services. but what you're describing is could you put this in the store context of the ways the air force overall? >> and will go to my history and what i grew up with and then where i see it today. it is when i mentioned with the checkered flag mentality. there is some of this in here, but when we were stationed and rotated through, it was to figure out where your forward operating rotation was and what would happen when the gap ccurred. and the air force was the key component to that. we are taking on the same kind of model in some ways, more about engagement, security and stability, and forward residents and goes to the actual presence rather than irtual presence.

no more bases, but more places. our ability to cooperate out of places in the philippines, singapore, thailand, it is that rotational presence. i think we will see, the drawdown in europe as to go as small as a possibly go -- as it possibly could go. the main bases operate today, and it is the same thing. i think our presence will maintain the newest technology that they have so far. those bases will stay at the robust stations of their at now -- that they are now. we will do it today with theater security packages, and we will do the same thing in

the future. the exhibition area air force is one that we have been working continuously some hiccups with it and it should not have gone as it did. it is certainly viable in the asia-pacific and part of that is distance along that. i love my navy brethren and they do incredibly great things for us, but the trouble in days when it takes us hours. you have to be there rapidly and have the ability to respond, and sometimes hours makes the difference. >> let me try to put a little fuel on that interservice rivalry, and note that the admiral of the naval symposium, when they reached what could be

a significant agreement on how to handle unintended incidents at sea. the navy announced that it does not cover the south china sea. that was a pretty impressive outcome for the russian naval supposing him -- symposium. what kind of confidence living measures could you foresee coming out of these kinds of discussions? we're talking seconds in the air, not minutes, days, or hours. >> part of the reason we are in china is that interaction. it was a constructive visit in many ways. when you look at what happens in asia today, and whether it is scrambled in response by the

receiving party, we have many airplanes in close proximity. there was one off the korean finance law -- and then slow where we had forces within close proximity, and the only people who knew everybody was us. we're trying to work on that to increase the information sharing so we have a common picture. that is one way we can start a dress and work on that, and picked her -- and work on that ommon picture. notification for something out of the ordinary, all of those things we're working on to increase, since there is the increased potential for miscalculation.

>> how do we integrate with our allies and partners particularly with high-end partners like japan or china? operating is more expensive. how do you foresee integrating these for alliances and partnerships and recognizing their political sovereignty. the capabilities are becoming network, or should be network. >> i think one thing we're working on is going from bilateral to more lateral. we had the red flags were we get world will -- where we will et multiple flags.

the republic of korea deployed fighters off the peninsula for the exercise that was the first in a while. we had all three platforms working together which is unheard of resenting -- resenting this picture -- presenting this picture. some of the most recent announcements and equipment they're going to procure makes it easier. the symposiums, we get a lot of understanding and some of the information passing in exercises for how it is great to talk about it but actually to try to do it is better.

you have civil public of korea and the korean peninsula. we have looked at that incorruptibility and that information sharing. it is a continuous rossa, you never finished that we got to keep working at it. you can never say we are an operable. you always have to work on it and continue to do it. i think some of the things we're doing with respect to engagement exercises and wargames am a we're getting better at it does become forward. >> we have a project across our regional programs in federated defense great when your budget is not growing, when the technology is more complicated, not much of an opportunity to get more deterrence for your money and joined capabilities, do we have some hard questions?

>> the questions have been pouring in, including those from viewers on the web. there is a whole series of questions about china. and your comments about how rapidly they have moved forward and how we engage with them. are they really an expansionist power or are in fact based aching with a reasonable guard their flank? what do you look for in terms of signals? that is the broader question, what you look for in expansionist tendencies versus ooperative tendencies?

>> if you look at the declaration, if you look at the development of the aircraft carriers, if you look at their mission actions at some of the exercises they have done that have gone significantly farther out to what they call the second island chain, and they have continued to expand their ability to operate farther and farther away. we see that all the time in the south china sea with their ability to operate further and further south very with the -- south. the territorial disputes are ones that we have concern over. the ability to solve that in a peaceful manner within

international norms, that is one that we clearly think about. we have not really seen, and i will not make any comments the legal basis for their nine-dash line, i am not sure of the legal basis for that. there is a look that china is continuing to move to be able to solve those disputed islands. so that part of it is concerning with respect to what they are doing. on the same hand their engagement, they are participating in -- this ear. they just have a symposium, so they are engaging.

i think the issue for us is our ability -- and they talk about it with the united states and the prc has, and that is the existing world power and how do you operate together and solve disputes in a peaceful manner under international norms. the indications that they are continuing to try to solve those in an aggressive way we would not agree with. some with relation to the philippines are disconcerting, and we think that is the wrong way to go. there are other cases where they are engaged and things are handled in a more appropriate way. so i think it is kind of a national strategy with china, which i am not sure how you would answer what the true united states national strategy is with respect to this prc.

there is a case where we are looking at both sides of that challenge, is that there is some kind of movement in their territorial game. >> i will merge a number of questions together. one is a lot of bilateral engagements, and most of your answers were bilateral in their description. there's probably an opportunity for trilateral, multilateral operations as well. how are the specific forces thinking at a multilateral level or trilateral level? there was one country you do not mention, russia. tell us how you calculate russia into your thinking. >> maybe i did not talk about it enough, but going from bilateral to multilateral, we are working very hard on hat.

on the humanitarian assistance disaster response, the republic of korea is participating. we will have the philippines participate next year. singapore, thailand, the united states. we had the republic of korea and japan and australia. we have significant larger exercises. pitch black we will participate, and there will be folks from many nations including singapore and thailand and indonesia. we're working hard on multilateral, and the federated defense -- and you have heard the general talk about it, as we face the challenges we face in the future we have to pull our friends closer and that ability to operate together. we are making a good positive

esponse on that. the second question was -- i talked about the long-range aviation and what they are doing there. they are becoming increasingly active in the pacific and they have a long -- as a matter of fact it is not an area, but it is because we think about it all the time. we have forces in alaska, the closest point of approach between the united states and russia and how we operate with the norad region, and what we are doing as they continue to expand in the asia-pacific. there are things that are concerning respects to how they operate and how transparent they are with other nations in the vicinity. japan is doing engagement and they have positive momentum. it is something that we

consider russia -- we deal with it in our area of responsibility because of the pacific boundary. there are concerns, and i will tell you what is happening in ukraine today is causing significant concerns in the asia-pacific. >> how do you respond to those concerns? >> i think it is twofold. one is there is the fairly aggressive act by russia in crimea. for many nations that have territorial disputes or a internal unrest, the challenges they face in china, tibet, taiwan, in some ways that is disconcerting to them because of internal unrest, and in other ways the ability to take

what they believe is rightfully theirs in some method other international law, that is something that is concerning on the other end of the spectrum. i think the belief and what all of us do is spend more time reassuring allies of the ability to operate together, build stability, is dependent on how we work together and how well we engage as teammates as we go forward. here dominantly when we respond, we are here, we have always been here, we will continue to operate with you and work as partners. >> you mentioned getting the exercises back on track after some pickup from sequestration. the lessons about logistics, and no theater faces logistic challenges like the pacific. what are your big concerns

about logistics? what role do our partners play in logistics, and what happened to things like lower numbers that come to pass and that just come ok things even further? >> the lesson of logistics is not lost on anybody in my opinion. the ability to supply the force to engage is when you have to have logistics trained to support that. the biggest concern is command and control, because you know those networks can be disrupted. our ability to operate the command-and-control logistics and have the ability to move forward. part of it is the interoperability with our friends and allies and how we forge positioning.

