic Violence
November 19, 2001
Issue specific information on National DOD response that services
Domestic Violence Hotline and local routinely include domestic
community domestic violence services. violence information, Family
Advocacy Program and local
community service information,
and information on the
National Domestic Violence
Hotline in installation
welcome packets.
Include specific language provided by Directive-Type Memorandum:
Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence on Domestic Abuse Response and
DOD issuance on removal of servicemember Intervention Training for
victim from housing following a domestic Commanding Officers and Senior
violence incident. Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004, and Establishing
Protocols for Law Enforcement
and Command Responses to
Domestic Violence Involving
Military Members on Active
Duty, October 22, 2004
Develop guidance for commanding officers on Directive-Type Memorandum:
transitional compensation pertaining to Domestic Abuse Response and
proper documentation in separation papers. Intervention Training for
Commanding Officers and Senior
Enlisted Personnel, February
3, 2004
Ensure access to sheltering services within Directive-Type Memorandum:
a reasonable distance at overseas Establishing Protocols for Law
locations. Enforcement and Command
Responses to Domestic Violence
Involving Military Members on
Active Duty, October 22, 2004
No action required
Recommendation Documentation we found that
does not support
implementation status as
complete but as disagreed and
DOD's support for no action
required
Adopt risk assessment tool provided by DOD did not agree with this
Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. recommendation.
Require Services to monitor disposition of According to DOD, Pub. L. No.
separation cases due to domestic violence 108-136, at 572-574 (2003)
so that they are properly documented. meets this recommendation.
However, we are unaware of any
provisions in the public law
that direct the services to
monitor disposition of
separation cases due to
domestic violence so that they
are properly documented.
Establish policy to provide military After studying the issue, DOD
sponsored shelter for up to 72 hours with decided not to implement a
no mandatory reporting. 72-hour policy.
Ensure first-responder law enforcement DOD did not agree with this
personnel receive specialized training in recommendation.
identifying primary aggressor.
With Services and Defense Task Force on Defense Task Force on Domestic
Domestic Violence, review impact of Violence review found that
mandatory reporting on various factors. mandatory reporting negatively
impacts reporting and that
there was no need to develop
additional criteria to measure
effectiveness. Instead,
Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence recommended in the
third-year report that DOD
abandon the policy in favor of
nondisclosure.
Develop evaluation criteria to measure Defense Task Force on Domestic
effectiveness of mandatory reporting on Violence review found that
various factors. Mandatory Reporting negatively
impacts reporting and that
there was no need to develop
additional criteria to measure
effectiveness. Instead,
Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence recommended in the
third-year report that DOD
abandon the policy in favor of
nondisclosure.
Recommend legislative changes to require DOD responded that Pub. L. No.
starting transitional compensation 14 days 108-136, at 572-574 (2003),
after Uniform Code of Military Justice reflects Office of Secretary
discharge sentencing or initiation of Defense input.
administrative separation action and
authorize transitional compensation
payments for 36 months for everyone.
Seek partnership with Department of Justice Defense Task Force on Domestic
and Department of Health and Human Services Violence subsequently decided
to pilot a program to provide confidential a pilot program was not needed
community services to victims who are (page 103 of second-year
military spouses/partners. report).
Pending actions
Expand guidance to give Service Secretaries
authority to grant transitional
compensation in cases of extenuating
circumstances consistent with the law.
Direct Services to train legal assistance
personnel on Violence Against Women Act,
specifically immigration issues arising
from domestic violence.
Direct Services to train legal assistance
personnel on transitional compensation.
Ensure appropriate regulations on this
issue are changed and consider policy memos
from Service Secretaries.
Collaborate with civilian victim agencies
potentially impacted by military use.
Initiate public affairs campaign on
transitional compensation.
Ensure funding is reviewed for military
shelters and meets the needs of the
community being served.
Seek all alternative methods of funding for
military shelters.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Table 7: Other Recommendations
Completed actions
Recommendation Documentation we found to support
implementation as complete
DOD should work with Defense Task Force DOD noted that, in the third-year
on Domestic Violence and the Services report, Defense Task Force on
to develop a new intervention process Domestic Violence recommended an
model. intervention process model.
Explore all options for hiring and DOD noted that exploration was
maintaining providers necessary to complete and current recruiting
assess/intervene in domestic violence and retention practices were
overseas. deemed sufficient.
Adopt and widely disseminate Directive-Type Memorandum:
nondisclosure policy provided by Restricted Reporting Policy for
Defense Task Force on Domestic Incidents of Domestic Abuse,
Violence. January 22, 2005
Address Privacy Act issues. Deputy Secretary of Defense issued
Directive-Type Memorandum:
Restricted Reporting Policy for
Incidents of Domestic Abuse,
January 22, 2006.
