u.s. moment tie national company is facing today, including the pressure to locate facilities and plants in the u.s. or abroad, thenning the livelihood of thousands of u.s. workers. one of the most effective tax systems used by several european nations is the tax box. my question to you, dr. hines, is given the growing diversity of companies in the life sciences industry and the increasing specialized roles of the company in bring itp to market and the hundreds of thousands or jobs in the commercializeddation development and marring of the productings how do you suggest we equitably allocate -- in a patent model and specifically related to our competitors around the world who are moving in this direction. this appears to be a complication to the tack code but without the companies we'll have fewer dollars coming cominn from this specific area.

>> we can't ignore international competition. the question for the committee is, if the united states isn't going to adopt some form of intellectual property bonds or patent box, what are we going to do? are we going to just ignore what is going on in the rest of the world? it hardly seems like a good idea. but the downside and people have noticed this -- of the patent box or intellectual property boxes that unless they're carefully crafted, you can have a serious problem of encouraging too much property being included in the patent box, and you get a lot of revenue erosion that way, and it's pretty undesirable. the issue really is what are we trying to achieve with the intellectual property box and patent something to the answer should be we want to encourage activities we would otherwise lose, and if we find ourselves in that situation, then we should try to figure out a way to craft one of these things.

the rest of the world is doing and it we ignore them at our peril. >> i think i have a different perspective on this. the article my marty sullivan described a lot of the problems with patent boxes. i see this as something that may end up not increasing innovation and just being another vehicle for corporate income shifting, and i would much rather -- if you want to increase innovation to have more -- i don't know if that's -- the current sense may be strong enough but want to have more, have more tax credits or more generous tax credits for activities in the united states. with regard to what other countries are doing, yes, they're engaged in a race to the bottom to try to subsidize their multinationals in various ways. they're also moving toward taxing our multinationals and i think we may need to start going after some of theirs before the situation comes back into

balance, but it's a troubling situation. that's why i'm very much in favor of moving away from the corporate level and more toward the individual level taxing of individual than income of corporations. >> how we would attract other countries' companies to our 35% tax rate and to make it competitive? >> well, as long as you have 35% rate that's for sure, and as long as you have a worldwide tax system. but with the issue with the intellectual property box, the justification -- the strongest justification is not that they encourage research activities but that these are businesses that you wouldn't otherwise have unless you offer favorable treatment. it's not that any one business necessarily could do more intellectual property development as awe result of the book but it's the whole package in attracting companies. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. i would suggest if we don't

figure out how to engage in this conversation it appears to me that the ic is the first iteration of the conversation and manufacturing is the last. >> i intend to get into this a lot more than we are. >> i'm going to be very brief because we only have a minute or two left on the vote so maybe i'll ask questions in writing. first i want to zinmana, fellow new yorker. second i want to say heard what senator carper and senator portman and senator hatch said on the floor. believe in international reform. believe we have to do something about inversions. believe we have to make our companies competitive, and international reform is a lot easier to bite off that broad corporation that tax reform, even though that is desirable in my opinion, as well. i'm still ready to work with the chairman, and with all the others and i know senator widen is as well and senator carper, senator warner, some brown, to

get something done, even this year. i'm game to do it. think it's really important for american competitiveness, and my advice would be, let's do the international side first, then we can deal with all the complicated issues elsewhere. with that, mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back my time because ill know we have a vote coming up. >> thank you, senator schumer. appreciate your hard work in this area and i intend to look with you and we'll find ways of doing it. want to just thank you all of you for being here. mr. bertol i had question but we've haun out of time. this has been a very interesting hearing from my left to my right here. i just wish we had more time. i guess we recall have to recess until further notice. thanks so much for being here.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> tonight at 7:45 p.m. on c-span, this week's supreme court oral argument in the case of former virginia governor been mcdonald who is appealing his conviction on public corruption charges. last week the shakespeare library in washington, dc majored the 400 national anniversary of death of william shakespeare on april 23, 1616. the program features actors, community leaders, artists and scholars sharing their connections to shakespeare. the program included phone calls to scholars. you-watch that tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. >> on saturday, live coverage from the white house corresponds' dinner. one of the biggest social events in washington, dc each year, featuring remarks by president

obama and this year's feet tire comedian, the lightly show host, larry will more we start with guest arrivals at 6:00 p.m. and return after the dinner for the entertainment. here's highlights of previous comedians at the dinner. >> this is amazing. the first black president. i know you're biracial but the first black president. [applause] >> you're proud to be able to say that. the first black president. that's unless you screw up. and then it's going to be, what is with the half white guy, huh? [applause] who voted for mulat. to what the hell? >> it's no strong field. but i tell you who can definitely beat you, mr. president.

2008 barack obama. you would have loved him. [laughter] so charismatic so charming. was he also too idealistic? maybe but you would have loved him. i still think we all remember that inauguration day, the first lady was there, and may i say for is a beautiful as you looked that day, you look even more beautiful tonight. [applause] >> now you, oregon, mr. president, have aged a little. what happened to you? when you were sworn in you looked like the guy from the old spice commercials. now you look like louis gossett, sr. [laughter] >> i never said this to nip before but maybe you should start smoking again. is this the change you were talking about? mr. president, look at your

hair. if you're hair gets any whiter the tea party is going to endorse it.he state >> they've say diploma is a matter of car rots and sticks ss and since mrs. obama got to white house, so is dinner. >> you're very skinny. she doesn't let you eat. felt weird about eating dessert. left it untouched. the real people thought you were from kenya had nothing to do with your birth certification. it's because you lost so much weight we thought you were the guy that won the boston marathon. this how you know the country is in bad shape. our president is starving. north korea is sending him food aid. >> what i hear the most about the president is he his always the coolest guy in the room that's what everyone says. the coolest guy in the room. here's my question. who else is in that room? it's not hard to be a cool one when we the guys in the room are biden, hagel and kerry.

i'd by cool, too if i was stuck in a room where they're showing steven shu huh to do the harlem shake. >> it's good to see that white house press secretary jay carney is here. big night for jay. i haven't seen him this nervous since the president told him, look, just good out there and tell them the web site is broken. they'll understand. that actually probably was a moment. mr. president, you have to admit that you already have the launch of healthcare.gov was a disaster. it was so bad. it was bad. i don't even have an analogy because the web site is now the thing people use to describe other bad things. they say stuff like, oh, shouldn't have eaten that sushi. was up all night healthcare.goving.

that latest johnny depp movie held 'healthcare.gov to the box office. >> health health dock dock on it? can't get that out of shag. but thanks to obamacare, or as the president refers to is, me care, millions of newly insured young americans can visit a doctor's office and see what a print magazine allly looks -- actually looks like. that's awesome. >> mr. president, thank you so much for taking time away from being on jimmy kimmel to be here. it's amazing to be seen with the president, having this fancy dinner, and i know this must have cost a ton of food stamps so thank you. i can say that because a lot of people development know this but president obama and i grew up together in chicago. i remember when we used to go

down to the cocrabini green basketballcourt. i'd lace up pair of jordans, he slip on a pay of my mom's jeeps and we would just miss three-pointers. but of course we would have to stop and pray to mecca. but those were simpler times. now you have problems with congress, with but put, with israel you. said it yourself you can't solve these problems by holding hands and singing kumbiya, kumbiya is the village in africa where the president was born. aim saying that it right? kumbiya? after six years in office, your approval rating is up 48%. not only that. your gray hair is at 85%. your hair is so white now it can talk back to the police.

we'll high-five on that one. >> live coverage of tomorrow's dinner starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern time with guest arrivals. the president and entertainment follow the dinner. c-span will have that live as well. former montana senator conrad burns has died of natural causes. he was 81 years old. senator burns what a form are auctioneer who also founded the northern ag network, offering agricultural new to rural areas in wyoming and montana. first elected in 1988 and served three terms. >> the service women's action network held a series of discussions this week to raise awareness and combat military sexual violence in one portion experts and panelists focus on research and recommendations to address sexual assault in the military.