one of the results of the agreement with the philippines is to put humanitarian assistance -- which is a natural disaster that has the same problems. if you remember during the earthquake in japan, power was shut off to the korean peninsula. that can happen by ill intent or by natural disaster. command and control of the logistics chain and how you do that, again, and that is why we talk about flexible command and control. our ability to put stuff in the right place. our closest allies certainly, treaty partners as well as other nations, australia, japan, korea, singapore,

thailand, some of those are close in our ability to operate as we work as a team. that will be part of the solution. command and control is one of the things i think about most when it comes to logistics. >> your raising of the philippines agreement last week raised some broader issues of dispersal as a tactic. you have referred to that in the past as resiliency. how do you describe your thoughts on resiliency and your engagement as well as with planning? >> it is hand in hand. resiliency in engagement is part of that discussion. the basic premise is that if you have a few numbers with a large concentration of capabilities, those become vulnerabilities.

if you have a future amount of force, that becomes a vulnerability. the ability to disperse and move throughout the theater if required for whatever case you respond to use you more flexibility. it also removes some of those other abilities and large concentrations, small areas. there is a balance because every place you are you have to be able to support and defend. the resiliency is the ability to move things in multiple locations while at the same time being able to support them. you do not put one airplane at 72 different locations so you have three squadrons of airplanes, but you don't put 180 in one place either. it is the resiliency piece, there is a passive defense

which is the ability to move out. it is fuel storage and then also your ability to move stuff and support that. > "washington journal" and then the highway trust fund. plus your phone calls based on comments and tweets. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. a couple of live events on ompanion network c-span 3.

live coverage of the senate armed services committee is at 9:30 a.m. eastern. at 3:00 p.m. the senate foreign relations committee will hear from representatives of the treasury and defense departments about intervention in ukraine. >> c-span's newest book. >> when she arrived in berlin with the family, she was in love with what she referred to as the nazi revolution. she was enthralled, which really struck me as a completely surprising thing. given what we know in hindsight. >> one of 41 unique voices from 25 years from our booknotes and conversations.

8:00. at >> the sexual assault in 2015. we'll hear from major general jeffery snow who heads the prevention and response office. . we'll hear from jeffrey snow who heads the pentagon's sexual assault, prevention and response office. >> all right. good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the response systems to adult sexual assault crimes panel or as we call it response systems panel for short. this is the sixth meeting of the response systems panel and it will run today and tomorrow. before we start, i want to thank you interim dean greg maggs and

the george washington law school for let us use their facility. congress established the response systems panel in the national defense authorization ak for fiscal year 2013. this panel is tasked to conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses under the uniform code of military justice. for the purpose of developing recommendations regarding how to improve the effectiveness of such systems. congress initially tasked this panel to examine nine broad areas and then added six additional areas in this year's national defense authorization

act. as well as shortening the time for the panel to complete its assessment from 18 to 12 months. the response system panel held its first meeting last june. the scope of congress's tasks to the response systems panel is vast. in order to accomplish everything assigned to us in time, last september the secretary of defense established subcommittees in three areas. the role of the commander, victim services, and comparative systems. there are four response systems panel members on each of three subcommittees, plus other subject matter experts. i serve as the chair of the role of the commander subcommittee. ms. fernandez chairs the subcommittee and elizabeth hillman chairs a subcommittee.

each had its own scope and matters to review in order to develop conclusions and recommendations and report them to the response panel. since their appointment in september, they have work incredibly hard in their subject matter areas. in addition to being able to attend response systems panel meetings, hear the many witnesses who appeared before us, and review all other interesting information the panel that's received, including public comments to the panel, the subcommittees held numerous meetings and heard from hundreds of witnesses and received and then reviewed thousands of documents. some subcommittee members also traveled to ten different locations for site visits where they interviewed both military and civilian personnel involved in the investigation, prosecution, and defense and adjudication of sexual assault, and those involved in caring for

and supporting victims. military personnel, both uniformed and civilian who spoke to the subcommittee during these site visits, did so in a nonat trib bugs environment to encourage them to candidly express their views to the members. to give an idea the witnesses heard from included military and civilian investigators, military and civilian prosecutors and defense attorneys, current and former commanders, military and civilian medical professionals, including the centers for disease control and prevention, statisticians, including the former director and current acting director of the bureau of justice statistics, social scientists, academics, military and civilian forensic examiners, military and civilian victim counsel, military and civilian

victim advocates and other victim support personnel. sexual assault survivors, victim advocate organizations and many, many others. all of the subcommittee meetings were transcribed verbatim and posted on the response systems panel website along with other materials the subcommittees received and considered. the subcommittees have also engage in numerous deliberation sessions in order to formulate and finalize their reports and finding and recommendations to present to the response systems panel. those are also transcribed verbatim and posted to the website and their reports will also be posted to the website after the meeting concludes tomorrow. today and tomorrow, the three subject committees will present their findings and recommendation to the panel for our consideration and deliberation. as you may recall, the role of the commander subcommittee has

already issued two interim reports. one in november and one in january. both the victim services and role of the command are subcommittees have completed their reports and findings and recommendations. the comparative systems committee will provide the panel this morning with its interim assessment and will finalize its report over the next couple of weeks. additional deliberations will be held on may 16th. each subcommittee operates independently so as not in the formulation of its reports and findings and recommendations reviewed or compared each other's reports, and the response systems panel has not discussed these reports before today. the panel will determine whether and how to use the

