right now you can be in poverty and we actually tax you deeper into poverty. instead, the tax code for people without qualifying children should do what it does for people with children which is if you're in poverty, help lift you out of poverty rather than push you deeper into it. it is a commonsensical idea. that the president proposed a number of years ago. the speaker adopted that proposal on something we could work together on. i -- we certainly have conversations with the speaker's office about a very wide range of policy issues. we're always looking for ways to cooperate. but i think, you know, at some point, you know, they're going to need to decide -- legislation on tax issues gets an initiated in the house of representatives and so they're going to need to decide is this something they want to initiate, is this something they want to initiate in a manner that's not paid for by doing damage elsewhere to

people working to get themselves out of poverty. >> sam from the "financial times." >> thanks very much. you were talking earlier about the u.s. as a bright spot, among advanced economies. the story of the presidential campaign has not been that american voters feel this has been a bright spot recovery. is there a risk the administration is feeling out of touch with public mood about the u.s. economy at the moment or are we overestimating just how negative people feel about the economy? >> first of all, i don't know, you know -- i look at evidence from the measures that economists look at about how people feel about the economy are the consumer sentiment index and the consumer confidence index from the conference board and the university of michigan. when you look at measures like that, you see that confidence has been consistently rising since the recession. and last year reached levels we

hadn't seen in over a decade. so i see a number of ways in which people are positive both about their situation today and the outlook. we also certainly hear and understand the frustrations people have in terms of areas like wage growth and so the president's message that you saw, you know, in the state of the union, you've seen consistently was told a really optimistic story about the american economy, how it's done, its successes, and also talked about the big challenges and problems that we face and what it is he wants to do about them. you know, he's not walking around saying mission accomplished, there's nothing else to be done, everything's perfect. that is not remotely the message. in fact, the message, if anything, is the opposite. here's all the things that we still need to do. >> sure. >> i mean, one measure of that

confidence would be consumer spending. it has picked up a little bit this has still been a very, very sluggish consumer recovery. that's your analysis as to why consumers are still saving so significantly, the big fall in the oil price hasn't given the boost everyone has been waiting for? the cost in terms of spending is quite palpable, still. >> i mean, consumer spending did add 3%. did grow 3% in 2014 and 2015. and was one of the bright spots that was helping to raise overall gdp growth. so i think you have seen as consumers de-leveraged that savings rates have risen a little bit in the last year but they've stabilized more than they had before. and, you know, when we look at the oil shock, we see it as having raised consumer spending,

cut business investment, and the net of the two of those is still a small positive for the economy. i think when you look at consumers, part of it is having been through a very traumatic economic experience that is only eight years past us. and you look at the great depression and the impact that that had on the way people thought about saving or the way people thought about inflation. you know, in other places. that hyperinflations at that time -- can last for decades and can affect the way you think so i think there may be some of that. wage growth has only recently picked up and consumers want the confidence that that wage growth will continue and that oil prices will stay low as opposed to just being transitory, you don't want to fully adjust your consumption to. i think if you continue to see nominal wage growth rising, becomes clearer that this is more durable then i think you

would continue to see strong consumption growth. again, it is 3% which is not, you know, which is pretty good for consumer spending. >> ms. evans from "time." >> my question is, i wanted to circle back to the competition issues and you mentioned set top boxes which is interesting because i think -- i forget exactly what the statistic is but i think it's about 40% of people don't have a choice of what cable company is their provider, so if the idea is to address competition, how do you sort of address the front end, not only address, you know, can i buy comcast's box "a" or comcast's box "b" and on that same level, there's been a lot of criticism about, from the left about antitrust, a failure to pursue antitrust cases then criticism on the right from the

business industry that the obama administration has not been friendly in that way. so how do you kind of thread that needle and pursue antitrust, especially at a time when we're seeing these massive mergers with, you know, walgreens and rite aid and kraft and heinz and aetna and cigna, whatever. there's another one. humana, something else. so we're seeing these massive mergers. how do you deal with that? >> so on your first -- you're precisely right that there's an intersection between these two issues. if you had a choice of 100 different cable companies, we wouldn't need a rule for one of those set top boxes, because different companies would compete for your business letting you have any set top box you want or having a better one. when you don't have competition in terms of the cable wire going into your house, that makes it that much more important to make sure you can't leverage the market power you have in the wire to the house into what is

an unrelated product which is the set top box. there's an intersection between those. we've tried to take up steps to free up spectrum for mobile broadband which would create more competition in that area. make sure the rules of those auctions are consistent with you can't just have the biggest player buy all the spectrum to foreclose on the opportunity of others to enter the market. we've weighed in on municipal broadband as another way to create competition but there's only so many tools that we have. in terms of your second question, you know, we have nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement in the white house. that's a matter of the enforcement agency, doj, in this case enforcing the law. we don't get involved in particular cases and don't get involved in the broader policy issues. i would note that antitrust enforcement under this administration is up. the number of criminal

prosecutions is up. criminal penalties. prison time. and in noncriminal cases there have been a number of quite important enforcement actions they've taken to preserve competition in different areas. it is the case when it comes to the law, though, it's not illegal to have a monopoly. it's illegal to take your monopoly and build it on by merging or extend it into another area and set top boxes is similar to the -- that's not illegal but it's similar economic principle of you have market power in one area, make sure you can't extend that into market power in another area. >> jackie from "the new york times." >> jason, as you get to the end of the administration, you've been in from the beginning, could you address what many see as was a missed opportunity not

for lack of some trying but maybe not trying hard enough in getting infrastructure -- more infrastructure spending. you had all these years when it was next to zero interest rates. one of the hardest hit labor sectors was construction. what could you have done? you had the 2011 american jobs act that didn't no anywhere, the transportation bill that was linked to construction, again, didn't go anywhere. what more could you have done and is there any -- do you see any opening between now and january 20th to cut a deal to get more done? >> right. now, we've certainly got things done on infrastructure. the recovery act we got a substantial upfront investment in infrastructure and then just this last december we got a five-year highway bill that's a roughly 5% inflation adjusted increase in infrastructure spending as well as more