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. i want to welcome you to today's event, the continuum of harm in the u.s. armed forces. i'm judy paterson, the ceo of the service women's action network. the voice of women in the military. a member-driven community network abdomen slow indicating for the individual and collective needs of service women, past, present and future. i want to take just a moment to thank the women in military service to america memorial for being our host today and also to especially thank their wonderful staff. and on behalf of swan i'm honored to have you join us to discuss this important issue.

sexual assault and harassment are increasingly viewed as a public health issue within and outside of the military. the complexity and the immediacy of the issue is apparent by the range of stories reported in the media. from the development of video games intended to encourage prevention, to allegations of doctored reports and testimony before congress. swan was founded in 2007, prime r primarily because of the lack of attention being focused on this issue by the va. swan has played a major role in holding sex offenders accountable and eliminating barriers to disability claims for those who have experienced military sexual trauma. during today's program, we hope to expand the discussion of prevention. we have a number of great speakers participating who will

help us understand the continuum of harm, which connects a broad range of deeply rooted beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that may lead to sexual violence. our speakers will also explore the organizational approaches being taken in the department of defense to address the problem. and finally, our speakers are going to explain how to interrupt cycles of violence at the individual, personal level. it's going to be a great dialogue, and i hope that we all walk out today with new knowledge, new ideas, and new motivation to make a difference. the continuum of harm in the u.s. armed forces is part of the new service women's institute series of events, which is a national year-long program for diverse group of military women, designed to provide the knowledge and tools they need to

reach their personal and professional goals, and to increase their participation at the top levels of local and national organizations. this event and others like it throughout the year are made possible by generous grants from american express and the newman's own foundation. and with that, want to thank you all for joining us and encourage you to participate actively. everything said today is on the record so we encourage you to participate both in person and online where you can discuss today's event on twitter using #continuum of arm. now i want to proour first guest speaker, dr. margaret stockdale. peggy stockdale is a professor of psychology and the chairman of the department of psychology at indiana university, purdue university at indianapolis.

she is the owe author and coeditor of five books, including the psychology and management of workplace diversify sex description in the work place, milt tie disciplinary perspectives and also published widely in research journals and books on topics ranging from sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and public health initiatives. she has everyday as -- been an expert witness for plaintiffs and defenses in sex discrimination cases and dr. stockdale teaches courses on workplace diversity, industrial organizational psychology, and social science research methods. finally, she is a fellow of the american psychological association, the society for industrial organizational psychology, and the society for the psychological study of social issues.

so let's take a minute and welcome dr. stockdale who is going to talk about the continuum of harm and its application to the military. [applause] >> okay. how do i cue this up? can you see that? that's getting started. i want to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about military sexual assault and to connect it to a broad understanding of the continuum of sexual violence, first a disclaimer, though. i am not an expert on the military, nor am i or my family members served in the branch of the military.

did grow up near two air force bases. sac headquarters in nebraska, and andrews air force base in prince georges county, maryland, and i have trump respect for the military -- tremendous respect for the military institution and the women and men who serve or have served our country, and walking around this cemetery today for the first anytime 30 years, has really been a humbling experience. my training is in the field of industrial and organizational psychology, and my interest throughout my career have focuses on gender issues in the workplace. with the licenses share of -- licenses share of that research on sexual harass. my research as touched on several different aspects including hour effort to harassment perceive and label their experience, how others perceive and define sexual harassment, the effectiveness of various coping strategies or response strategies to being

harassed, understanding men's sexual harassment experiences and many other issues. several years ago a colleague of mine at the university of kentucky, tk logan, received a large federal grant to study women who received a domestic violence protection order and her study included a comprehensive baseline adjustment of sexual and other forms of violence, as well as a followup survey on additional violence at other types of experiences after receiving the protection order. she invited me to include measure's sexual harassment, and thus my journey to understand how sexual harassment is connected to other foreigns of violence, both sexually and empirically, began. among other thing wes found that women who had been abused as children as well as the severity of their sexualized abuse as adults was related to theirer

and once of sexual harassment on their job in this year -- in this survey study. in other words, we learned that sexual harassment can be one of the with as that abuse survivors unfortunately experience revictimmization, another colleague of mine and i wrote a conceptual paper to articulate how sexual harassment its conceptually and empirically related to other terms of interpersonal violence. at that time the 2011 workplace gender relations survey, or the wgrs, had been released so we were able to describe research on military sexual assaults as well as the programs and policies being introduced by the sexual assault prevention and response office. in essence the paper outlined the continuum of harm with a specific focus o on situational sexual harassing. and is one of the sources of which my talk is being made.

but i hope to accomplish in this talk is to familiarize you with the research that has been done primarily with military samples of multiple forms of sexual or interpersonal violence, that includes sexual harassment, presents some the resident:perspectives on revictimmizeddation and co-victimization, and put this all into perspective with regards to the military. and finally, i'll discuss the policy and practice implications. the two panel discussion will then focus on military specific approaches, to understanding and combating this continuum of violence from both an organizational perspective and from an individual perspective. to start i want to describe the forms of sexualized and -- although these are described as violence again women there's a growing air wareness that men are also targets of

interpersonal violence and that men's experiences are gendered as well. the child sexual assault, as well as other formed of child abuse that may involve physical abuse, neglect, and emotional abuse, is typically defined as occurring before the age of 14. by an assailant who is five to ten years over, including pierce to peer hard rag: after age 14, before adulthood it may be described ass a less sent sexual assault. penetrative and nonpenetratetive assault. intimate partner violence is physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. it can occur among heterosexual, and same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy. adult sexual assault, more

broad, than intimate partner violence -- in fact intimate partner violence includes rape, sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact. legal definitions will vary by state and jurisdiction, but typically it includes nonconsensual sexual contact, use of force or threat by a threat of bodily harm or sexual contact with someone unable to provide consent. military sexual assault is essentially adult sexual assault that occurs in the context of military service. sexual harassment consists of gender harassment, which is verbal behavior, physical acts, and symbolic jess tours not aimed at sexual cooperation but convey insultings, hostile, and degrading altitudes about women or men, unwanted sexual attention, such as unwanted

offensive looks and comments, telephone calls, e-mails of a sexual nature 0, sexual coercion whiches the extortion of sexual congresses in return for job-related considerations. scholarships and sexual harassment distinguish between attraction-based harassment and rejection focused gender harassment. the leave del mission of stack involves unwanted, annoying and threatening pursuit of another. the criminality of stalking adds the element of a reasonable sense of threat and criminal intent to instill fear. missing from the typology is mobbing and other forms of hazing and bullying which will be discussed the later sessions. i'll let those speakers introduce and define those concepts. studies of military svelte sames which includes active duty

military service members and va samples, there is a wealth of survey data that documents the fact that individuals who experience one form of sexual violence often experience or have experienced in the past another form of sexual violence. without detailing all of these studies, the sample findings for military relevant samples indicate that race and other sexual assault victims are more likely than nonvictims to also be sexually hard rayed by their superiors and comrades. a study of female navy recites found that those with a history of child sexual assault was almost five times more likely to experience military sexual assault than others. the occurrence of in-service sexual hards. and in-service sexual assault and post service sexual assault is significant for women and men. there are different clusters of ways that female veterans

experience multiple forms of sexual violence as well as sexual harassment, with a fairly high percentage, 26%, experiencing both intimate partner violence and sexual harassment. additional data on active duty service women and men who experience sexual assault are likely to have experienced sexual harassingment and experiences of child sexual assault predict second sexual harassment during a military career mitchell colleague will provide some updated statistics on most recent and comprehensive survey of military second all assault and harassment conducted to date. ...