subcommittee's findings and recommendations to formulate our final report to the secretary of defense and the committees on armed services of the senate and house of representatives which is due at the end of june. at this time as i just mentioned the panel will meet again on may 16th in washington, d.c. for more deliberations, and we expect to hold a final meeting on may 29th and 30th in new york city. before the subcommittee presentations begin, however, i requested that the panel hear from major general jeffrey snow, the director of dod's sexual assault prevention and response office so that he could present the latest data and information to us so we have all of it for the response systems panel's final report. thank you very much for joining us today general snow, and without further delay, hello,

welcome, and would you proceed. >> yes, ma'am. thank you very much. well, judge jones and members of the response systems panel, good morning. it is my honor to prepare before you today and have a final opportunity to share with you the department's efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault crime in our nation's armed forces. as you know, i've witnessed firsthand from your extensive word on this issue over the past year, our mission is to reduce with the goal of eliminating sexual assault for the military. it's an ambitious goal and it will be tough to realize given the realities of this crime, but as you have learned from your research and data gathering in each of the subpanels and on this panel we are intensively pursuing that objective. i was selected as the director in january of this year. in a short period of time i've learn a lot about this crime and our program. let me share with you a few of my experiences in my first

few -- four months. my first week in the position, i focused open the prevention and response efforts in our military service academies. i learned that can you recall culture and climate are intimately connected to our experiences of our mid shipmen and cadets. i worked on developing the methodology and the content of our progress report to the president that is due in december of this year. we have now put in place the metrics, measurements and processes that will demonstrate our progress as well as many prevention initiatives and a response system that is fundamentally and dramatically improved over the department of defense system we had in place as recently as 2011. i have visited our first responders who are the front lines of our prevention response

efforts, visiting sarks, victim advocates, and sean sexual assault nurse examiners. i visited with our special victims nurses and prosecutors. it is now showing improvement in our ability to hold offenders accountable. i have visited with attorneys. a resource the department of defense provides to victims of sexual assault crimes. a capability from what i have learned is unmatched from anywhere in our country. i've seen these professional firsthand in the field and witnessed the dedicated efforts of our marines who have achieved an unprecedented 80% increase in reporting of sexual assaults in last the year. my team and i participated as

envelope -- informal advisers to the president. i attended the ceremony last week with the vice president, and others, and they talk about the recommendations they are making to improve response on college campuses across the country. many of their recommendations came from our reports. these past four months i've had the honor of directly supporting the planning, execution, of secretary hagel's weekly meeting focusing on holding leaders and our system accountable. more importantly, he continues to provide positive change with his direct involvement and personal commitment and acting when he has authority to do so. we've seen this commitment manifested in his efforts to

improve safety for our newest service members, enhance our military justice system, expand rights for victims and providing support for the response system. the systems we are putting in place have beginning to show up in many areas. we did so by you publishing an up dated report bringing to 28 the total number of initiatives directed in the past year alone. my introduction to this difficult issue and wildly misunderstood topic brought me to the national organization for victim assistance who is

operating a certification program. the president shared with me that the civilian advocate community is now working to achieve the standards of excellence that we've established in our program. it also brought me to the rape, abuse and incest national networks where dozens of especially trained advocates operate our department of defense rape crisis hot line. many of you know comments of victims are captured in post-it notes and clipped to the bul at this bulletin board in the call center. it reminds them how important their work is. finally and most important in my first four months of the job, i've continue a longstanding commitment to personally meet with victims of sexual assault. my first victim summit was moving and deeply affected my perspective of this problem and more than any other experience in my first four months, galvanized my personal

commitment to eliminate this crime from our armed services. i've worked as diligently i can to accomplish this important work as i have with every other mission in think career. i know my organization has respond to many of your requests for information. my intent is to provide you the information that compliments or updated the information we've provided to date. let me begin by sharing with you a broader perspective. one is shaped by our leadership and other society al issues such as leading our nation's right on integration and our prohibition of gays openly serving in the military. based on extensive collaboration with the wide range of internal-external stakeholders, the department has developed several bedrock principles that we believe will allow us to

serve as a national leader and are reflected on this slide. as i mention in my opening comments, i had the privilege of being in the white house last week for the release of first report of the white house task force to protect students from sexual assault and was encouraged by the fact that a number of their recommendations are consistent with the tenets of our program. although we were not a formal member of the task force, on the day the president signed the presidential memorandum establishing the task force, secretary hagel was asked to share his thoughts with the president and his fellow cabinet members in a meeting in the oval office. these principles form the foundation of his remarks and are the foundation of our program and that in meeting he committed our office to serve as advisers to the task force and we did so in virtually every one of meetings and listening sessions hosted by the white house team. we're proud to report that these principles were bench marked and several were included in the first task force report. we commend this initial report to the committee and recommend

you consider commenting on how the elements of our program are being touted as national best practices by the white house. this is the agenda i plan to use this morning. i suspect many of you that last thursday we released the annual report on sexual assaults involving military members as required by congress. this year, we organized our report according to the five lines of effort the secretary approved last year. i also want to provide you a program update and a previous overview of our implementation and provides of law found in the recent national defense authorization act and then i'll close by discussing our recently released prevention strategy and our plans to complete the progress report to the president. next slide, please. in our annual report released last week, we have detailed the

policy and program enhancements made in fiscal year 13 to prevent and respond to this crime which i will cover a bit later in my briefing. our top line results are measured in choices of victims. victims who have made the courageous choice to report are doing so in unprecedented numbers. sexual assault is an under reported crime. each report allows us to provide care to a victim and an opportunity to hold the offender appropriately accountable. this year's 50% increase indicates to us that victims have greater confidence in the response system. what we see indications that our effects over the last year and a half are having an impact, it does not mean we're satisfied with our progress. we'll continue to encourage greater reporting. i would also like to note to this panel that the department takes action in every case where

it has jurisdiction and sufficient evidence to do so. this year, commanders had sufficient evidence to take disciplinary action against 73% of alleged offenders. this is up from 66% the previous year. next slide, please. this chart shows the historic trends of our sexual assault reporting in the department. it's important to note that each report consistent of at least one military subject or one military victim. the crimes involved the range of sexual assault offenses in the uniformed code of military justice from abusive sexual contact to rape. as you could see from this chart, reports of sexual assault are increased on average about 5% per year since 2006. this year's over all increase in reporting was an unprecedented 50%. this group knows there are two ways to report a sexual assault.