certainty associated with it. but it certainly has been disappointing we haven't done even more than that and not for lack of effort of the president's part. he proposed year after year really substantial ambitious plans for infrastructure. he had one way to pay for it related to international tax win -- which it was something that you actually saw chairman camp adopt in his plan. and then this past year we've proposed another way in terms of an oil fee which is an idea you hear from economists and other experts from both political parties. you know, i think in some sense your question is one better addressed to congress than to us because we certainly agree that economically both to help demand today, to help expand our productive capacity in the future, given the low rates of interest, the economic argument is completely clear and would

like to see, you know, congress doing more. >> why didn't the republicans meet you -- >> i don't have any great, you know, insight into that, but -- >> on the negotiations or was -- >> i don't know. a number of republicans would privately tell you how much they wanted to do it and then when it came down to it at the end of the day they did come through and did do a five-year bill, did do an increase and that was good but it took way too long, seven years to get to that point, and it wasn't big enough. it created a base to build on. when you have an idea like an infrastructure bank that the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio are both behind, i think it stands to reason that's probably quite a good idea and is disappointing you haven't seen congress take it up and do it. >> do you see an opening before january 20th? >> we will look for whatever openings we can on any issue.

>> i haven't seen congress moving further on this one. >> before i weigh in with another, anybody who hasn't had one that wants one? let me ask you briefly then about the wall street pay regulation that were much in the news yesterday. i wanted to see, a., if you support them, and how you respond to critics, some who say that it will drive people out of the industry or sort of another perverse effect might be that banks and other affected institutions will have to pay people more because of their fear that money will be clawed back. what is your take on the wall street pay regs? >> right. the goal of dod frank was to strengthen the financial system and deal with a range of different problems that led to the last crisis. one of those problems was the perverse incentive that can be created by pay packages that give you an incentive to undertake a risky action knowing that, heads, you get your bonus

and tails, you walk away, so on average you come out ahead. that type of option is a extremely valuable option and i think people on wall street, if they understand anything, it is option value. so the legislation rightly asked the regulators to do something about that. we have been encouraging the independent regulators to come out with regulations and did that most recently in the meeting that the president had with the regulators in march. so we were very pleased to see that they've come out and would encourage them to move as quickly as possible to complete the rule-making process so this could be put into effect. i haven't studied the details of what they've come out with. they're independent regulators that will design the details independently and serve input in terms of the rules and i'm sure

there is all sorts of ways that one can handle any of the different issues that have been raised but ultimately, the goal that is trying to be accomplished here is an important one, which is to reduce overly risky behavior that comes at the expense of taxpayers and the economy more broadly. >> we haven't asked you about the single biggest economic story of the week which will affect the pocket books of every american and that is harriet tubman on the $20 bill. if you want to weigh in on that. and i'm curious if you have any thoughts on i guess micro economic monetary policy, if that is a real thing. the way we change -- we're changing the way we spend money moving from paper currency to electronic. what are the consequences of that and moving forward in the economy and as a policy matter what should we be thinking about in terms of those kind of issues. i know these are more treasury issues but if you could broaden

our scope on this. >> on the first question, i was completely thrilled to see what secretary lew decided. he didn't consult me or my children. if he had, one of them strongly supported harriet tubman and the other was in favor of rosa parks an they had a big debate between them yesterday about it, but i cast the tie-breaking vote in support of the secretary's decision so i think that was really exciting to see. on your second, the shift from cash to credit cards has had some impact on the conduct of monetary policy. it is one reason why the velocity of money has become less stable which is one reason why the monetary authorities don't target the money supply, but instead target interest rates. and that shift has happened over the course of many decades.

and once you do that, i think it doesn't complicate your monetary policy at all and doesn't actually have major changes in the way the economy functions. it just -- the fed sets interest rates, the money supply and velocity sort themselves out and it is the interest rates that have an impact on the economy. i think that there are some other questions of to the degree you have easier access to borrowing. there is some evidence that has led to some smoothing of shocks, that you get a shock and you could borrow your way through it so it doesn't propagate as largely through the economy and there is evidence, most notably the financial crisis that it could amplify shocks because it could lead to overborrowing and a larger correction. and how to get some of the benefits of consumption smoothing without getting the benefits of credit-fueled cycles and what the role of public policy in that is, i think it is important and not fully answered

question. >> going back to the -- is there a link between this and the competition policy. should we be thinking of more ways to think of paying for things, for example, bit-coin, should we encourage that, or discourage that or neutral. >> i think we'll leave that to our agencies that have 60 days to report back to us. >> teddy davis from cnn. >> thank you. if secretary clinton is nominated and then elected and asked you to out line what you thought were the three most effective economic policies of obama and the three most disappointing economic policies, what would you tell them? >> the recovery act, but hopefully she's not going to need to do something like that. the affordable care act, and there is a lot left to do to implement that, both encouraging states to take up medicaid using the extraordinary number of tool it gives the secretary for delivery system reforms and the

high premium excise tax. and third would be cutting taxes for low-income households which was done over the course of a number of pieces of legislation and made permanent in december and reducing poverty for 16 million people a year out of poverty. in terms of the other three, it is disappointing we didn't get more done on the infrastructure. that disappointment -- the biggest thing that you could do for the economy and probably disappointment that we didn't do business tax reform which is one of the more obvious steps that we could take as a country given that every other country in the world has done it. >> you have two minutes. jackie and then alex, if we could get to it.