an adult sexual assault or sexual harassment. first these experience are more or less coal occurring with a temporary distance is relatively short.also the framework distinguishes among the type of perpetrators in relationship to the target. partners or family members versus acquaintances, coworkers, bosses or strangers. for longitudinally separated experiences, the perpetrator of the prior forms of assault are typically different for different from the perpetrators of the current assault. this is commonly referred to as read victimization and there is abundant research to show individuals who have been sexually assaulted either in childhood or adolescence or as adults have an increased risk of being

assaulted or abused by others and in other forms later in life. for example, child sexual assault survivors are more likely than others to end up in abusive relationships as adults. a recent study that my team completed that found that child abuse as well as interpersonal violence survivors were more likely than others to experience sexual harassment on their jobs . for concrete sexual and gender violence, the perpetrators may be the same person or group of people who may stop or harass as a gateway to more extreme forms of assault. for example, a stalker may become a sexual harasser who may then become a sexual assault perpetrator. the vocation of the abuse may create jurisdiction complexities. for example in the case of dissolved workplace romance. the assault experience when it occurs outside the workplace may be considered intimate partner violence but

if it occurs in the workplace, it might be considered sexual harassment. concurrent experience may also involve multiple forms of abuse or violence such as harassment, assault, lobbying, hazing and by same or different individuals that occur as a function of an overarching organizational culture that condones aggression and tolerance of harassment and related behaviors. research on harassment and assault of tolerance organizational climates .2 and in different to claims of harassment, light penalties to those found guilty of perpetrating harassment, lax policies of cultural environments that are male-dominated, sexualized and where violence is generally accepted and where

women are perceived to be treading on jobs and locations that have historically been the providence of men. next i want to describe some of the frameworks and theories that i think are useful or understanding multiple victimization, especially those that cross into the work here. the ecological framework has been forwarded as a way to organize the various factors that impact read victimization so that it blames the victim make mentality or stereotype is challenged and we can understand multiple victimization as a function of many overlapping systems . the oncogenic development system refers to the factors associated with the onset of the initial abuse and the quality or aftermath that results from those early abuse experiences. for example, survivors of child and adolescent abuse are at risk for substance abuse and ptsd which can impact long term coping skills as well as their life trajectory. such as poverty, low

educational attainment that can increase their exposure to victimizing experiences in the future. the microsystem also refers to the immediate situation in which the follow-up abuse occurs and these are situations that trigger the read victimization. for example, working in a sexualized or male-dominated work environment such as bars, some factory environments, protective force occupations and maybe the military with a probability, proximity to see perpetrators is increased and where the in the immediate environment may trigger abusive behavior. the xo system reflects a broader context that influences read victimization through social structures that facilitate further abuse. for example, abuse survivors may be less likely than others to have economic and educational resources or other forms of social power that will buffer the risk of future abuse. the maverick system reflects

the cultural context in which abuse survivors and abusers are indented and includes cultural attitudes toward repeated abuse so for example, i blame the victim attitude or a just world that allows people to sustain the belief that bad things happen for a purpose. as well as the various social stereotypes and attitudes work toward women and all things feminine. routine activity theory or sometimes called lifestyle theory comes from the criminal justice literature and it allocates the confluence of factors that predict the occurrence of a crime or assault or abusive experience. specifically, interpersonal victimization occurs when there are motivated offenders situated with suitable targets in an environment where capable guardians who could protect those targets are lacking or weak area we know from research on sexual victimization that motivated

offenders are typically men but not always who adhere to hyper masculine beliefs and hold misogynist attitudes. research also finds that harassment of women by men as well as harassment of men by men is motivated by desire to maintain a gendered social dominance that privileges masculine men. in addition, personality and clinical factors such as insecure attachment which manifests as a high need for control and anger management problems are associated with sexual violence perpetration. indeed, victims of child sexual assault are often late with insecure and judgment issues and child sexual assault is not only a risk factor for read victimization but also from becoming a perpetrator of sexual assault. victims or targets of sexual abuse and sexualized violence can be anyone.

but as i described earlier, victims of previous interpersonal victimization are at a higher risk than others for future abuse and assault. one explanation is that such individuals develop avoidance coping strategies which may be q2 would be perpetrators that such a person is vulnerable to victimization. also, simply being in a risky situation makes a individual a suitable or vulnerable target. for example, women working in an male-dominated environment. working in an environment where alcohol or drugs are used. working in jobs that threatened men's presumed privilege to hold those jobs are all risky situations for women. finally, lack of capable guardians refer not only to individuals or police and other protective forces but also to policies and practices, leadership and organizational cultures in which offenders and targets are situated that failed to

protect those vulnerable targets from harm. so imagine the military situation. it is conceivably right with the ingredients specified by routine activity theory. because the military is an all volunteer force, its members are selected. it is obviously male-dominated and younger and lower educated than the general population. it's hierarchal and authoritarian structure is likely to appeal to individuals with strong social dominance orientation. there is also likely to be men who want to protect their dominance in military careers. women in the military are also younger and more likely to be divorced and have lower social economic status then the population. these factors give a low status which increases victimization risk.there is also evidence of high rates of childhood and adolescent sexual assault occurring

prior to military service ranging from about 15 percent for female airports recruits to nearly 50 percent for army and navy recruits. which are nearly double the rates for civilian populations. research on sexual harassment consistently find that women were numerically outnumbered by men in the work environments are at a higher risk for sexual harassment. the military structure and the environment and culture resulted in weak capacity to protect old mobile targets from harm. the poorest boundaries between work, home and recreation where alcohol is likely available means the sexual assault or abuse can still from one locale to another that can be labeled and adjudicated differently depending on where it occurs or it for example, intimate partner violence is in living quarters where sexual harassment is at work or sexual assault if it occurs elsewhere. and there may be lacks

coordination in different rules governing reporting and investigation that may impede comprehensive approaches to addressing this full-scale of the continuum of sexual victimization. unit cohesion, evaluated military attributes for military effectiveness, can also create an environment where speakingout against an abusive comrade or superior is shunned . strong obedience to the chain of command encourages protection of the military and the protein belief that those outside the military will not understand what goes on within the military . these are elements of a military culture that promotes sexual violence according to some researchers. group cohesion and the individuation achieved in military units are powerful elements which allow for the socialization two and maintenance of negative normal sexual and gender beliefs. in addition, military laws such as court-martial rules

306b which guides commanders disposition of an allegation of assault among other crimes appears to codify rate masks such as judging the motives and biases of the accuser as well as the character and military service of the accused. so what to do? the out upcoming panel discussions will feature experts with far more knowledge and experience with military policy doctors and cultures than me.but the following points appear to promote naturally from the evidence a continuing of sexual violence and harmony military as outlined. first, the policies of office is responsible for investigating and responding to the varieties of sexual and gender victimization should either be highly coordinated or under a single unified system. the sexual assault prevention and response program on paper

was one of the most comprehensive approaches to combating sexual violence. its efficacy and legacy and perhaps shortcomings may be discussed in our upcoming panel. however, sexual harassment in the military has fallen under the purview of the office of the secretary of defense office of diversity management and equal opportunity. familial sex crimes including crimes against children and family members is the purview of the office of the secretary of defense family advocacy program and it is unclear how well an integrated and coordinated are these various offices and their procedures and services. second, because of the high rate of pre-military victimization experiences of military recruits, screening and services for such experiences is wanted to help prevent read victimization. third, one thing i do know about the military is its

strong focus on leadership development so leaders need to be trained and held accountable for recognizing signs of code victimization and read victimization such as these avoidance coping and avoidance signs and risky behavior like heavy alcohol use and to help refer those individuals to appropriate services. leaders should also take appropriate measures to modify the conditions that exacerbate any form of victimization as well as repeat victimization. these include monitoring the environment for sexually derogatory stimuli including graffiti and banter that mock honorable populations as abuse survivors. leaders should also clarify and support the path to resources that target follows to receive appropriate relief. such resources should be cognizant of the connections between these forms of interpersonal violence and sexual harassment.

all ranks of the military should also be trained to understand and recognize those links between interpersonal violence and sexual harassment and be taught how to intervene appropriately when they believe that assault or harassment has occurred or are likely to occur. allies and bystander programs that empower men to proactively be part of the solution instead of the problem are also recommended. while i am pleased to see that the attention to a comprehensive understanding of the full-scale and continuum of sexual and gender -related victimization is gaining ground in the military, and its advocacy groups such as service women's action network, i am looking forward to hearing from our forthcoming panel of experts on interviews toward organizational and individual initiatives to broaden our understanding of the spectrum of interpersonal violence and its impact on the military so thank you very much.