an unrestricted report which is referred by to investigation by criminal investigator or a restricted report which remains confidential. in prior years, 75% of our reports are unrestricted reported and 25% are restricted reports. this is somewhat stable in 2006. in 2013 just over half of the allegations, the remainder of the allegations involve nonpenetrating offenses which are sexual contact crimes such as groping. the proportion of these crimes and i really highlighted in the circle on the right have stayed somewhat constant over time. in order the top three crimes reported to the department in fy were abusive sexual contact,

sexual assault and rape. our assessment is supported by an additional metric. it shows an increased incidence of reporting prior to joining the military. 10% of the reports made this year were for incidents of sexual assault that occurred prior to military service. this figure has never exceeded 4% in the past. next slide. for incidents that occurred in military service, there were 3,235 female victims and 878 male victims. of the women who indicate -- experience an incident of unwanted sexual contact about 28% are accounted for in reports to dod. up to 18% from fiscal year '12 and it's important that the panel understand there was no survey associated with this report. so what we did is we mapped it

against a 2012 findings. of the men who indicate experience an incident of unwanted sexual contact about 5% are accounted for in reports to the dod up from 3% in fiscal year 12. this points to a challenge associated of increasing the confidence of men in our response system and reducing the stigma associated in reporting this crime for our male victims. next slide, please. there were 3,234 military subjects with reported dispositions in fy 13. of the 3,234 subjects with case dispositions reported, the department of defense had legal authority over 2,149 of those cases. it was about 66%. of the 2,149 cases where the department had jurisdiction, department of defense authorities had sufficient evidence to take some kind of

action against 1,569 subjects. that was 73%. the other quarter of military subjects could not be disciplined because the evidence did not support action or because dod authorities determined the allegations were unfounded. next slide, please. the percentage of alleged sexual assault offenders receiving some kind of disciplinary action has been growing each year. we reflect -- we believe this reflects our vex in the training of investigators and prosecutors. this chart answers the question when military commanders have legal authority over the offender and sufficient evidence of the sexual assault, what form of disciplinary action do they take against the offender. as you can see, this year's commanders had sufficient evidence to prefer court martial charge on 71% of the accused service members. that has not always been the case. the system in military justice

that we have in place today is significantly different from the one that existed as recently as two years ago. this data also demonstrates that more and more victims are getting an opportunity to be heard in the military justice system. as i mentioned, we've taken our assistance to victims to a new level with the special victims council program. it helps victims participate in the military justice system for as long as they desire. bottom line, commanders are taking allegations of sexual assault very seriously and holding offenders appropriately accountable. next slide, please. in summary, we're encourage by the increasing reports being made by victims of this crime. given historical data we believe the increase in reporting reflects senior leader focus and improved victim confidence, not ain't crease in crime. we continue to work to be a national leader on sexual

assault prevention and response. we understand and acknowledge the problem. we provide professional advocacy to victims and empower them to report. we provide an avenue for confidential reporting. we conduct independent investigations, and as reflected in these year's report, we measure our effectiveness and report progress publicly and transparently and we will continue to do so. next slide, please. we have defined strategic sapr objectives around five lines of effort reflected on this slide. prevention, investigation, accountable, advocacy and victim assistance, assessment. this provides guidance to all department of defense stakeholders and does two things, number one, it task the department and the services to develop objective criteria for measuring progress and it tasks my organization to manage and

update the plan using existing oversight mechanism. next slide, please. this slide highlights our policy and program enhancements. i will tell you that things began to dramatically change when senior leaders focused on this problem. secretary hagel has sustained the progress and persisting in directing 28 initiatives to enhance commander accountability, ensure an appropriate command kpliemt. improve victim support and enhance safety. all 28 initiatives have been implemented or are in progress today, representing reforms to our organization. in our report, we've detailed the policy and program enhancements made in fiscal year 13 to prevent and respond to this crime. in the interest at time, i like to highlight just three for you.

we did create the special victims counsel program. this offers legal consultation and representation of victims of sexual assault throughout the military justice process. more than 185 attorneys are now directly supporting victims across the armed offices. -- sphorses forces. other reform. we put in place establishing command climates of dignity and respect. this is done through a system of unit surveys and performance evaluations. the last example i like to highlight for you is we filled out a special victim capability in each of these services. this is a program to improve response to allegations of sexual assault, child abuse, and domestic violence. this capability improves our ability to identify evidence, support victims, and hold

offenders appropriately accountable. furthermore, we've expanded the academy dre to over 23,000 professionals. next slide, please. our initiatives and policies are making an impact and we're encourage to see these reform enshrined in law by congress. we're focused on implementing more than 60 provisions of law, including in the past three ndaas. we have fully implemented the fy 12 national defense authorization act, we're tracking 18 substantive provisions in six congressional reports in the fy 13 national defense authorization act and the vast majority of these are complete. the fy 14 national defense authorization act included 33 provisions of law and the most sweeping reform to the uniformed code of military justice since 1968. we're decisively engaged in

implementing these wide ranging reforms. as secretary hagel said recently, the best way to combat sexual assault is to prevent it. which is why he directed the %iñiupdated sexual assault prevention strategy designed to institutionalize the comprehensive prevention approach across the department. using this strategy, we will intensify our efforts to prevent the crime. this strategy was developed clab actively with the military services and experts such as the centers of disease control and prevention, the fbi and college and universities with innovative programs and research. in order for prevention to work as reflected on this slide, steps must be taken at every level from individuals to leadership who make policy. at the core of this effort, we did place commanders. they set the tone in the units

and will be the means by which we foster climates of dignity and respect. next slide, please. our goal is to develop military leaders and commanders at every level who are informed by the latest evidence-based prevention practices and empowered to establish appropriate climates while holding members appropriately accountable. the centerpiece of our approach to preventing sexual assault is by incorporating core values and enhancing standards of behavior while shaping the environment in which our members live and work are. prevention is much, much more than just an hour of training and awareness campaign or an inspiring poster. it requires an ongoing sustained conversation between leaders and service members to promote a dignity -- a culture of dignity, respect, and trust, professional values, and team commitment. this chart depicts the department of defense social

echo logical model. it emphasizes leaders at all level, bowing formal and informal. it recognizes that everyone from the commander in chief to the secretary of defense, to the newly enlisted service member can influence each spar-sphere/level. we're developing a progress report to be delivered in december of this year. this report will capture the department of defense's effort since 2011. it will provide an assessment of

victim satisfaction and confidence in the system through our newly developed survivor experience survey. it will continue to help us understand the experience of victims at multiple points in the system, measuring those who are in the initial stages in the process and those who have just completed disposition of their cases in the military justice system. for the first time ever, we're also now have a means of gaining direct and confidential feedback from victims who have selected a restricted reporting option without compromising their privacy or privileged communication with their sarcs and victim advocates. our report will also include a review of the military justice system, now being led by the department of defense general counsel and employing the joint service committee on military justice. my next four charts show a few more details of the way ahead, the surveys, the focus groups,

and the justice reviews reporting the progress to the president. this slide reflects what we believe will be the report content. this is pretty straightforward. first part will just be the scope and it will highlight selected initiatives from 2011 to september 2014 and then the second part of this slide just highlights what we believe to be the projected format of that report. next slide, please. this slide highlights the two surveys that i mentioned in my reports. the first one is a workplace and gender relations survey. i suspect some of you have read recently some comments on this but i can confirm the department has made the decision to scernls this situation and rand is going lead that effort, and then of course i mentioned the survivor experience survey. next slide. as part of this, we will also have focus groups.