Encourage commanding officers to Deputy Secretary of Defense
discuss issues relating to domestic memorandum, November 19, 2001, and
violence. Directive-Type Memorandum:
Establishing Protocols for Law
Enforcement and Command Responses
to Domestic Violence Involving
Military Members on Active Duty,
October 22, 2004
Ensure commanding officers scrutinize Directive-Type Memorandum:
domestic violence incidents to Establishing Protocols for Law
determine if Uniform Code of Military Enforcement and Command Responses
Justice was violated. to Domestic Violence Involving
Military Members on Active Duty,
October 22, 2004
Institute an annual DOD fatality review Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 576 (2003)
summit. and Directive-Type Memorandum:
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Fatality Reviews, February 12,
2004
Instruct the Services to establish, Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 576 (2003)
train, and maintain on-call and Directive-Type Memorandum:
headquarters-level fatality review Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
teams. Fatality Reviews, February 12,
2004
Conduct domestic violence fatality Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 576 (2003)
reviews as recommended in prior reports and Directive-Type Memorandum:
and compose teams as recommended. Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Fatality Reviews, February 12,
2004
Working with Services and Defense Task Directive-Type Memorandum:
Force on Domestic Violence, create a Restricted Reporting Policy for
policy to provide confidentiality to Incidents of Domestic Abuse,
victims of domestic violence. January 22, 2006
Develop policy guidance on victim Deputy Secretary of Defense issued
advocate record-keeping. Directive-Type Memorandum:
Restricted Reporting Policy for
Incidents of Domestic Abuse,
January 22, 2006.
Recommendation Documentation we found to support
actions taken that DOD believes
met the intent of recommendation
In the initial report, the Defense Task Although there was no
Force on Domestic Violence developed a recommendation for DOD action, DOD
definition of domestic violence to be did study this issue and
used as a working definition in subsequently adopted a definition
accomplishing its statutory mission. of its own.
Incorporate the definition provided DOD opted to craft its own
into DOD policy and programs. definition of domestic violence
which has been utilized in Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness policy memoranda.
Adopt and widely disseminate the Victim Directive-Type Memorandum:
Advocate Protocol provided by the Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Defense Task Force on Domestic Program, February 17, 2005
Violence.
Implement a Victim Advocate Program as Directive-Type Memorandum:
recommended by the Defense Task Force Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
On Domestic Violence. Program, February 17, 2005
DOD should adopt and widely disseminate Directive-Type Memorandum:
law enforcement protocol provided by Establishing Protocols for Law
the Defense Task Force on Domestic Enforcement and Command Responses
Violence. to Domestic Violence Involving
Military Members on Active Duty,
October 22, 2004
No action required
Recommendation Documentation we found that does
not support implementation status
as complete but as disagreed and
DOD's support for no action
required
Ensure overseas employment contracts DOD initially stated that
explain eligibility for family advocacy eligibility is tied to medical
services on a space entitlement. They further noted
available/fee-for-service basis. that Family Advocacy Program
services are routinely discussed
at the New Family Orientation. See
Directive-Type Memorandum:
Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Program, February 17, 2005. In a
March 2006 message, DOD stated
that after review, the department
disagrees with this
recommendation.
Ensure foreign language ability and DOD stated that their study
cultural competencies are included in determined that implementation of
job qualification standards of the recommendation is not
personnel providing domestic violence feasible. They further noted that
services overseas. the Civilian Personnel Office does
not require language for Family
Advocacy Program position.
Cultural competence is achieved
via newcomer orientation and
on-going supervision.
Ensure that Services have ongoing DOD responded that intercultural
cultural competence training programs relations classes are required for
for all personnel overseas. new personnel upon their arrival
in outside continental United
States. Also, family centers offer
a variety of classes to
familiarize personnel with the
local culture.
Establish victim advocate certification DOD disagreed. DOD will continue
program. to offer victim advocate training.
Establish "appeal-type" mechanism for DOD disagreed. Available
victim advocates. mechanisms are sufficient (Service
Inspector General, Department of
Defense Inspector General, etc.).
Discontinue collecting and reporting DOD studied this recommendation
severity-level data. and disagreed. Collection of data
will continue using the revised
severity definition.
Instruct installations to include DOD essentially disagreed with
fatality review provisions in the this recommendation stating that
domestic violence Memorandum Of the Directive-Type Memorandum
Agreements with civilian jurisdictions. addressing memoranda of
understandings allows the Services
to adapt the sample MOUs to
address areas of civil/military
cooperation other than those
addressed in the memorandum.