[applause] >> we going to q&a? thank you. >> i want to say that in your mid- materials you received there was a comprehensive bibliography including an article which i think very much summarizes what we just heard and for me, i would need to read it about three more times just to wrap but i did read it and it was fascinating so, if we can have the lights go up we have a microphone over here and we would certainly welcome you to please step to the mic so that we can hear you and this is your opportunity to really ask questions and there is a lot of information. >> can the mic be passed? >> sure.

but i would like to start if i may. you talked about the dual systems and the potential need for more coordination and is that not in effect the way the civilian system is structured and that sexual harassment is handled administratively through the eeoc and sexual assault is handled through the criminal justice system? i mean, you are making the point and theoretically this makes a lot of sense to me that it should be integrated but do we not have more of a fundamental societal problem you know, that extends beyond the military? >> that's a very good question. it's certainly and if you were going to take this to court you would, if you have a case of sexual harassment it would go to civil law and through the eeoc in some way and if it's a sexual assault it would be a criminal

assessment and it's a different set of standards and procedures for that but if you think of an organization, i come from a university college you know and we have certainly like any other university problems with campus sexual assault as well as sexual harassment and we have an office for equal opportunity that really handles the harassment whether it's against students or employees and then another office of student affairs that deals with sexual assault which coordinate with the police but they talk to each other a lot and they're very highly coordinated so they know when to hand off, one case to another or when to co-investigate and that might be something that hopefully our experts can talk a little more about. >> high.

so there's been a lot of talk about screening and i was on a panel a few years back in dc to discuss whether there should be routine screening for childhood events because of course those are predictive of all sorts of negative outcomes, not just read victimization but nutrition and things so the consensus of the panel in the end was that this does not think there should be routine assessment of those things because of the potential that information could be used in adverse ways and even if you are using it recently, somebody was proposing a study where they would in basic training screen people for adverse childhood experiences and intervene and we were concerned that would be re-victimizing to people at a time when they didn't necessarily want to be pulled apart so i wonder your thoughts about the potential complications with screening. >> that's an interesting

and good point. so the issue was, does screening for re-victimization potentially harm that person further, either through heightening maybe the exposed , re-victimizing experiences or maybe setting them up for discrimination perhaps. off the top of my head, my response would be maybe to think of it more like we do with the americans with disabilities act which asks that if you have a disability you are not required to disclose that when you are interviewing for a job or being screened for a job but afterwards if you desire and accommodation of some sort, you can talk about it with your employer and find a reasonable accommodation so the original, the employment decision isn't based on knowledge of the disability and so maybe that could be a way, you are, it's not screening to get into a military service but host,

early on in the career. [inaudible question] >> my name is bernadette and i came here because i was connected from a research center in pennsylvania . my daughter was victimized in recent months by an rotc early commission program cadet. my daughter is graduating next month along with the perpetrator. my reason in coming here is to just let everyone know here that the rotc programs in the united states are not screened.

they are not screening their candidates properly in my opinion. i spent 30 years with the department of justice up until two years ago and when my daughtercalled me , i've been really most of it and advocate without an attorney, been making a lot of phone calls and making a visit to valley forge military academy in wayne pennsylvania. up until now, perpetrator is still there in campus receiving federal benefits and my daughter is still being harassed and you know, keeping her life there on a normal basis and i believe there should be prescreening and i believe that the perpetrator in this case has had a history of child abuse only because that's just my feeling inside as a mother that maybe the upbringing of that perpetrator and i'm not

an expert but the upbringing of that individual maybe was not adequate enough and now she's using the campus environment to abuse other students. how is this being addressed? the rotc programs and their impact on you know, the reason for them to be there is to give opportunities for other individuals who want to pursue valid careers in the military, give them the chance to better their lives like you said. some of these people are coming from low income grounds. my daughter, she's not from that. she wants to make herself a better life, give herself a better life. i gave her that foundation but the other individuals, we

don't know the background so as far as the police cooperation like you mentioned, unless my daughter pressed charges, there would not be an active police investigation to investigate the background of the perpetrator. so this is what i'm saying, there's a lot of psychological effects like i totally agree with what you presented but on the other hand, there's not a support yet for the victim. and sometimes the victims like my daughter, they are going to use other avenues to , for themselves to handle their situation . and seeking help from the professors. they have been very outstanding with her. but again, being the complainant on a title ix investigation, it's frowned upon. and so this is why i'm here. to hopefully let our government and our legislators give us a second

look at the rotc programs and that sometimes people are using that not to benefit themselves but to maybe harm others and we don't need that so this is why i came, to just be an advocate for my daughter safe and for myself. >> thank you for sharing that with us. i'm very sorry to hear about your daughter's experience . you did mention title ix which is for student-based assault and harassment is the legislative approach to that. and there's a growing consensus that title ix related procedures and processes have really got to become more comprehensive and there's been some recent

improvements to law in that area of procedures. part of it lies in the university, i assume this is university environment. in their response and handling of the claim of abuse, victimization but because it's an rotc program i would think the military would have a role in that too. i know there is some of the research that. [inaudible ] >> they refuse. they did not allow my daughter to file a complaint to their system. the cause they told her she was a civilian. and again, i did my research and i told my daughter go with the perpetrator. she's still a civilian. she has not been commissioned

officially into her military branch. >> thank you again for bringing that issue, i think that's something that helps raise awareness. thank you. >> army retired. my question to you is, you were talking about the general environment and in setting the tone for how these things happen or how men feel empowered in certain environments to take advantage of the situation. we've been at war now for almost 18 years in countries where women are not educated, they don't drive. they don't spend money unless they have permission. what impact do you think that environment has had on the current situation. that we are in.

>> that's a really good question. i don't have an answer to it. on the one hand i would hope that by being in environments where women have far fewer rights than we have here that it may open their eyes a little bit . on the other hand, it may have the opposite effect saying well, you're not in a country where women are allowed to drive for example so i could see it going both ways. i don't know, i don't have a basis to speculate on what that might be but that's an intriguing question. maybe some of the other panelists might. you're not going to step in and help me on this ic. >> good point.

>> okay, well thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you again. right now we are going to turn to a discussion on organizational approaches within the department of defense and i'd like to start by introducing your moderator ellen herring . ellen is a senior fellow at the women in international security and a member of the board of the service women's action network. her research and work kisses on women and gender in the military.

she is a west point graduate, a retired army colonel and a distinguished visiting professor at the us army war college. she is currently completing a phd at george mason university's school for conflict analysis and resolution . she's been a guest speaker on oregon and domestic news shows including cnn, pbs, news hour, national public radio and she frequently guest lectures at universities and colleges. ellen? [applause] performance management program evaluation, survey research and risk management. he recently completed the largest ever survey of the

sexual assault and sexual harassment experiences of u.s. servicemembers. he has led larger national and international multiservice evaluations. he has published dozens of peer-reviewed reports and leading scientific and policy journals. and has served as a science advisor to the national institute of occupational safety and health to the department of homeland security center for risk and economic analysis. and to the department of homeland security chemical facility antiterrorism standards program. today he is here to present his team's research findings from ran 2014 military workplace study on sexual assault and sexual harassment in the u.s. military. dr. morral. [applause] >> thank you very much, thank you to the service women's

action network for inviting me to this forum. i'm really pleased to be here and to help that what had to say will be useful. can we have my slides up? the findings -- and the lights down. what i thought i would do is talk about just for findings. we had lots and lots of findings from the study but the highlights, i think they bear on the continuum of harvard i'll tell you about some of the recommendations made when we found these results. first just briefly about the study. it was large. we went out to over half a million servicemembers. that included, this was a survey that include 100% of active component women, and 25% of active component men. we got a pretty good response rate for this kind of thing. we got 170,000 respondents.