you can see those will be conducted between may and july -- may and august of this coming year. the reports will be due middle of october and you can see the populations are reflected on the side. our intent is to get -- look at department of defense wide analysis of common themes so these will not be broken down by service. and then next slide, please. and this is -- i got the military justice system, and i believe everyone on this panel is tracking this particular review. it's been mandated by the secretary of defense. next slide, please. this reflects the report timeline. i would just tell you that we are adhering to a rigorous schedule to develop and deliver the potus report by the first of december 2014. as i said this report will include analysis of the p survey

due from rand on the 15th of october of 2014. in addition, we are executing tasks associated with dlaferg our greshl mandated report on sexual assault just released on the first of may. next slide, please. this slide outlines the way -- our way ahead, which i've attempted to cover throughout this briefing. in summary, we'll continue to pursue our efforts to serve as a national leader on sexual assault prevention and response. as reflected in this year's report to congress, we report it publicly and trans apparently and i assure you we continue to do so. let me close by sharing with you a few thoughts that i communicated to a national audience in our press conference last thursday. first, we know that there are

thousands upon thousands of women and men in armed forces who are working hard to create an environment that is based on our values, that hold our troops to high standards, and reject sexist behaviors, harassment and crude or offensive behavior. they are the standard bearers and their efforts are making a difference. but we can and we must do more. wheels always remember that behind these numbers there are real soldiers, marines, and airmen have been victims of this crime. we're working on preventing the assaults. if they do, we want every victim to get the support they need in the manner of their choosing. we've committed to providing them the privacy they desire, the sensitivity they deserve and the seriousness that this crime demands. finally, i sought to make it very clear last week to the offenders committing this crime that we don't care who they are or what rank that they hold.

if they don't understand our core values and they are not prepared to live by and enforce those values every day, then we won't want them in the military. that's the position of the senior leadership of the department and it's a message we're communicating across the force. thank you again for the opportunity to talk with you this morning. i'm humbled by the scope of this challenge but inspired by the courage of the victims and motivated by the many thousands of first responders who are making the difference in the lives of so many. judge jones and members of the panel, thank you for your work and commitment to helping us solve this problem. your work will vs an profound impact on the lives of many now and in the future, and with that, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, general snow. i'm sure that will be going through your most recently report. i note there are already overlapping comments, initiatives, possibly recommendations, so we thank you

very much. >> thank you, ma'am. >> are there any questions for general snow this morning? >> good morning. thank you for being here. i have two questions. i did a quick calculation when you nonmetrics and i'm not prepared to go in the detail of those and i suspect we'll do so sometime in the mid-may to latter part of may time frame but in this

particular case we are looking at that. i mean, essentially it has taken a while to institutional what was started by law, that started out in the air force. on this particular case, we can look at that workload and if need be, we can, as you said develop and train more -- more folks for this particular capability and it is something that the senior leaders are sensitive to. >> my second question is i like the fact that you are working with the cdc in developing your command climate structure. when the victim services committee interviewed or -- several victims and a lot of the retaliation came from their peers, and so we see a lot of the work that's going on at a top level, but a lot of work needs to be done on the bottom

level, making sure that an individual doesn't get retaliated by by their roommate, the person that lives across the street from them. what is being done to track how that is working on a very low level and to evaluate whether the tactics that are being put forward are successful? >> yes, ma'am. there's a number of things. i would highlight a couple for you. there is a command climate sur fay that we have added questions specifically to address both sexual harassment and sexual assault, and there's a series of questions out of that and i can get you a copy of instrument, but we call it d didn't ocs 4.0. what is different we've done these before and now they are mandated not only are they mandated they used to be for commanders in the first 90 days and they go back to the

commander for them to assess it. now they are required to go to that next level high level of command, i believe this is causing a conversation between commanders specifically about command climate, we know if there's a climate where some of these behaviors are allowed, then that in fact can lead to and, contribute to sexual assault. so i think there's a lot more sensitivity on leaders about the climate and a dialog that i've not seen any time in my recent history. again, i think the second part of that again is we recognize and i think you bring up a very good point. i mean ultimately what we're trying to do is we're trying to change culture and it's going to take a little bit of time. it's not going to be solved by some officer talking about policy. it's going to be solved by this word getting all the way down to the lowest levels in our organizations so that individuals at the e 2, e-3.

i like saying the army, the team leader or the squad leader, at that lower levels where we give them the tools so that they can take some type of action, either they can step up and say something or stop something or they can speak to somebody in the chain of command so that we can begin to address culture on this particular issue. it's going to take time to do so. >> thank you. i have several questions, major, and i want to thank you or maybe i call you general, i'm sorry. thank you very much. oh, mike, sorry. thanks. thank you very much for coming here and thank you for the very important efforts that your office that be making. i would like you to respond to some criticism that i read of the report that was issued on thursday which suggested that the numbers, that's all well and

good, that the numbers are increasing, but that the numbers of trials is small in comparison to the total number of reports, so there's kind of a drop-off, and i just wondered if you could explain that. take us through the number of reports and the disposition so that the public is not -- so the public understands what's happening to these cases. >> sure. you know, ma'am, i should mention to the panel though i am fortunate, i've got dthe primar author of the report standing behind me. i would answer it this way. i recognize that there is that perception, but i would argue that if you were to go and read the report, ma'am, we go in there and we detail from what that number starts with to what it ends with in the disposition and in between. each of these crimes is unique.