>> since headwinds from abroad have regularly frustrated the recovery in your time what head winds are you looking at now that worry you most between now and the end of the administration? >> growth in europe has picked up a little bit. but it is still way too slow. the unemployment rate in the euro zone is above 10%. china has seen its growth slow. japan has seen its growth slow. growth in a number of major emerging markets like brazil and russia is negative. so we're not in the year 2009. this is not a global financial crisis, but most anywhere you look in the world outside of the united states growth is coming in in a decent amount below what

people were expecting and by just about any measure is disappointing. it is pretty much just the low-income economies that have seen their growth rates pick up in recent years, just about everyone else has not. >> last question, real quickly, alexis. >> just in transition planning, can you describe what the economic team is doing collectively, how far along you are on thinking about transition planning, coordination, information-gathering? >> i could just tell you for the council of economic advisers that we've had a long-standing tradition that we hire our staff for one year at a time and they work from summer to summer. so i am right now hiring the staff that will work for me for six months and work for the next president, whoever he or she is, for the first six months of their term. certainly in my experience, in this administration, president bush, as a whole, had an extremely effective transition

and one that we would like to emulate. and i know at the council of economic advisers it has always worked well and won't be an exception this time. >> is there one person for the economic team who is -- coordinated as the designated -- >> i don't have anything for you on that process. >> you can't say? >> i could tell you what we're doing at cea, which is we're hiring people to work in our administration and the next administration. >> thanks so much for doing this, sir. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. [ hearing concluded ] c-span washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up on wednesday morning, washington journal will spotlight real clear politics, a

polling website created in 2000. the guests include tom bevin, co-founder of clear media group and carl cannon, the executive ed editor, to discuss ow real clear politics got started and the mission and talk about the website's role in the media market place and the role of the media in campaign '16. and joining us roberta bird, reviewing primary results from connecticut, delaware and rhode island and talk about what is ahead for campaign 2016. and john trendy will be on to take about the latest polls. the approach to polling and how the public can be smarter consumers about polls. be sure to watch the washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. wednesday the house armed services committee considered the 2017 defense authorization bill. members of the committee will

review sub-committee reports and debate and vote on amendments to the legislation. live all day coverage of the mark-up starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. our station station campaign bus continues to travel across the country to honor winners in this year's student campaign competition. recently we traveled to wyoming to recognize two people by classmates and local elective officials for their video access to affordable higher education is the investment of the future. then we travelled to south dakota and visited in rapid city and sioux falls. and the final stop included a visit to delano middle school in minnesota, where third prize winners were honored for their video on water pollution. a special thanks to our cable partners comcast, charter and midco for coordinating the c-span community visits.

and every day this week to watch the top 21 winning entries at 6:50 a.m. eastern before washington journal. now a discussion on combatting military sexual assaults and violence. the service women's action network hosted panelists focused on research and recommendations to address the issue. this is just over three hours. good afternoon, everyone. i want to welcome you to today's event. the continuum of harm in the u.s. armed forces. my name is judy patterson. i'm the ceo of the service women's action network. the voice of women in the military. swan is a member-driven community network advocating 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 in this beautiful facility. and also to specially 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 immediate assy 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, primarily because of the lack

after tension being focused on this issue by the v.a. 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 to 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 -- [ technical difficulties ] our speaks will explain how to interrupt cycles of violence at the individual, personal level.

it is going to be a great dialogue and i hope that we all walk out today with new knowledge, new motivation and 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 nath and tools they -- 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 zone foundation. and with that, i 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 the hashtag continuum of harm. so now i want to introduce our first guest speaker, dr. margaret stockdale. peggy is a professor of psychology and the chair of department of psychology at indiana university, perdue university at indianapolis. she's the co-author and co-editor of five books, including the psychology and management of workplace diversity, and sex discrimination in the workplace, multi-disciplinary perspectives. she's also published widely in research journals and books on topics ranging from sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and public health initiatives. she has served as an expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in sex discrimination

cases. and doctor stockdale teaches courses on workplace diversity, industrial organizational psychology and social science research methods. and 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 -- 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? no lights.

well, that is 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'm not an expert on the military. nor have i or my family members served in any branch of the military. i did grow up near two air force bases, sac headquarters in bellevue, nebraska, and andrews air force base in prince george's county, maryland. and have tremendous respect for the military institution and the women and men who serve or who have served our country. and in walking around this cemetery today for the first time in 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 focused on gender issues in the workplace, with the lion's share of that research on sexual harassment. my research has touched on several different aspects of harassment, including how targets of 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, to 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 forward grant to study women who had received a domestic violence protection order and her study included a comprehensive baseline assessment of sexual and other forms of violence as well as a follow-up survey on additional violence at other types of experiences after receiving the

protection order. she invited me to include measures of sexual harassment. and thursds my journey into sex violence began. among other things, we found women abused as children as well as the severity of their sexualized abuse as adults was related to their experiences of sexual harassment on their jobs in this year of -- in this survey study. in other words, we learned that sexual harassment can be one of the ways that abuse survivors unfortunately experience revictimization. another colleague of mine joel nadler and i wrote a concept you'll pain tore articulate how sexual harassment is related to other forms of interpersonal violence. at that time the 2011 workplace gender workplace or wgrs had

recently been released to we were able to describe research on military sexual assault as well as the programs and policies being introduced by the sexual assault office. it outlined the continuum of harm with a specific focus on sexual harassment in that continuum. and it serves as one of the sources on which my talk is based. what i hope to accomplish in this talk is to familiarize you with the research done primarily with military samples on multiple forms of sexual or interpersonal violence that includes sexual harassment and present revictimization and covictimation and put this in perspective with regard to the military. and finally i'll discuss some policy and practice implications. the two panel discussions will then focus on military specific approaches to understanding and

combatting this continuum of violence from both an organizational perspective and from an individual perspective. to start, i wanted to describe the forms of sex allize ant interpersonal harm that are the components of the continuum harm i'll be discussing. although these are often described as components of violence against women there is a growing awareness that men are also targets of sexualized and gendered interpersonal violence and that men's experiences are gendered as well. so child sexual assault as well as other forms 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 older, thus it excludes peer to peer harassment. after age 14 and before adulthood it may be described as