Issue 5.B Confidentiality. DOD responded that there were no
recommendations for DOD in this
section of the Initial Report.
Follow victim advocate recruiting and After studying this
retention guidance provided by the recommendation, DOD determined
Defense Task Force on Domestic current recruiting and retention
Violence. guidance addresses this
recommendation.
Convene a small, independent group with Pub. L. No. 108-136, at 575
characteristics similar to Defense Task (2003), directed the Comptroller
Force on Domestic Violence to review General review of implementation.
and report progress of implementation.
Identify, evaluate, and prioritize all DOD responded that program funds
resources for domestic violence are allocated annually by Congress
programs. for Family Advocacy Program, New
Parent Support Program, and victim
advocates and that the department
continually evaluates program
funding.
Pending actions
Recommend that DOD partner with
National Institute of Justice and the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to further articulate
research agenda and organize scientific
communitywide requests for applications
and peer review process of proposals.
Facilitate and encourage publication in
peer reviewed journals for completed
military domestic violence research.
This research agenda should not
preclude funding of research into
causes, consequences, and interventions
of domestic violence in the military
through other services' research
funding mechanisms.
Recommend the following research
priorities in the following areas:
(1) Reliable differentiation of
different types of abusers and abusive
situations.
(2) What interventions work best for
both offenders and victims?
(3) Clarify how well the
military-specific approach to domestic
violence is working and where it should
be modified.
(4) Determine actual versus reported
prevalence of domestic violence.
(5) Determine which approaches to
domestic violence prevention work and
for whom.
(6) Evaluate knowledge and consistency
of key players.
(7) Determine efficacy of marital-type
counseling for low-level domestic
violence cases; study men's and women's
use of violence; study impact of lack
of confidentiality on disclosure and
victim safety.
Adopt and widely disseminate the
Offender Intervention Protocol provided
by the Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence.
Establish standard offender
intervention curriculum and train
intervention staff.
Develop evaluation standards.
Direct the services to conduct ongoing
evaluations of offender intervention
programs.
Collaborate with Department of Justice
to support the testing of new models of
intervention.
Examine needs of female offenders and
develop a protocol and standard
intervention curriculum for them.
Replace the case review committee in
adult domestic violence cases with a
Domestic Violence Assessment and
Intervention Team.
Develop DOD Domestic Violence
Assessment and Intervention Team form.
Adopt and widely disseminate Domestic
Violence Conceptual Model provided by
the Defense Task Force on Domestic
Violence.
Develop joint Service effort for
standardizing DOD Domestic Violence
Prevention Program.
Develop policy for handling low-risk
cases.
Partner with civilian agencies and
ensure joint Service involvement in
pursuing the research recommendations.
Ensure services conduct timely
risk/lethality assessments to determine
appropriate intervention and command
response.
Ensure one DOD risk assessment grid.
Ensure services establish a tracking
mechanism.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Appendix IV: DOD's Directive-Type Memoranda and Policy Implementing the
Task Force Recommendations Appendix IV: DOD's Directive-Type Memoranda and
Policy Implementing the Task Force Recommendations
As of March 2006, the Department of Defense (DOD) has issued 16
directive-type memoranda to implement the task force's recommendations.
Table 8 lists the memoranda and dates of issuance. DOD also issued 3 other
memoranda that were not identified as directive-type memoranda but were
related to the task force recommendations. These included the Deputy
Secretary of Defense memorandum titled "Domestic Violence" dated November
19, 2001; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy
memoranda titled "Enlistment Waivers for Domestic Violence-Related
Convictions" dated January 22, 2002; and the memorandum titled "Domestic
Violence Prosecution Training" dated March 18, 2002.1
Table 8: DOD's Memoranda Implementing Task Force Recommendations
Directive-type memoranda Date issued
1 Establishment of DOD Database on Domestic Violence and 06/2000
Procedures for Submitting Domestic Violence Data
2 Department of Defense Policy for Implementation of 11/27/02
Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Amendment to the Gun Control
Act for Military Personnel
3 Department of Defense (DOD) Policy for Implementation of 11/27/02
Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Amendment to Gun Control Act
for DOD Civilian Personnel
4 Implementation of the Armed Forces Domestic Security Act 11/10/03
5 Domestic Abuse Training for Chaplains 01/29/04
6 Establishing Domestic Violence Memoranda of Understanding 01/29/04
Between Military and Local Civilian Officials
7 Domestic Abuse Response and Intervention Training for 02/03/04
Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Personnel
8 Domestic Abuse Identification and Assessment Training for 02/06/04
Health Care Providers
9 Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Fatality Reviews 02/12/04
10 Military Protective Orders 03/10/04
11 Clarifying Guidance Concerning the DD Form 2873, Military 07/14/04
Protective Order
12 Establishing Protocols for Law Enforcement and Command 10/22/04
Responses to Domestic Violence Involving Military Members
on Active Duty
13 Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate Program 02/17/05
14 Notification of Department of Defense-Related Fatalities 03/04/05
Due to Domestic Violence or Child Abuse
15 Duration of Payment for Transitional Compensation for 06/14/05
Abused Dependents
16 Restricted Reporting Policy for Incidents of Domestic 01/22/06
Violence
1 Travel guidance was also issued that related to one of the task force's
recommendation, titled "MAP 55-03 - Travel and Transportation for
Dependents Relocating For Reasons of Personal Safety", dated February 24,
2004.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense Appendix V: Comments
from the Department of Defense
Appendix VI: A Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Valerie C. Melvin, (202) 512-6304
Acknowledgments
In addition to the person named above, Laura L. Durland, Assistant
Director; James R. Bancroft; Renee S. Brown; Robert B. Brown; Carissa D.