okay. if there's a report of sexual assault, it is mandated it's got to be investigated. so occasionally you'll read reports that command recognize are doing this investigation, the mun i read a report like that, i know it's not right because commanders do not report reports of sexual assault. they have got to be turn over to military criminal investigative organization. some of those just aren't -- are unsubstantiated. the servicesçó do it a little b differently. okay. but the fact of the matter is some number comes out. in some cases, some of the subjects are outside of the purview of our control, so they are outside of the department of defense. in some cases, they are foreign nationals. in some cases, these happen in areas where the civilians opt to hold on to that. so we have a chart in the report, and i don't have it in front of me, but i would just tell you that it breaks down and it walks through the numbers and

ultimately it gets to the denominator where we have jurisdiction over and then we further break that down by what happens to that, and i tried to hit it, but i know i end up throwing a lot of percentages and numbers at you, but i can -- i can get that to you. we call it -- i refer to it as a water fall chart and it will walk that top number to down and tell you exactly what happened. quite frankly, it's in eye watering detail. >> if i may make a suggestion to you, sir, make that report real simple, that chart, so the american people can understand it. i think it's really important for people to have a sense of what's happening and that there are no holes here, that -- from the numbers reported, to the disposition, we can account for what's happening. because otherwise there will be serious questions. you know, there's huge public skepticism and cynicism. if that's at all possible, if an

eye watering report, i will juts make a recommendation that you somehow make it a lot easier -- user friendly. >> okay. two things, i would encourage. i think if you were to read the executive summary, i actually think it would give you that. >> i did read it but i'm giving you the opportunity to explain to the american people which is not the same as me. >> okay. thank you. >> the second thing, it's a little bit outside of your immediate purview but i want to make an argument here that's a little bit of outds the box thing that has to go on. you talk about changing culture attitudes. there's still attitudes in this society that demean women and even within the military. we do not have full equality for women in the military. i don't each see a woman's face in the joint chiefs. i think if we address the issue of culture change, the military has to look at itself in terms of how it's going to treat

women. the third issue i would raise with you, and this is really tough, what do you do about the bombard many of attitudes through the media that condone violence in sexual relations? i just read an article about a tv program produced by hbo which shows -- i see your assistant nodding his head -- which shows real brutality against women. the producer of that show said you know, during the rape, the rape itself is brutal, but also brutality within that, the producer said well, you know, in the end, she wound up enjoying it. i remember a judge many years ago who refused to sentence a rapist, saying, well, you know, in the end, she enjoyed it. i think that judge was removed

from the bench and i'm just wondering why this guy is still there, but at hbo, but those attitudes come from the outside, and bombard people who are young and make them think that violence against women is okay. what do you do about that? i mean, that's not in your report, and i know your report is dealing with just some very concrete and important issues and i don't mean to minimize that but there's this big universe out there that is undermining the important work that you are doing. >> well, first of all, i cannot agree more with you that what we're dealing with a society al issue and one of things for the challenges for the department of defense is that the individuals that actually sign up to come into the military, in many cases, i would like to think that they are all coming from wonderful families, with a mother and father that have high standards, that have incull

indicated them with a set of values that are consistent with the department of defense. i got to tell you that's not the case. i think it would be wonderful. so we're dealing with a societal issue. many of the things that are on television, in movies and stuff like that, actually pose a challenge for us because we've got to be an individual and we've got to inculcate them into your values, in which in many cases we're causing them to think differently than how they were brought up, and that is a challenge for us. we do that and we attempt to do it in -- early, early on. statement -- gamt we've got to get them the tools, so whether they are subjected whether it's harassment or assault and i give it the way you approach those two problems are fundamentally different i would argue. the case of sexual harassment is

the lowest level. sexual assault, clearly there's a crime and we also kaemt to do that, but it is it is a challen. i love it if in fact we can decrease the violence on tv. i'm concerned about that myself given i have two daughters and a son that get subjected to it. you can try to control it, but it is out there. i just think it's one of the reasons why makes our job harder. if i can make one other comment. a number of my team participated with the white house the task force in the report. what was interesting to me is the amount of learning on the particular issue. i think they recognize some of the aspects of it. and i would like to think it's going to cause the department to see it in a different light. we are not saying we have the answer to this. we're not. we're not resting on our laurels.

it's a multipronged approach. it's going to take all, it's going to take your efforts, the partnership with congress, it's going to take our efforts. i don't see anybody saying we have the answer. one thing i have learned many my whopping four months here. there's not one thing we can do. but one of the things question do is bring pressure so there wasn't the degree of violence we see on tv. i have to be a real i. you're right. i don't control that. and the department of defense don't control it. but i like your comments. thank you. >> any further questions? >> i'm glad to hear from you. t great to hear you crystallize your sense of the responses we need to apart from the numbers. the report is almost 800 pages and is really has a lot of extraordinary insight to where

we are in term of the number. i worry when we look at the numbers, it's not only a little numbing to track all of that in great detail but then when you describe what the problem is. it seems to turn to the input which is the trouble with the individuals who are joining the service rather than how we're managing our responses. and i wondered if you see in the numbers a sense that there are worse problems with sexual violence u because degradation of culture. do you see sexual violence increasing because of broader attitudes? >> i don't -- and i'm -- if i can. i'll ask him to follow up. i feel fortunate to have the primary author. so your question is one often asked. the question is, well, listen, general, you have increasing reports. you know it's a vastly underreported crime. how do you know t not crime. and the way i answer it is we --

congress has mandated we do the survey. we have done it over time. there's been a remarkable consistency with that data. and i know let me just say this. the remarkable consistency in term of the prevalence has fallen between 4 to 7% and between then 1 to 2% for men. if you go back even at the height when the pref less than was estimated at 34,000 reports of unwanted sexual contact. the number of reports that familiar -- particular year was over 2,000. that's one of the reasons i don't believe -- even though there's not a survey an increase in crime associated with the care year. do you want to contribute? >> absolutely. that's something that we're certainly looking at, and we touch the -- look at all the

civilian research going on now. we are constantly comparing ourselves to where are we and how are we doing that? the center for disease control prevention helped us with a survey in 2010 where we found that there was no greater risk for sexual assault in the department of defense than there is in the civilian community. dr. kill patrick's work on sexual assault all point to the fact we are right with those groups whether you look at college or university groups that were on par. so certainly something that we're looking at is, you know, as we go forward are how do cultural shifts in society impact us as we come in? one of the first things that the department is doing is when people come in within the first two weeks of basic training, they get an explanation of the program of sexual assault prevention response in the dodd. but the next -- the real work, e

though, begins when they're in the advanced school where they're learning the military operational specialty or air force specialty cotraining. we begin to have more conversational training with them to begin to shape and mold those attitudes that are there. >> so i guess i just followup by saying that what we've heard from behavioral scientists, like you, talking about how overall the rate of rate of sexual assault and sexual violence are declining sort of worldwide and within the united states. because of cultural changes that are not tied to sexual violence in popular media but instead tied to the increased status of women and different attitudes toward sexual behavior and a greater understanding in other words what we think is a or hope is rising tide of understanding and dignity of individuals and