adolescent sexual assault and it could involve penetrateive and nonpenetrating assault. interpartner violence is physical, sexual or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. it could occur among heterosexual and same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy. adult sexual assault is more broad than intimate partner violence. in fact intimate partner violence could be a sub-set of adult sexual assault and includes rape, sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact. legal definitions vary by state and jurisdiction but it includes nonconsensual sexual contact and threat of force by 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 gestures that are not named at sexual cooperation but convey insulting and hostile and degrading attitudes about women or men, unwanted sexual attention, such as unwanted offensive looks and comments, telephone calls, e-mails of a sexual nature or sexual coercion, which is the extortion of sexual corporation in return for job-related considerations. scholars and sexual harassment distinguish between attraction-based harassment and rejection-focused gender harassment. the legal definition of stalking also varied by jurisdiction. but generally it 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 my typology is mobbing and other forms of hazing and bullying which will be discussed in later sections and i'll let those speakers introduce and define those concepts. in studies of military relevance samples, which includes active duty military service members

those with a history of child sexual assault were five times more likely to experience military sexual assault than others. the co-occurrence of in service actual harassment and sexual assault and post service sexual assault is significant for both women and men. there are different clusters of ways females veterans feel sexual violence as well as sexual harassment which 26% experiencing both intimate partner violence and sexual harassment. additional data that active duty servicewoman men and men that experienced sexual assault are likely to have experienced sexual harassment and experiences of child sexual assault perspectively predicts sexual harassment during a military career. my colleague will provide updated statistics on most

recent ex comprehensive survey of military sexual assault and harassment conducted to date. too make sense of these and others filings there are ways to sort outweighs multiple sexual and gender violence are enter related. this frame work distinguishing between the differences in the experiences of assault and harassment that is experiences that are separated significantly across time such as child sexual assault and adult sexual assault or sexual harassment. experiences more or less co-occurring where the temp real distance short and frame work distinguishing between the types of perpetrators, partners or pham my members versus acquaintances, co-workers, bosses or strangers.

the perpetrator are typically different than the perpetrator of the current assault this is commonly referred to as revictimization and individuals who have been sexual 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 were more likely than others to experience sexual harassment on their jobs for concur rent violence, the perpetrators may be the same person or group of people who may stock or harass as a gateway to more extreme forms of

assault. for example, a stocker may become a sexual harasser who then may become a sexual assault perpetrator. the location of the abuse may create jurisdictions complexities for example in the case of dissolved workplace romance. the assault of experience may be considered intimate partner violence but when it occurs in the workplace, it might be considered sexual harassment. concur rent experience may involve multiple forms of abuse such as harassment, mobbing as a culture that condones aggression and tolerance of harassment and related behaviors. research on harass the and assault of toll rant organizational climate point to

an in difference to cliaims of ha harassment. light penalties, lax policies as well as environments that are male dominated, sexualized and violence is generally acre cemented and where women are perceived to be treading on jobs and locations that have historically be the province of men. next i want to describe frame works and theories useful for understanding multiple victimizations, especially those that cross into the work the i can logical frame work is to organize various factors that impact reizativictimization so stereo type is challenged and we can understand victimization as a function of over lapping systems. the develop system refers to the factors associated with the onset of the initial abuse and

aftermath that is resulted from those early abuse experiences so that are at risk to impact long-term coping skills and life trajectory like poverty that can increase their exposure to victimizing experiences in the future. the micro system refers to the immediate situation in which the followup abuse occurs and these are the situations that trigger the revictimization. for example, working in a sexualized or male dominated work environment such as bars. some factory environments, some protective force occupations and maybe the military. the proximity is increased and where the immediate environment may trigger abusive behavior.

the system reflects a broader contact that influences victimization through effects on social structures that facilitate abuse. for example, abuse survivors may be less likely to have economic and educational resources or other forms of social pow there will buffer risk of future abuse. it includes cultural attitudes towards repeated abuse. so for example, blame the victim attitude or just world which allows people to sustain the belief that bad things happen for a purpose as well as various social stereo types and all things feminine. routine activity or lifestyle theory comes from the criminal

justice literature and the conflew wednesday specifically enter personal victimization occurs when there are motivated offenders situated with suitable targets in an environment lacking or weak. we know patrol research motivated offenders are typically men but not always that adhere to hyper masculine believes and hold attitudes. rerch search shows it privileges masculine men. in addition, insecure attachment, which manifests as a high need for control and anger

management are started by perpetration. in the victims of child sexual assault are often plagued with insecure attachment issues and child sexual assault is for also becoming a perpetrator of sexual assault. victims or targets of sexual abuse and sexual violence can be anyone. but as i described, victims of inter personalization are at higher risk. one explanation is such individuals develop a voiding coping strategy which may be cues to would be perpetrators that such a person is vulnerable to victimization. also, simply being in a risky situation makes an vehicle a suitable or vulnerable target for example women working in a male dominanted environment where alcohol or drugs are used.

working in jobs that threaten men's presumed privilege to hold those jobs are all risky situations for women. finally, lack of capable guardians refer to not only individuals or place and other protective forces but also to policies and practices, leadership and organizational cultures in which offenders and targets are situated that fail to protect vulnerable targets from harm. so imagine the military situation. it is conceivably ripe with the ingredients specified by routine activity theory because the military is an all volunteer force, its members are self-selected. it is obviously male dominated and younger and lower educated than the general population. its higher ark pool and structure is likely to appeal to individuals with strong social dominance orientations.