it's the first time there've been enough respondents to be able to to look at some quite rare event. so for instance, it's the first time that such a survey has had enough male sexual assault victims that we can characterize their experiences. let me talk briefly about that. they are and what we found is there are some general, generalizable differences between the experiences of women sexual assault victims and male sexual assault victims. in particular men are much more likely than women to be experienced multiple incidents of the less you. they are more likely to be assaulted by multiple offenders during each instance and to be assaulted at work and during duty hours. they are far more likely to describe the assault as hazing or as intended to debase or humiliate them as opposed to a been a sexual event.

they are more likely to experience physical injuries during penetration of software threats of injury. compared to women, men are less likely to experience a sexual assault that involved alcohol use, by either the victim or the perpetrator. or to tell anyone about the event or file the report. so what you see is a pattern for men. is not to say that this pattern doesn't occur with someone as well. it's just that it's far more common with me. so for instance, men are six times as likely to describe the sexual assault as an act of hazing or as occurring during a hazing ritual men and women are. so what this suggests is that there's a pattern that looks a lot like hazing, bullying, harassment, taking on -- picking

on a particular member of the unit or at an installation and doing it repeatedly over the course of the year. furthermore, it may be, the finding that men are so much less likely to describe the event as a sexual assault as opposed to an assault designed to debase or humiliate them may have implications for prevention programming and reporting programs at the department of defense. specifically if men are not recognizing that some of these events are, in fact, sexual assaults it may not occur them to report and they do not report as this slide reports out. so it suggests at a minimum, and our recommendation to the department was that the prevention programming should be reviewed to ensure that the kinds of experiences that men are having as was the kind of experiences that women are having are well represented in

the prevention training programs and leadership programs, and that the reporting system available for men and women be reviewed to see if there are ways of take advantage of this information that some of the sexual assaults against men may not be pursued a sexual assaults, and thereby without recognition designing procedures that could increase reporting. that's the first finding. the second finding concerns differences between the services. what the slideshows is the rate of sexual assault experienced by men. that's the lavender color, and women, the purple color, in each service. the thing i want to point out is that there are pretty striking surface differences in sexual assault rates, and particularly

you see the men and women in the air force are exposed to much lower risks by significant margins, factors of two to four in his rod data. -- rod data. now it could be that this is just a matter of demographic differences between the services. we know that the marines and the navy are much other services. the personnel our young people and a much larger proportion our young. sexual assault is, he's is a risk factor for sexual assault. so maybe the differences are due to demographic factors. we looked at that carefully and did some statistical modeling to make sure that when we're comparing rates, we were comparing but for the people of the same age -- what's going on? the slides are cut off. i'll tell you what it says.

what we did is we redid that comparison between the services, controlling for a bunch of differences that exist between the personnel and their experience with each service. so we controlled for the age of servicemembers and their race, their marital status, their education, their scores which is a test of skills that enlisted get, how many dependents, we have many, many factors end of it all this military experts factors we controlled for including pay grade, entry age, and rank and things like that. and we also controlled for things like the environment for which we were working in the military. so factors like the percentage of men in the unit and installation as doctor stockdale

mentioned. this was a known risk factor, contributes to risk. so what we did, when we controlled for all these factors come to we wish we we were comparing services on a completely apples to apples basis a lease in terms of all the factors we included in the model. what we found is -- they are all cut off your what we found is that the differences between the army, the navy and the marines were explained. there was no longer differences between them. but the fact that the air force had so much will rates was not explained apple. effect after controlling for all those factors, after adjusting for them, women in other services had 1.7 times the risk of sexual assault as women in air force. and men and other services have four to five times the risk of sexual assault as men in the air force. so what this suggests is there

something that explains quite large differences, 45 times is a big difference in social science research, going on, so that when this difference between services and we haven't been able to identify what that is. sometimes people ask, well, if you went to a college campus wouldn't you find that there was similar rates of sexual assault at a college campus? and i think evidence like this is one of the best points of data we have that suggest there may be something to look at that causes a differences in risk of sexual assault. you don't need to go out and look at a college campus to recognize that there's something big going on that differs by service. and could be understood better. and the one of our recommendations was to try to understand what are the factors, to do more research, to

understand what are the differences between the air force and the other services. could they attract different people, and the differences are just things we can't statistically controlled for? but it could also have to do with differences in the way the services are structured or how they are organized, or how the physical organization, like where people sleep may be quite different across services. we think it would be valuable and useful for additional research on why there are these large differences in sexual assault rates across services. that's the second finding. the third one, okay, isn't working? yeah, that's working. the third point of what to make is that the differences between the reserve component members

and the active component members. what comes you can send this light is both men and women in the reserves component are exposed to lower risk of sexual assault man men and women in the active component. this is any sexual assault. this is not, we didn't just ask about experiences with some in the military sexual assault and. any sexual assault in the past year. so these, this is another very good comparison. these are all servicemembers. one group of whom spends more time in the civilian world socializing with other civilians, and then the civilian workplace. the other spends most of their time in military environments and there's this big difference in risk. we did the same kind of statistical analysis and we don't find any of the variables that we try to adjust for explained this difference.

there's another surprising finding that we had which is the high rate at which the sexual assaults experienced by reserve component members of her and military settings or with a military perpetrator. we reduced the size of the reserve component sample just to those people who are part-timers, working 38 or 39 days a year for the military. what we find is that 85% of the assaults that they experienced in the past year or military related. which is a much higher proportion than might be expected. that doesn't prove that there is, that being in the military is the risk factor. and, in fact, we have heard speculation that there may be something specific about being in the reserve component and what it's like to leave her family once a month and go off

to drill training and some of the risk factors associate with the lifestyle, that may be a part of explanation here. we don't know but we strongly recommended this is another signal or clue about what's going on with risk in the military that could be further pursued and understood to better drive down risk. okay, the last thing i want to talk about concerns sexual harassment. sexual harassment is really quite common in the military. we estimate about 116,000 active duty members were sexually harassed in the past year, at about 44,000 experienced gender discrimination. it's so, that when we asked women of all ranks how common it

is, more than 75% say common or very common. and men agree. they don't agree a quite that right but about close to 50% of men say it's common or very common in the military. we know that sexual harassment is associated with a lot of negative workplace outcomes involving productivity, retention, more i'll -- more out and bad outcomes -- morale -- as doctor stock you mentioned there's also evidence that sexual harassment a strong associated with sexual assault. what we find in this data is that women who were sexual assault, sexual harassment of in the past year were 14 times more likely to also have been sexual assault in the past year. so very, very strong association. men who were sexually harassed were 49 times as likely to be

sexually assaulted in the past year as well. that doesn't prove that there is a correlation. there is a correlation. it doesn't prove that there's a causal association between sexual harassment and sexual assault. they are sorely could be. it doesn't prove it but it suggests sexual harassment may be a very good indicator for where there is a problem. one of our recommendations was that is the military could identify differences in rates of sexual harassment across units come across commands or a cross installations, that might be a way that they could identify those places where risk is highest and look at what are the differences occurring in those places. what are the features of those places that could explain this difference in sexual harassment, if the correlation stands, differences in rates of sexual

assault. so those were the four-point i want to make and i look forward to our discussion after the next speaker. [applause] >> so our next guest is ms. brenda farrell. he was appointed to serve as the director the government accountability office of the defense capabilities management team in 2007 where she is responsible for military and dod personnel, civilian personnel issues. including medical readiness come a man aerial systems, pilot issues, personal security, clearance processes and workforce next issues. ms. farrell is the recipient of the distinguished service award, a congressional client service award, and two meritorious awards were sustained

extraordinary performance leading multiple highly complex defense reviews. reviews. today ms. farrell is presenting the findings of two gao reports, for november 2015 report on sexual assault in the military, and they very recently released 2016 report on hazing incidents involving servicemembers. >> thank you, ellen. thanks for that elevation. thanks to salon strategy a overrepresented here today. we appreciate the opportunity to discuss our recent report on dod's updated prevention strategy. sexual assault is a heinous crime that devastates victims and has a far-reaching negative effect for dod, because it undermines the department's core values, degrade mission readiness, subverts strategic goodwill and raises financial

cost. importantly, data suggest report of sexual assault represents a fraction of the sexual assault incidents that are actually occurring in dod. dod data show that report incidents involving servicemembers more than doubled from about 2800 in fiscal year 27 -- 2007, to about 5100 fiscal year 2014. however, based on a 2014 survey done by my colleagues at rand, the estimated that 20,300 active duty service members are actually assaulted in the prior year. since 2008, gao has issued multiple products and made numerous recommendations related to dod's effort to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault. for example, relevant to today's discussion is on march 2015 report on military male victims of sexual assault.