the reduction in the incidents of the crime. we are dealing with a problem that we can't entirely see. we're not dealing with one that is increasing because of cultural -- at least from the data we have seen -- because of cultural changes. >> and i hope that is absolutely true, i mean, i've heard the same thing. i like to think that the next survey we see a decrease. >> when you mention it's been consistent. the 2006, the 2012, 2013 or the 2010 and -- >> 2003. right. three. 19,0 19,000: 26,000. to see consistency in the time. thank you. >> thank you for being here this morning. and the report that came out this week showing that the increase reporting is a sign the victims trust if they come forward and say something

they're going to set the it services and support and help exactly what it is showing. i want to make sure that as we're changing the cultural to make a safe environment for service-members to be in and report allegations when they do occur, in the command climate survey do they include the service-member's perception of fairness. once an allegation is made they feel like they trust the system enough that it'll be fairly investigated on both sides. as we become more aware of -- not become more aware but recognize and better address the problems of sexual assault, the expense of an accused constitutional rights on the other side. we want to make sure it remains balance. that's a hard balance to draw when the perception is it's been so heavy in favor of an accused in the defense community within the military. if that's true in fact. we want to make sure is there still questions in there that talk about the fairness. does a service-member in any yurnt or in the commander's unit

have the perception they will be treated fairly as part of the process. >> there are questions there. and, you know, if it would be helpful to the panel, we can provide a copy of the survey. there is specifically questions that have been developed now in place to address different aspects. number one, i think the other thing you're talking to. i think there are survivor experience survey that we're developing will actually -- i'm pretty proud of. it's department of defense in conjunction with the services on the particular issue. in recognition we have to do a better job making sure we understand that what we have put in place to address some aspect are actual doing with a we expect them to do. and i just answer one. i think when we show link to the president's report, the degree of collaboration with the white

house. one thing that came out loud and clear. despite the efforts there's a bit of confusion about the system. i would argue it goes back to the comment when you talk about -- we can say the right things but so you to drive it down and it takes time. on the flip side of that, on our system there is, i think inside and outside, and so we have to continue our efforts to educate folks. i think we have done a very good job in the case of commanders and senior leaders. we have to continue to assess it. the metrics we identified, i think, will give us the ability to look at prevention, will look at investigation, will look at the response. i would just share this with the panel. when we did that, what struck me on the part of the joint chief. they wanted to make sure the metrics we came up with. we call them metrics and nonmetrics. okay. the metrics we came up accurately assess our performance. it's not a case of trying to

cast the department in a positive light. it's about how do best address the problem. and the metrics are the metrics because, you know, if we identify we have an issue. then we'll take the appropriate action. but you have to have some ability to assess that. i think we're doing that. >> on the command climate you are assessing it within the unit. going back to the comments, it's been taken we have had testimony and some express the concern about whether their daughter should join the military. we've had one witness who said, you know, his concern right now might be his son joining the military. it's not just within the unit of getting that sense of understanding and trust on the process on all sides. it's the community at large that need to understand that and understand the steps that have been taken. it has to be simplified and communicated as womell. >> i like your depend. it's not just a woman's issue. although, you know, the reports are clearly men and women. it's a leadership issue for the department.

i have been asked this question. i don't mind sharing it with the panel. i have two daughters. okay, one that is already graduated from college and will head off to law school in the fall at michigan university. i have another -- my youngest is a junior in high school. although i do not call her a niece. i have a close family friend i kind of call her a niece, probably my closest friend in the military whose daughter is a freshman at west point. i tell you right now, if my son or daughter wanted to choose the military, i would feel very good about them making that choice to join the military. given the amount of effort that is going into it. now let me bookend that, though. i'll tell you right now i had the opportunity to spend time with six victims. five women and five one man that accounted. these are -- these are victims

within the last 24 months. i'll tell you, it breaks my hearts. each of them joined the military to be about something about more than themselves. an incident that happened that is has violated that trust. and that saddens me. they have made this decision, you know, to join -- to be part of, which i'm probably biassed here. i think we are the greatest military in the world. and the fact that, you know, in some cases it's causing them to view the military in a different light. not all of them will stay in the military because some cases the violation of trust is so egregious they can't. but the courage they demonstrated in term of coming forward. i would argue even in the case of the legal counsel, in some cases, it just so happened that some of them were able to account experiences in the impact that had on them through

the process. they give me hope that the type of things that we're doing are going to have an impact. and ultimately, drive it down in the department. >> thank you. >> thank you. anything further? >> thank you very much. >> thank you. more from the pentagon's report in sexual assault in the military. this is 90 minutes. take seat, please. we're ready to get started. all right general, we see that you have some further information that responds to a question from one of the panel members. perhaps you could go ahead and do that for us.

>> thank you, madam. and i actually appreciate the opportuni opportunity. we have the break down, we do. it's reflected on the slide. if you recall, in my comments, i mentioned the bumper is on this. which is the department takes action in every case where it has jurisdiction and sufficient evidence do so. i quoted the 73%. the reason i can do that is i can start at the top of this and walk you through. so when we say fiscal year. it's exactly that. fiscal year. when you look at that. the number you see the 3858. the number that comes out of that. that's why we call it the water fall. 624 of those. each of these have got to be investigated impartially. in some cases the investigation is not complete during the fiscal year. in this case 624 of these -- the investigation is still pending. that will be detailed in our next report. that gives you the 3234.

i mentioned some of these allegations are unfounded based on the investigation. it's a 437. that gives you the 2797. in some cases, you can see that the subject accused is either civilian, unknown. in some cases, unfortunately, the alleged perpetrator even after a thorough investigation don't know. that happened in 503 cases. it2bpings you down to 2294. i made the comment some remain under civilian jurisdiction. in this case it's 15. what we do is break that down. so if you need to look at the correspondenting number. the 2149 where command action was considered. you see the break down. 838 court marble charges were

incured. 139 were adverse action or danger -- discharge. 382, they were some type of action was taken. it ended up not being on a sexual assault acrime. then you have a number there the 580 where command action is not possible. you see it's broken down into insufficient evidence. 189 where the victims declined. and i have to say, and again, maybe a much more experiences. i'm hopeful or optimistic that the legal counsel now will begin to drive that number down. they're getting the advice that they need. so fewer of them will decline to participate. but unfortunately, that happens. okay. and then nine of those, you can see statute of limitati exceede. that's the best i can do in one slide. hopefully it's helpful. >> i think it's been very

helpful. miss fernandez? >> just one more quick question. it was brought up to me during the intermission was in your records you're showing a lot of reports are assaults that happen prior to enlistment in the military. you're dealing with people that come in and the problems they have when they come in. one of the things we have seen on the victim services committee. one of the key indications to getting assaulted in the military is a prior assault prior to getting into the military. i wanted to know, are you looking at those numbers and trying to create programs that can address those individuals? >> to answer you. i'm going do the first part and tell you that, i mean, when i made the 10%. that happened prior. those are not reflected.