there is also likely to be men that want to protect dominance and military careers. women in the military are also younger and more likely to be divorced and have lower social economic status than the population. these factors signal low status, which increases victimization risks. there is also evidence of high rates of childhood and adolescent sexual assault occurring prior to military service ranging from about 15% for female air force recruits to nearly 50% for army and navy recruits, which are nearly double the rates for civilian populations. research on sexual harassment finds women out numberedy men in the work environment are at a higher risk for sexual harassment. military structure and environment and culture results in a weak capacity to protect vulnerable targets from harm. the poorest boundaries between

work, home and recreation where alcohol is likely available means, sexual assault or abuse can spill over from one local to another. that can be labeled and adjudicated differently depending where it occurs for example intimate partner violence if it's in the living quarters or sexual hard rasment or sexual assault if it occurs elsewhere. and there may be lack of coordination in rules governing, reporting and investigation that may impede comprehensive approaches to addressing this full scale of the sexual victimization. unit cohesion, a valued military at bud for militaryfectiveness can create an environment where speaking out against an abusive comrade or superior is shunned. strong obedience to the chain of command encourages protection of the military and promoted belief those outside the military will not understand what goes on

within the military. these are elements of a military culture that promote sexual violence according to some researchers. group cohesion and the individual achieved in military units are powerful elements which allow the socialization to and pamaintenance sexual and gender believes. in addition, military laws such as court marshall rule 306 b which guides commanders disposition of an allegation of assault among other crimes appears to rape myths, biases of the accuser and character and military service of the accused. so what to do? the upcoming panel discussions will feature experts with policy, structures and culture but the following points appear to flow naturally from the

evidence where continuing of sexual violence and harm in the military that i just outlined. first, the policies and offices responsible for investigating and responding to the variety it is of sexual and gender victimization should either be highly coordinated or under a single unified system. the sexual assault prevention and response program in office on paper was one of the most comprehensive approaches to combatting sexual violence. it's advocacy and legacy and shortcomings may be discussed in our upcoming panel, however, actual harassment in the military has fallen under the per view of the office of secretary of defense office of diversity management and equal opportunity. family sex crimes including against children and family members is the per view of the office of the secretary of events family advocacy program and unclear how well and integrated and coordinated are

these various offices and their procedures and services. second, because of the high rate of premilitary victimization experiences of military recruits, screening and services for such experiences is warranted to help prevent revictimization. third, one thing i do know about the military is its strong focus on leadership developmentment. leaders need to be trained and held accountable for recognizing signs of co-victimization and revictimization such as avoid coping 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

development for stimuli including graffiti and banter that mop vulnerable populations such as abuse survivors. leaders should clarify and support the paths to resources that targets should follow to receive appropriate relief. such resources should be aware. all ranks of the military should also be trained to understand and recognize those thinks between enter personal violence and actual harassment and be taught how to intervene appropriately when they believe that assaults or harassment have occurred or likely to occur building allies or by stander programs that empower men to be actively part of the solution instead of the problem are also recommended. i am pleased that the attention to the full scale and continuing

of sexual and gender related victimization is gaining ground in the military and advocacy groups such as servicewoman men's network. i'm looking forward to hearing from the forthcoming panels of experts on their views towards organizational and individual initiatives to broaden our understanding of the spectrum of enter personal violence and impact on the military so thank you very much. q and a? >> yes. thank you. first of all, i just want to say in your materials you received, there was a pretty comprehensive bibliography and for me e would need to read it three more times to grasp it but i did read it and it was fascinating.

so if can have the lights go up. we have a microphone 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. >> can that be pasted around? >> 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 in that sexual harassment is handled administratively through the eeoc and sexual assault is handled through the criminal justice system? >> yeah. >> i mean, you were making the point and theoretically makes a lot of sense to me that it should be integrated but do we not have more of a fundamental

society problem that extends beyond the military? so i'm just curious. >> great question and certainly if you were going to take this to court, if you have a case of sexual harassment, it would go through civil war and sexual assault it would be a criminal offense 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 and we have certainly like any other university problems with campus sexual assault, as well as sexual harassment and an office for equal opportunity that really handles the harassment whether it's against students or against employees and then another office of student affairs that deals with

sexual assault which it coordinates with the police but they talk to each other a lot and 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 more about. >> there is a lot of talk about screening and i was on the panel to discussion whether there should be routine screening because those are predictive of negative outcomes and various things and the consensus of the panel in the end is that we did not think that there should be routine assessment because of the potential that that information could be use in adverse ways and if you use it frequently, somebody was

proposing a study where they would in basic training screen people for adverse childhood experiences and intervene with them. we were very concerned that would be revictimizing to people at a time they didn't necessarily want to be pulled apart so i wonder your thoughts of the potential complications with screening. >> that's an interesting and good point. so the issue was does screening for revictimization potentially harm that person further either through heightening maybe their revictimizing experiences or maybe setting them up for discrimination perhaps. so just off the top of my head, my response would be maybe to think of it more like we do with the american with disabilities act, which asks that, you know, 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

would desire an acomation you can talk about it with an employer and find reasonable accommodations so the employment decision isn't based on knowledge of the disability. and so maybe that could be a way. you're in, you're not screening -- it's not screening to get into a military service but post -- but early on in the career -- >> [ indiscernible question ] >> i came here because i was connected. my daughter was victimized by an rotc early childhood development

program cadet. my daughter is graduating next month with the perpetrator. my reason in coming here is to just let everyone know here that 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 daughter called me, i was up and really most of it her own advocate without an attorney with making a lot of phone calls and a visit to the military academy in wayne, pennsylvania. up until now, the 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 that there should be prescreenings and i believe that the perpetrator in this case has had a history of child abuse only because that's just by 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? 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 a chance to better their lives like you said. some people are coming from low income backgrounds. my daughter, she's not from that. you know, she wants to make herself a better life, give herself a better life. i gave her that foundation but the other individual we don't know the background. so as far as police cooperation like you mentioned, unless my daughter pressed charges, there would not be an active police invest fwaigation to investigate background of the perpetrator. there is a lot of psychological effects that i agree with and not enough support yet for the victim and suspects the victims like my daughter will use other

avenues to handle their situation and seeking help from the professors. they have been very outstanding for her. again, being the complainant on a title nine investigation is frowned upon. so this is why i'm here. to hopefully set our government, that our legislators give a second look to 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. >> thank you for sharing that and i'm sorry to hear about your daughter's experience. you did mention title nine, which is the student based

assault and harassment is the legislative approach to that and there -- there is a growing consensus that title nine related procedures and processes have really got to become more comprehensive and there has been some recent improvements to law in area and procedures. part of it lies in the inversety environment in their response and handling of the claim of victimization because it's rotc the military needs a role. there is research that --