Bryant; Marion A. Gatling; Nicole Harms; Amanda Miller; J. P. Newton;
Jeanett H. Reid; and Sonja S. Ware made key contributions to this report.
(350723)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-540 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-540 , a report to congressional committees
May 2006
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence,
but Further Management Action Needed
Due to concerns about domestic violence in the military and its adverse
effect on mission readiness, Congress required the Department of Defense
(DOD) to establish a task force to assess the services' response to
domestic violence and recommend improvements. The task force issued three
reports containing 194 recommendations. The Fiscal Year 2004 National
Defense Authorization Act required GAO to review DOD's progress in
implementing the recommendations. This report discusses (1) DOD's ability
to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary actions, (2) the
resources DOD has provided to implement the recommendations, and (3) DOD's
specific actions to ensure victim confidentiality and the education of
commanding officers, senior enlisted personnel, and chaplains. GAO also
examined whether DOD has established an oversight framework to monitor
implementation.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DOD take actions to address domestic violence data
deficiencies, provide adequate personnel and a strategy for communicating
its policy changes, maintain chaplain training data, and establish an
oversight framework. DOD agreed with the thrust of our recommendations,
with the exception of one that dealt with policy that DOD stated involved
privacy concerns.
DOD's ability to report on domestic violence incidents and disciplinary
actions taken by commanders is hampered because the systems that the
department uses to collect domestic violence information do not contain
complete data. DOD's domestic violence database does not capture data from
all law enforcement systems and, therefore, does not provide a complete
accounting of reported incidents and actions taken by commanders.
Notwithstanding the task force's recommendation to report on the number of
domestic violence incidents, DOD and the services have not developed any
plans to address the data limitations, which do not allow for visibility
over domestic violence incidents. Without complete information on reported
incidents of domestic violence and the steps taken by commanders to
address these incidents, DOD will not know the size and nature of the
problems or be able to assess the effectiveness of its actions.
DOD has provided about $23 million to implement the recommendations and
has made progress in this regard. Specifically, GAO identified 94
recommendations of varying potential importance as completed, 60 as
pending further action, and 40 in which no action had been taken because
DOD either disagreed with the recommendations or determined that they were
not applicable to the department. Nonetheless, DOD faces challenges in
completing the pending recommendations in a timely manner because of
potential shortages of essential personnel in the office overseeing
implementation. In addition, DOD's method of communicating its policy
changes resulting from the recommendations has not ensured consistent
practices and widespread understanding of the policies among DOD and the
services.
While DOD is taking steps toward ensuring confidentiality for victims and
to train its personnel on domestic violence issues, additional efforts are
needed. To ensure victim confidentiality, DOD issued a policy, effective
April 22, 2006, allowing victims to report domestic violence to specified
people without notifying command. In addition, DOD issued guidance
requiring training and is providing several educational options. However,
data regarding which chaplains have completed training are not available
because the department and the services do not track this training.
Chaplains play a special role in assisting domestic violence victims and,
without complete training data, DOD may be unable to determine if
chaplains have been provided the needed resources to assist victims.
DOD has not established an oversight framework to monitor compliance with
and evaluate implementation of the task force recommendations. While the
task force recommended and DOD's draft domestic violence instruction
requires monitoring and evaluation of domestic violence efforts, DOD has
not established a process to do so. Without an overall management
framework, DOD and Congress have limited visibility and oversight to
evaluate DOD's implementation efforts and make needed improvements.
*** End of document. ***