we reported dod has taken steps to address sexual assaults of servicemembers are generally calm and they like to refer to as their policies are gender-neutral. to address the sexual assaults of servicemembers generally it is not used all of the data such as analysis that shows significantly fewer mail service members and females reporting when they are sexually assaulted to inform their decision making such as tailoring their training, or incorporating activities to prevent sexual so. gao's analysis of sexual assault prevention estimates using the result of this rand study shows that had most 13% of males reported their assault, were as at least 40% of females reported their incidents. today i will primarily discuss our report issued in november 2015 on dod's updated prevention strategy. let me start with some background information. for over a decade, congress and

dod have taken a variety of steps to prevent and respond to sexual assault in the military. in 2004, following a series of high profile sexual assault cases involving servicemembers, congress required the secretary of defense to develop among other things a comprehensive policy for dod on the prevention of and response to sexual assaults involving servicemembers. in response to statutory requirements, and 2005, dod established a sexual assault prevention and response program to promote the prevention of sexual assault, to encourage increased reporting of such incidents, and to improve victim of responsibility capability. in 2008, dod published its first sexual assault prevention strategy. in april 2014, dod updated its prevention strategy, and that updated strategy is the focus in

my discussion. i will discuss to object is from our november 2015 report that addresses the extent to which dod has come one, develop an effective prevention strategy and, to come implement activities departmentwide and at military installations related to the department's effort to prevent sexual assault in the military. for the first objective we found that dod develop a strategy to prevent sexual assault using the centers for disease ntrol and prevention, cdc, framework for effective sexual violence prevention strategies. but dod does not link activities to desired outcomes or fully identified risk and protective factors. specifically, dod is a strategy identifies 18 prevention related activities but they are not linked with the desired outcomes of the department overall prevention effort. a step that is necessary to determine whether efforts are

producing the intended affect. dod strategy includes activities such as conducting specialized leaders sexual assault training and establishing collaboration forms to capture and share prevention best practices and lessons learned. and in a different section, it lists five general outcomes of its prevention effort such as acceptance endorsement o the values they seek to prevent sexual assault and and arrive in which servicemembers networks support a culture of sexual assault prevention. although activities and outcomes are identified in the strategy, dod does not discuss what is any connection exists between the 18 prevention related activities and outcomes into departments efforts to prevent sexual assault. without a defined a link between activities and desired outcomes, dod may not be able to determine which activities are having the desired effect or when necessary to make timely and informed

adjustments to its effort to help ensure it continues to progress towards desired outcomes. also the ud may lack the information that is needed to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of its effort. further, and adapting cdc's framework to address the unique nature of the military environment, dod did not fully identified risk and protective factors, i.e., factors that may put a person at risk for committing sexual assault, or that alternatively may prevent harm. in this updated strategy. dod adapting cdc's approach by identifying five environments in which it would focus its prevention efforts and includes risk factors for three. individuals, relationships, and society. for example, within the individual domain the of the identified risk factors such as alcohol and drug abuse, and hostility towards women as risks

that may influence sexual violence. however, dod does not specify risk factors for the two domains of which it has the greatest influence, leaders at all levels of dod, and the military community. for example, the strategy does not identify potential risk factors associated with these domains such as recognizing that the inherent nature of certain types of commands or units may cultivate and units may cultivate an apartment in which there is an increased risk of sexual assault. one such risk factor may be hazing. in a february 2016 report on dod's policies to address and track hazing, we reported a initiation rites of passage can be an effective tool to instill loyalty among servicemembers, and are included in many traditions throughout dod. however such traditional activities as well, as more ad hoc activities have at times

included cruel or abusive behavior, and it is not always been easy for servicemembers to draw a clear distinction between legitimate traditions and patterns of misconduct. also we reported that hazing incidents may cross the line into sexual assault. we noted that serves officials and mail service members at several military installations that gave us examples of recent events involving old hazing in sexual assault. we found a series of hazing incidents may escalate into a sexual assault and the service officials stated that training on hazing activities and their relationship to sexual assault whipping particularly beneficial to males in that it might lead to increased reporting and fewer inappropriate incidents. dod included six protective factors identified by cdc in its prevention strategy but does not specify how the actors such as emotional health related dod's five domains.

the protective factors that you didn't put any strategy are grouped together rather than being listed underneath the domain to which they belong. thus, dod may not be able to accurately characterize the private in which a sexual assault occurred or to develop activities and interventions to more effectively prevent them. for the second objective in our november 2015 report on implementing prevention activities we found that dod and the military service is developed and are in the process of integrating prevention focused activities. not they've not taken steps to help ensure that these activities developed at the local art installation level are consistent with the over arching objectives of dod's retention strategy. as noted, dod updated prevention strategy identified 18 prevention focused activities and according to dod officials, to have been implemented in efforts to address the remaining

18 our ongoing. dod officials said the remaining 16 activities identified in the strategy will never be considered complete because as the program develops the department will consistently revise everything its approach in these areas. that such officials said the status of the remaining 16 activities will indefinitely name as ongoing. in addition to the activities listed in dod's strategy, installation base personnel have developed and integrated various prevention activities at their installations. dod acknowledged the 18 activities in the updated strategy are not the only required prevention activities and encourage the services to develop their own specific initiatives. however, dod also noted that the objectives of dod's prevention strategy are to achieve unity of effort and purpose across all of dod and execution of sexual sexl

assault prevention focused activities but has not taken steps to ensure that the activities developed at the local level are consistent with the over arching objectives of its strategy. these installation developed activities may not be consistent with dod's prevention strategy because dod and the services have not communicated the purpose of the strategy and disseminate it to installation base personnel responsible for developing and implementing activities at the local level. for example, during our site visits to select installations we found no grandmasters were largely unfamiliar with dod's prevention strategy and hence may not be up within activities in a manner consistent with the abductors of the strategy. further the military service sexual assault response policies key conduit of such communication have not been updated to align with the guidance in the updated strategy. we also found during our visit to select installations that

there's limited collaboration for a number of reasons for taking place on the prevention activities developed locally which could further affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the departments efforts for prevention. for example, during a visit to an army base program officials informed us of an attempt to collaborate with the other services on prevention activities. however, the other services declined to collaborate because the other services his programs were solely focus on addressing sexual assault thought it would be confusing to collaborate with the army since the program addresses of sexual harassment and assault. in conclusion since our first report in 2008 on sexual assault in the military, dod has made progress in improving its efforts to prevent and respond to incidents across the department. steel with a fully developing its prevention strategy and communicate it to the department, dod may encounter difficulties in carrying out its mission to eliminate sexual assault in the military.