>> [ indiscernible question ] >> they refused and did not allow my daughter to file a complaint because they told her she was a civilian but again, i did my research and told my daughter so the prerp derpetrat she's still a civilian. she's not become missioned into her military branch. >> thank you again for letting us, bringing that issue. i think that's something that helps raise awareness. thank you. >> my question to you is you were talking about the general environment and setting the tone for how these happen and men

feel empowered to take advantage of the situation. we've been at war now for almost 15 years and 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're in? >> on one hand, if you think being in environments where women have more rights than here, many open their ice a little bit. i could see it going both ways. i don't have a basis to speculate on what that might be

but that's an inkreeging questi question. maybe some other panelist -- you're not going to step in and help me on this i can see. thank you. okay. well thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you again. right now we're going to turn to a discussion on organizational approaches within the department

of defense and i'd like to start by introducing ellen. a senior fellow at the enter national security and a member of the board of the servicewoman men's action network. her research and work focuses on women and gender in the military. she's a west point graduate, retired army colonel and distinguished visiting professor at the u.s. army war college. she's currently completing a phd at george mason university school for conflict analysis and relung resolution. she's been a guest speaker on cnn, national public radio and she frequently guest lectures at universities and colleges.

elle ellen? >> i'd like to introduce the next panel. dr. morel is a senior behavioral scienti scientist. areas of expert tense is program evaluation, survey research and risk management. he vently completed the largest ever survey of the sexual assault and sexual harassment experiences of u.s. service members. dr. morel led large national and international service evaluations and published dozens of pier review reports and policy journals and has served as a science advisor to the national institution to the department of homeland security of risk and economic analysis and department of homeland security chemical facility anti terrorism program.

today he's here to present research findings from iran's 2014 military workplace study on sexual assault and sexual harassment in the u.s. military. dr. moral? >> thank you and thank you for inviting me to this forum. i'm really pleased to be here and i hope what i have to say will be useful. can we have my slides up? the findings, lots and lots of findings but i think they are on the continuing of harm and i'll tell you about recommendations we made when we found these

results. just briefly about the study. it was large. we went over to half a million service members that included, this was a survey that included 100% of active component women and 25% of active component men. we got a pretty good response rate. the reason i mention it, it's the first time there have been enough respondents to be able to look at some quite rare veevent. it's the first time such a survey has had enough male sexual assault victims that we can character rise their experiences. so let me talk briefly about that. what we found is there are some generalizable differences between the experiences of women sexual assault victims and male sexual assault victims. in particular males will

experience multiple experiences in the last year and 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 result as hazing or intended to humiliate them as opposed to it being a sexual event. they are more likely to experience injuries. compared to women. men are less likely to experience a sexual assault that involves alcohol use so what you see a pattern for men. it's not to say this pattern doesn't occur with some women, as well. it's just that it's far more

common with men. for instance, men are six times as likely to describe the sexual assaults as an act of hazing than women are. so what this suggests is there is a pattern that looks like hazing, bullying, harassment, picking on and doing it repeatedly. further more, it may be the finding that men are so much more less likely to describe the event as an sexual assault as opposed to an assault to debase them may have implications for

preventi prevention. it may not occur to them to report. they don't report at the rate women do. at a minimum and our recommendation to the department was that it should be reviewed to say the kinds of experiences are well represented in the prevention training and the reporting system available to men and women be reviewed to see if there are ways of taking advantage that some of the sexual assaults against men may not be perceived as sexual assaults with that recognition designing procedures that could increase reporting. that's the find finding.

the second fining is differences between the services. what this slide shows is the rate of sexual assault experiences by men and women in service. the thing i want to point out to you is there are striking service 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 margin. by factors of 2-4, this is raw data. the marines in the navy are much younger services. the personnel are young people and a much larger proportion are young and sexual assault is age, youth is the risk factor for

sexual assault. so maybe the differences are due to demographic factors. so we looked at that carefully and did some statistical modelling to make sure when comparing rates, we're comparing rates for people of the same age -- what is going on? the slides are cut off. we redid that comparison between the services comparing for a bunch of different services that exist between personnel and experiences so we controlled for the age of service members and race and scores, which is a test of skills that enlisted get.

we had pay grade and range and control for things like the environment in which they are working in the military, factors like the percentage of men in the unit and instillation as dr. stockdale mentioned. it contributes to risk. when we controlled, an apples to apples basis. what we found is.

it was not explained at all. after controlling for factor the and adjusting, women and other services had 1.7 times the risk of sexual assault as women in the air force. what this suggests is there is something that explains large differences, four to five times is a large difference in social science research going on. something that explains the difference between services that we haven't been able to identify what that is. now sometimes, people ask well, couldn't you find similar rates and evidence like this someone of the best points of data we

have that suggestion there may be something to look at that causes big differences in risk of sexual assault. you don't need to look at a college campus to recognize there is something big going on that differs by service and could be understood better. and so one of our recommendations was to try to understand what are the factors, to do more research and understand the differences between the air force. they could attract different people and differences are things we don't have -- we can't statistically control for them. but it could also have to do with differences in the way things are structured or organized or how the physical organization, people may sleep might be different across

services. we think that it would be valuable for why there are these large differences in sexual assault rates across services. that's the second finding. the third one -- is that working? it's working. the third is the research moments and active component members. what you can see on the slide is that both men and women in the reserve component are supposed to lower risk of sexual assault than men and women in the active component. this is any sexual assault. this is any sexual assault in the past year.