that concludes my remarks. if you're interested in any of gpos report, you can find them on the internet at www.gao.gov. if you have trouble finding it than just shoot me an e-mail. i think our addresses are listed in the brochures. that concludes my remarks. [applause] >> while our microphone gets queued up for questions on august i have a couple that i wrote as i was getting listening to you all. when i first questions is to dr. morral. if you could talk about if you looked at whether sexual orientation is a risk factor in the military population. does that put people at more or less risk for such harassment and assault? >> we didn't study it. we actually wanted to ask them we want other question on the survey that asked about sexual

orientation because it is a risk factor into the populations. it's a risk factor that in seemed to be a risk factor for bullying and harassment and assaults in high schools and colleges and prisons. and so it is sort of possible that sexual orientation is a risk factor in the military as well. we were not able pashtun at the time does a policy against dod collecting that information. i think that policy has been changed. i think the behavior risk factor survey that just went out did have a question. >> do we have any audience questions? >> hi, everyone. i'm jessica gallus. the question i have about is

male experiences and i appreciate bring that appear to what extent do you think existing instruments capture male experiences? >> survey instruments. well, we were given an opportunity to completely rewrite the sexual harassment and sexual assault items that have previously been used for the wgr a. one of the objectives we had in designing the new survey question was to capture both male and female experiences as they relate to the law. up our sexual harassment questions that have been used and are widely used concern a form of sexual harassment that wasn't tightly aligned to the law necessary but it was more i think the developer doctor

fitzgerald described it as a kind of psychological construct a sexual harassment. so i'll instrument was connected to military equal opportunity, hostile workplace if i become a sexual quid pro quo and gender discrimination. we tried to develop questions, pretested it with men and women that would capture both male and theme experiences. i think we captured a lot of male experiences to our estimates, the estimates from our survey suggests there are more than who are sexually harassed, sexual assault and and harassed and our women so we certainly got a lot of them. >> if i may, the 2014 report that ran lead is a vast improvement over previous efforts by dod to collect information. is to be careful in terms of trends. rand has tried to maintain

previous questions with their new questions to get at the heart of some of these issues more so but when you look at male victims, we found that there is a data, a lot of data going back years including on male victims. but dod had not used it. and that's an issue there as you probably know the report to congress is hundreds and hundreds of pages of data and is even more behind that but being from gao, we like to see decisions data-driven and we know that there is a lot of data that is available regarding male victims, and dod needs to capitalize on that in order to determine where does that fit in this prevention strategy. >> good afternoon. i work for the coast guard sexual assault prevention response military campaign office. my question is a bit twofold.

did participate in the study so i would ask why those results were not compared i know we were pretty well in line with the air force. and also realizing i know we do fall under the department of homeland security with the gao we board. i believe with all the services we all suffer the same issues and can learn from each other. i guess my question is more or less how, sometimes we're compared the sometimes we are not? >> that was my fault, i apologize. i have sometimes included the coast guard finds alongside the dod findings. i did not prepare that for this briefing. i will say that the coast guard looks very much like the air force in terms of sexual assault rates. that is, men and women are exposed to significantly lower rates of sexual assault, and that's not explained by all those demographics differences that make it by the services but

i apologize for not including their data in this. >> i would just like to ask a follow up to the big do you think is related to the percentage of the women who served in the air force and the coast guard will to do the other services? to me the correlation is the population with the fewest women the marine corps has the highest problem with harassment and assault, the population with the most women, the air force and the coast guard seemed to have fewer or less. >> so what we're able to control for in our statistical comparison analysis of the differences included the percentage of men in your unit at the percentage of men in your installation. so we ruled those two differences out as an explanation. i think the ad is no. we know that the percentage of men as a risk factor and so that does drive risk but it doesn't explain these differences.

>> usually when gao looks at this issue it is across dod and the coast guard. when we started this in 2008, it was the scope of our efforts. sometimes we have been focused just on a service like the air force, after the scandals at the basic and national -- randolph. we were asked to look at that producer situation and whether the air force was doing. and as you probably know they had about 44 recommendations that the implemented most of those focused just on basic training and how to prevent sexual assault. and currently we've got a review that is just focus on the army reserve component which, of course, is the army reserve and army national guard. we prefer when we can really zero in on the service, because

dod being so large we can usually go deeper and we have a scope it doesn't include everything. but our work is driven primarily by mandates from congress, gao is part of the legislative branch and we do our work, generally, special with the defense issue, usually work that is directed at the national defense authorization, sometimes are supposed. this work that we have now is driven at this point by mandates but it started with a request from the house oversight committee. >> thank you. i saw another hand out of there. >> university of san francisco. i have kind of two different points. one concerns the question we're just talking about, what might explain some of these differences. and i'm thinking if we look at understand of combat and national unity and combat we might be getting somewhere.

i do not give look at that at all but a differences in terms as significant, you know, particularly infantry. that's what i'm talking about. and how does that play into this? feminist research of course is all over the masculinized nature of it and that leads to all of these other issues that we're talking about. that was my first boy. the second one is in terms of whether you have on your very first point on the different patterns of reporting a different language used come again coming from the feminist literature i would think that there's something there in terms of how issues around shame, sexual violence as private versus public issue to all of these kinds of things kind of play into how men and women report these things differently. so i'm wondering how much that

is come into your research? >> in terms of, two of the things we were able to look at was whether, the differences can be explained by the proportion of personnel who have been receiving combat pay. and so those services that have higher proportion of their personnel getting combat pay, you know, have higher exposure to those indictments. that did not explained the service differences. simultaneously we also controlled for the number of months deployed. deployed looks different for each service and so that is, it's not a perfect control but that didn't explain the differences it. so we've looked at a lot of these things where we can. there's a lot of nuances, what it means to be deployed in the

navy versus in the marines, for instant. quite a different environment and we can't control for that perfectly. i'm sorry, the second one? >> so the second one was about the question of reporting a different language used. >> right. i totally, i think that is very likely. i think it's very likely that even, we don't have direct evidence to draw on to answer this question, but my hunch is that men are, they may be, they of different kinds of shame or feelings of humiliation in some cases that might prevent them from reporting or from want to think of it as they sexual assault. we've also heard a bunch of examples of the kinds of assaults that occur against men were i can panoply they probably didn't think is a sexual assault. they thought it was the kind of browsing or horseplay or other

kinds of misbehavior that can occur in the unit. >> thinking back to around 2008 when we started this work and dod could not tell us where the most incidents were happening, or the least incidence so that we could go to those with the least number reported and see if it best practices that should be shared. dod has come a long way in refining that data and being able to pin point more where these incidents are, whose happening. and as i said at the 2014 report is very robust and rich with the data. as far as the males not recording, it's part, our report

noted as part of the culture, being in a male-dominated environment which was discussed earlier. also we saw this crossover from hazing to sexual assault when you look at the male victims and women looked at hazing. hazing is a term that is thrown out a lot, special i've noticed in the last couple of years, but very little is known about hazing because dod doesn't track hazing. it's either each service does it differently. some track substantiated and unsound century taste. summits only substantiate the sum is from certain sources because hazing can be deferred and you can go to the ig's office or it can be a criminal investigation. but hazing, in 2016, reminds that were sexual assault in dod was in 2008, that there's not a lot of data out there and

there's no oversight in terms of yes, there is a policy on hazing, there's boundaries about what is acceptable and what's appropriate. at dod has not been providing the oversight to see if those policies are being implemented as intended. there's a lot of the series about hazing and sexual assault and male victims but not a lot of data still to understand the issue. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> i am a retired -- i've been a special operations, i've been in training. i've been in just what every type virus i know about hazing. i know of a sexual assault and sexual harassment. [inaudible]

but one of the things that i'm kind of surprised it is idle see more of my fellow military leaders especially male leaders at this for because so much of what we do is pop hundred and leadership, that this is something we are mandated to do these briefings to things like this. also you noted in a military setting that pretty much the command is dictated by the person of the top. i'm kind of disappointed we don't have more of those folks who. my question was in terms of those overlapping between hazing and also sexual assault, i was surprised how you uncovered th that. >> so the survey we did have a question, for those people who we identified as having had a past year section so it has been a bunch of questions about what they did about it and who did it to them and what the circumstances were and how call

and all these other things. one of the questions we asked them defined the concept of hazing and then said that that's what we meant by hazing and then it said do you consider this event that you experienced to be hazing? gave the definition and then asked of them, does that describe what happened to you? and so many were six times as likely as women to say yes to that question. >> and to your earlier point, we did invite dod. we sent an invitation to quite a few offices and we were surprised at the lack of interest as well. we hope this event very close the pentagon with the expressed purpose of having as many dod participants as possible. it's unfortunate that there's -- [inaudible]