this is another good comparison. these are all service members. one group of whom spends time in the civilian world socializing with civilians in the civilian workplace and the other spends most of their time in military environments and there is this big difference in risk and we did the same kind of statistical analysis and we don't find any of the variables we try to adjust for explain this difference. there is another surprising finding that we had here, which is the high rate at which the sexual assaults experienced by reserve component members occur in military settings. we reserve to those part time reservist working 38 or 39 days a year for the military and we find 85% of the assaults that they experienced in the past

year were military related. which is, you know, which is a much higher proportion than might be expected. that doesn't prove being in the military is a risk factor and we heard speculation there may be something specific about the reserve component and what it's like to leave your family once a month and go off to drill training. and some of the risk factors associated with that lifestyle may be part of the escalation and we strongly recommend this is another signal or clue what is going on that could be pursued or understood to better drive down risk.

the last thing i want to talk about is sexual assault harassment. it's common in the military. about 116,000 active duty members were sexually harassed in the past year and about 44,000 experienced gender discrimination. when we ask women of all ranks how common it is more than 75% say common or very common. and men, too, agree. they don't agree at quite that rate but about close to 50% of men say it's common or very common in the military. we know sexual assault is associated with negative workplace retention, moral and

bad outcomes but it's strongly asoelsuated with sexual assault. what we find in this data is women sexual assaulted were 14 times more likely to have been sexual assaulted in the past year. very, very strong association there and men who were sexually harassed were 49 times more likely to be sexual assaulted. that doesn't prove there is a correlation. there is a correlation. doesn't prove that there is a causal association between sexual assault and sexual assault. there could be. doesn't prove it but sexual harassment may be a good indicator where there is a problem. a recommendation is if the military could identify rates against units or commands or

across instillations, that might be a way that they could identify those places where risk is high eest and if the correlation stands, differences in rates of sexual assault. so those were the four points i wanted to make and i look forward to our discussion in just after the next speaker. our next guest was brenda forreal the office of the

defense capability management team in 2007 where she is responsible for military and dod personnel, civilian personnel issues including medical readiness, unmanned aerial systems, pilot issues, personnel security, clearance processes and worse force mix issues. ms. ferrell is the recipient of the distinguished service award and two gao awards for sustained performance leading into highly complex reviews. today ms. ferrel is presenting the findings of two goa reports. the report on sexual assault in the military and the very recently released 2016 report on hazing incidents involving service members. >> thank you, ellen. thanks for that elevation. thanks for having gao rep acceptabled here today. we appreciatuate the opportunity

to discuss the recent report on dods 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 to grade mission readiness and free decor and goodwill and raises financial costs. importantly, data suggestions reported sexual assault represent a fraction of the sexual assault incidents that are actually occurring in dod. dod data show reported incidents involving service members more than doubled from about 2800 in physical year 2007 to about 6100 in physical year 2014 however, based on a 2014 survey done by my colleagues, they estimated 20,3000 active duty service

members were actually assaulted in the prior year. since 2008 goa issued multiple products to incidents of sexual assault. for example, relevant to today's discussion is our march 2015 report on military male victims of sexual assault. we reported that dod has taken steps to address sexual assault of service members generally and they like to refer to it as their policies are gender neutral. to address the sexual assault of service members generally but not used all of the data such as analysis that shows significantly fewer male service members than females reporting when they are sexual assaulted to inform their decision making such as tailoring their training or incorporating activities to prevent sexual assault. goa's analysis of sexual assault prevention estimates using the results of the study conducted

for dod shows at most, 13% of males reported their assault whereas at least 40% of females reported their incident. today i'll primary discuss the report issued in november of 2015 on the updated prevention strategy. let me start with break grouack information. for over a decade, congress and dod took steps to prevent and respond to sexual assault in the military. in 2004, following a series of high profile sexual assault cases involving service members, 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 involviing service members. in 2005, dod established its sexual assault prevention and

response program to promote the prevention of sexual assaults and encourage increased reporting of such incidents and to improve victim responsibility capability in 2008 dod published the first prevention strategy. in april 2014, dod updated its prevention strategy and that updated strategy is the focus of my discussion. i will discuss two objectives from the november 2015 report that addresses the extend to which dod has one, developed an effective prevention strategy and implemented activities department wide and at military instillations related to the department's effort to prevent sexual assault in the military. for the first objective, it developed the strategy using the centers for disease control and prevention. frame work for effective

strategies. but dod does not link activity to desired outcome or fully identify risk and protective factors. specific specifically dod does 18 strategies but not linked with the desired outcome of the department's overall prevention effort, a step necessary to determine whether efforts are producing the intended effect. it provides sexual assault training and establishing collaboration forums to capture and share prevention best practices and lessons learned. in a different section of dod strategy, it lists five general outcomes of its prevention effort such as an environment that support a culture of sexual assault prevention.