>> thank you for that. i signed other hand over here. >> i think it is on. >> is it on? okay. [inaudible] -- social worker, work and a sexual assault program in the navy when their first creating a. i just want to go back to something you said which was more men are sexually harassed and sexual assault the in this department. and i just want to point out, 85% of the people that are in the services are male. so of course the numbers are going to be higher. the incidence are not hired. the percentage of women is much higher than the percentage of men. i just want to be clear about that because dod makes a huge effort to try to make a sound as if sexual assault, such

harassment or gender-neutral. and they are not. they are not gender neutral insulin system and not gender-neutral in the department of defense be the. just want to make sure we are clear about those numbers. >> thank you for clarifying that. your bike and women are about, across the services are about five times as likely as men to be sexual assault did come in for a five times, three or four times as likely to be sexually harassed, if i have that right. next. right here in the middle. >> hello. [inaudible] i served five years active duty in the marine corps and i'm currently in the reserves. i have a two-part question kind of the. the data show that regress the

highest number of sexual assault. the marine corps is talking about doing a training for the basic training. do you think that will increase the number of sexual assault or decrease it based on the other -- [inaudible] spent great question to let me clarify one thing that i didn't. we were not able to survey people who were in basic training. so we don't have, we did for those people who had been in the service at least six months we were able to survey them. and so we asked did it occur during basically. so we got some information about often this occurs during basic training. just like all the prior wgra, the workplace and gender relations survey of active component servicemembers, we didn't survey basic training. but the question is, would integrated training increase

rates? and so most perpetrators are men, and so if you are bringing women into an apartment that has more men, i think the risk of such assaults, it will increase. >> my second question is hidden regard to training of such harassment are basically my entire marine corps career training which is a check in the box. it's always a powerpoint. is always saying wake up, pay attention to they are not paying attention to these trainees. even when they're happening, active duty -- [inaudible] so within the last year i have permission to tell her story. she has been my friend who was brutally raped in japan.

it was towards the end of her pts. she gets north carolina she is there for about six months and just to go back to japan to testified against her off into. she comes back. he had -- she had zero support from her command. they kind of label are like she's was going to medical appointments. why she always late for formation? as because she's on some heavy-duty medication. instead of helping her a victimizer. now she went from a super strong woman to a shell of a person who lives on medication with a service dr. kent didn't go to the corner store without some of their with there. to me like this training i feel like it's a waste of our time because we are sitting here in an auditorium listening to the powerpoint i see people talking to each other, falling asleep.

know what is being attention to the train somewhat you know much really going to happen? really pay attention to what's happening. this is affecting morale, unit leadership. it comes from the top. it comes from the commander your 50% of perpetrators are from a supervisor or someone in a high leadership position. it's kind of hard to say hey, i can go to my coo because he may be the one that haunts me spent the next panel will talk more specifically to some of your questions and what are we doing at an individual and also at an organizational level. they will talk about some new army ways because we do recognize that much of the training that has been developed has not been as effective as we wanted to be and that we constantly trying to evolve and develop new ways of tackling this problem. this is complicated.

>> there is a continuum of harm that includes hazing and sexual harassment and such assaults. one of our recommendations was it would be useful to review the trainings to make sure that there's prevention our current on all these levels, and, of course, effective training is the only type of training that is worth doing. >> i will just add i mentioned we made a number of recommendations including recommendations to measure the effectiveness of the training. i know what you're talkin talkig about, that you would've people crammed into an auditorium just sitting through a powerpoint slide is probably not going to be effective and there are other ways to deliver the training and make it such. on the sexual harassment, week issued a report that in 2012, and what we found at the time was that not too much was known

about the sexual harassment. commanders climate surveys which you probably are fully with has been in play for years and years and years. and the commanders climate survey, you know, administered at the installation level, could it be a way to understand more about sexual harassment? but in 2012 at the sites we visited, the majority of installations the commanders have not administered those surveys to take a temperature polls read on his harassment an issue and they get that they need to address the? has been improved. it's now statutory required to put commanders within certain bit of time to administer those surveys. there will was a set number of questions that have to be asked, and then they can on their own asked if he gets up to an additional 10 questions to try to understand the environment for the command that the taken

over. then those results are to be forwarded about for so what else can take a look and see what's going on at a particular location and on the issues that related to rasp bit or hazing or assaults that needs to be addressed. >> thank you. >> tonight on c-span this week supreme court oral argument in the case of former virginia governor bob mcdonald was appealing his conviction on public corruption charges. last week the folger shakespeare library marked the 400th anniversary of the death of william shakespeare on april 23, 1616. the program featured actors, committee lives, artists and scholars sharing their connections to shakespeare through personal stories. the program include phone calls to scholars. you can watch that tonight at 9 p.m. on c-span.

>> more now on raising awareness and fighting military sexual violence. panelist talked about how to better address such assaults in military and i went to protect oneself from an attacker. >> so as we said earlier now we're going to turn our attention to a discussion about what individuals can interrupt the cycle of violence. our moderator for this session is kate germano, commission in august of 1996 and has served for over 19 years on active duty in the u.s. marine corps. a combat veteran, she has participated in numerous operational and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief deployment. throughout her career, she said challenging assignments including a year as the marine aid to the secretary of the navy. she was selected for command

twice, most recently as the commanding officer of the marine corps only all female unit, the fourth recruit training battalion. she holds a bachelor degree from gaucher college, and to 2011 she graduated with distinction from the marine corps command and staff college earning her master's of military science degree. she's actively engaged in the struggle to end gender bias in the military and is a vocal proponent for equal rights and the elimination of double standards and lowered expectations for female conduct and performance. and i am really, really pleased to announce that kate germano has just joined the staff of swan as its chief operating officer, so let's welcome kate. [applause] >> hello and thank you for coming. i would like to point out that tina was are coast guard

representative will be taking autographs afterwards because she is -- [laughter] -- in our swan logo. and that's not why she can pick socially a pleasure to have her here. i am still on active duty in the marine corps. i'm getting ready to retire. i retire one july site to start with a disclaimer that the abuse -- figures are expressed to do are my own. they're not represented norman of the marine corps. i have to start with the. as a introduced our first panelist i would like to start off by saying that topic of mobbing and bullying is near and dear to my heart. because my relief, the battalion was in mr. toomey. i spent about a year trying to figure out how what happened to me came to fruition. and what i found out was that i was referred information by fellow swan member in preparation for this panel and actually restore my sanity because i learned that i was

actually a target of mobbing. so mobbing is probing a topic that many of your familiar with but it is a very, very important topic and it is central to how we conduct ourselves in a military. i am really thrilled to bring up our first panelist. her name is doctor maureen duffy, a subject that expert on workplace bullying and modeling -- mobbing pictures of family therapist who worked with targets and their families to recover. and in addition to writing about the subject extensively and depressed and in the professional journals, the oxford university press recently published two of her books about mobbing, balding and aggressive behavior in the workplace and in schools. 's without further ado i'd like to bring up dr. maureen duffy. [applause] ..

with a comment that unlike sexual harassment, the whole area of modeling is only at the beginning. we who are active as researchers, scholars, activists, in terms of generating kind of baseline empirical data so we don't have the impressive volume and robust empirical data that you may have paid attention to for the first part of thal