outcomes are identified in the strategy, dod does not discuss what if any connection exists between the 18 prevention related activities and outcomes in the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. without a link, they cannot see the desired effect or to make timely decisions to help ensure it continues to progress towards the desired outcomes. also, dod may lack the information that is needed to conduct a rigorous evalweight of the effectiveness of efforts. further, dod did not protect factors that may put a person at risk for committing sexual assault or that alternatively may prevent harm in its updated

strategy. dod adapted cdc's approach by i'ving five remains or environment in which it would focus prevention efforts and includes risk factors for three individuals, relationships and society. for example, dod identified risk factors such as alcohol and drug abuse and hostility toward women as risks that my influence sexual violence, however, dod does not specify risk factors for the two demains over which it has the greatest influence. leaders at all levels of dod and military community. for example, the strategy does not identify potential risk factors associated with these domains such as recognizing the inherent nature of certain types of commands or units may cultivate an environment with an increased risk of sexual assault. one such risk factor may be

hazing. in the february 2016 report on dods policies to address and track hazing, we reported that initiations and rights of passage can be effective tools to instill us free decor and loyalty among service members and are included in many traditions throughout dod. however, such traditional activities as well as more ad hawk activities have at times included crewel or abusive behavior and not always been easy for service members 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 several military instillations gave us examples of recent incidents involving both hazing and sexual assault. we found that a series of hazing incidents may escalate interest a sexual assault and service officials stated training on

hazing type activities and r relationship would be beneficial to males in that it might lead to increased reporting and fewer inappropriate incidents. dod also included six protective factors identified by cdc in its prevention strategy does not specify how the factors such as emotional health relate to dods five domains. the five factors included are grouped together rather than being listed under beneath the dow main to which they belong. thus, dod may not be able to accurately characterize the environment or develop activities and interventions dod

is in the property sesz but they have not taken steps to help ensure these activities developed at the local or instillation level are consistent with the over arching objectives of dod's prevention strategy. updated prevention strategy identified 18 focused act the i'vetys and according to dod officials, two have been implemented in efforts to address the remaining 18 on going officials said the remaining identified will never be considered complete because as the program develops, the department will consistently revise and renew the approach in these areas. officials said the status of the remaining 16 activities will indefinitely remain as on going. in addition to the activities listed in dod strategy, instillation based personnel have developed and implemented various prevention activities at their instillations it is knot

the only required prevention activity they develop the initiatives however dod noted the objective of the strategy are to achieve unite prevention focus activities. they are not taken steps to help ensure the activities at the local level are consistent with the over arching objective of the strategy. these instillations developed activities may not be consistent with dods prevention strategy because dod and services have not communicated the purpose of the strategy and desimilresponsr developing activities at the local level. for example. during our site visit, we found program managers were largely

unfamiliar with it and may not implement activities in a manner consistent with the strategy. further, the military services key condue went have not been updated to align in the strategy. we also found during our visits to select instillations that there is limited collaboration for a number of reasons which could effect the department's efforts for prevention. for example, during a visit to an army base, program officials informed us of an attempt to collaboration, however other services declined because the other services whose programs were solely focused on addressing sexual assault thought it would be confusing since the program addresses

sexual assault and assault. in conclusion six the first report, dod made progress in ill proving efforts to prevent and respond to incidents and dod may encounter difficulties in carrying out its vision to eliminate sexual assault in the military. that concludes my remarks if you're interested in any of gao's reports, you can find them on the internet at www.gao.glove a . that concludes my remarks. now we'll take questions. while the microphone queues up, i have a couple i wrote. one of my first questions is to

dr. ferrell. if you can talk about if you looked at whether or not sexual orientation is a risk factor in the military population, does that put people at more orless risk for sexual harassment and assault? we didn't study it. sit a risk factor in other populations. it is a risk factor seemed to be a risk factor for bullying and harassment and assault in so it's possible it is a risk factor in the military, as well.

at the time there was a policy against collecting the information and i think the policy is changed and behavior risk factor did have that question. >> any audience questions? >> the question i had is about male experiences of sexual assault and assault. i appreciate you bringing that up. to what extent do you think it captures male experiences? >> survey instruments. we were given an opportunity to rewrite the items that had previously been used for the wgra and one of the objectives in the new survey questions was

to capture both male and female experiences as they relate to the law and widely used experiences concerned a form of sexual harassment not aligned to the law necessarily. more the developer as a psychological construct. our instrument was to a hostile workplace environment and gender discrimination. we tried to develop questions and pretested it with men and women that would capture men and women experiences. i think we captured a lot of male experiences. our estimates from our survey

suggest are more men that are sexually harassed or sexual assault and harassed than there are women. we got a lot of them. >> if i may, you have to be careful in terms of trend. tried to maintain previous questions with the new questions to get at the heart of some of the issues more so but there is data, a lot of data going back years including on male victims but dod had not used it. that's an issue. as they report to congress is hundreds and hundreds of pages of data and even more behind that but it's being from gao, we like to see the data driven and

data available regarding male victims and dod needs to capitalize on that in order to determine where does that fit in this prevention strategy? >> i work for the coast guard. my question is twofold. we did participate in the 2014 study so i would ask why those results weren't compared. i know we were well in line with the air force and also with all the services we have the same services. my question is more or less, how come sometimes we're compared and sometimes we're not? >> that was my fault. i apologize. i had sometimes included the coast guard findings alongside

the dod findings. i didn't prepare that for this briefing. i'll say that the coast guard looks very much like the air force in terms of sexual assault rates. that is -- they are significant. men and women are exposed to significantly lower rates of sexual assault and those -- that's not explained by all those demographic differences that made this between the services but i apologize for not including their data in this. >> i would just like to ask a followup to that. is it related to the percentages of women that serve in the air force and coast guard relative to other services? to me the correlation is the population with the fewest women, the marine corps has the highest problem with harassment and assault and the population with the most women, the air force and the coast guard seem to have fewer or less.

so we ruled those two differences out as an ex plan nation. the answer is no. i think we know that. >> usually when it's looked at this issue it's against dod when we started this in 2008, that was the scope of the effort. sometimes we have been focused on a service after the scandals at the basic initial training down at randolph we were asked to look at that situation and what the air force was doing and

they had about 44 recommendations that they implemented on basic training and how to prevent sexual assault and currently we've got a review that the just focused on the army reserve components, which of course is the army reserve and army national guard. we prefer when we can zero in on a service because dod being so large, we can usually go deeper when we have a scope that doesn't include everything. but our work is driven primariliy mandates