but they fall outside. they fall on to the category of civilian jurisdiction because it happened to them prior to coming in. that's the 10%. the second respond, do you want to respond? >> a number of the services are putting together programs to address the folks with the history of sexual violence. clearly everyone can go in to mental health counselling provided by the department of defense or each of the military services and address those issues. one of the challenges is that when folks come in, they want a new life. they want something different. a lot of times the military is that bridge. and so trying to -- we have to be able to offer those services in such a way that allow them to, number one, deal with their past and history. but at the same time is remain somewhat anonymous and stay out of the system. because no one wants to jump up

and say, me, me, me, i was a victim earlier in life. it's part of that sensitivity that we want to be sure that we're paying attention to. so i know the number of them are looking at how can we deploy those kinds of services and balance those two interest. they are working on it. >> thank you. >> anything else? >> general, thank you, once again. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> we're going to now go to the report out of the comparative systems subcommittee. and, beth, while you're setting up, let me just explain as i did in my opening remarks. this is an interim assessment that is being presented by the subcommittee to the rsp to the full panel. this assessment will be deliberated and finalized by the

full panel begin to discuss and deliberate the findings of each of our subcommittees. is there anything you wanted to add to that? does that cover it? >> okay. i'm sorry. does everyone have a copy of this in the audience? all ñiright. great. professor? thank you. i would like to start out by thanking the chair -- [ inaudible [ inaudible ] to make this possible. i'm going to throw a lot of information to you.

[ inaudible ] to try to -- [ inaudible ] i also am here today to the subcommittee which performed the subject matter experts to matter of the panel -- [ inaudible ] the difference between military and civilian systems. i'm not talking about one thing. we talk about military response systems. the type of insulations that the military members serve at. and the response systems for. but also because of the many civic duties, which like wise -- [ inaudible ] more urban areas to rural areas. and em compass many different approaches. so the subcommittee is four members of the panel.

that's judge jones -- [ inaudible ] and me. and the six subject matter experts. one could not be here today. brought expertise in prosecutions, civilian investigations prosecution -- [ inaudible ] responding to sexual assault. so we have a lot to tell you. in order to make this understandable, we're going kind of focus on bricking the issue in a way we'll make it make some sense. you should note to start we have -- >> professor. could we stop for a minute. i want to make sure everyone -- do you have a mic up there? >> they said there was an integrated mic in the room. as long as everyone can hear you. and also, i don't know whether your charts are going to be or you are going to be picked up by

c-span. are you good? okay. thank you. so there are nearly -- [ inaudible ] that will make six different subject areas from survey and data collection which you've heard about from the office which is a critical foundation for the understanding of the part of the problem and the solutions all the way through sentencing the full spectrum of response systems to sexual assault. today we'll present those findings. we'll seek to frame the issues. and we'll try to give the panel a sense of how and why military responses differ from civilian responses. and where we think improvement is possible. so before i start, i want to encourage questions from the panel as question walk through. i want to every size this is an interim report.ñijf unlike our sister subcommittees, close. these do represent a close to final version of the recommendations that will submit to the panel.

we haven't quite finalized those. as we have seen in plenty of our deliberations and in the presentations of witnesses the devil is indeed in the details sometimes. we have to hammer out some of the terminology and some of the precise avenues we think should be followed going forward. before i start to -- i want to note that this is a complex and tragic and intimate subject matter to tackle. the nature of it makes it hard to see ñiclearly. it means it's hard to see the problem and the solutions. and i want to emphasize that we are not alone in flying to devise solutions here or trying to understand the problem. we stand on the shoulders of many researchers and military officers, civilian jurisdiction now engaged in review of military justice practice. military response systems, and civilian response systems. to this overall problem. okay. so with that, i'm going it turn

to -- so first this is a list of who is on the comparative systems subcommittee. as i mentioned, there are four members of the response systems panel. and that is six subject matter experts. i'll introduce some of the subject experts later as they help present the materials in the report. here is our mission, which is a little bit big to do to assess and compare military civilian systems through the beginning to the end of the military justice response to sexual assault. so specifically investigation, prosecution, and adjudication for adult sexual assault and related offenses. and we did have nine objectives. i'll lay those out next. the end result you'll see here today in the interim phase is the subcommittee work is 77 recommendations. we split them into six different categories. these are the objectives that were assigned us by the

secretary of defense. first, assess the effectiveness of military systems. it includes the ucmj's definition, the administration, investigation, prosecution, and adjudication. and that mandate was sent out to us with the time limits of 2007 to 2011. we smashed through those barriers and looked up to the friend to the extent possible. we continued to get data as we did this morning to update our ununderstanding of the problem. compare military and civilian systems. third, was in a specific request that we exam advisory sentencing guidelines that used in civilian jurisdictions to assess whether those would be appropriate in the military justice system. that included mandatory minimums. the fourth objective that was set out for us. compare and assess training levels. the military does a lot of training. more rigorous and more extensive

training than many civilian civil sector criminal justice systems in part because of the high turnover of military personnel as the military justice system reflects the military overall. we assessed the training of the many different actors in response systems to sexual assault. and we compared that to what happened in federal and state systems. number five there another objective to look at conviction rates for adult sexual assault and compare it to the extent possible with similar civilian numbers. six, identify best practices from civilian jurisdictions. as you heard this morning, there are some best practices from the military that civilians interested -- civilian institutions not just criminal justice systems are adopting to. number seven, assess strengths and weaknesses of legislative initiatives. congress didn't stand still while the response systems panel worked. i appreciate the work of our legislative experts to keep us

to speed on the many proposals set forth by the member of congress to address the issue. you'll see in the recommends we specifically address some of the proposals that are out there. and we also try to assess the impact of some of the initiatives already adopted by congress. a number eight, this is very long objective that we set out for you. it's about collecting information to populate data base of sexual potential offenders that enable investigators to be more effective going forward even if the victim who identifies that suspected perpetrator in a report decides not pursue an investigation. so we make a recommendation about that in the -- you'll see later. and then finally, assess opportunity opportunities for clemency. appropriateness of clemency in the way it's used. the appropriateness of clemency has arise issue because of changes congress has made in the authority convening authority power to alter the findings of the court marshall at sentencing

after sentencing. we'll talk about our reaction to those changes and suggestions for moving forward. so just to be clear on what the format is. we're reporting out with an interim assessment of what the subcommittee thinks set out the right path for going forward here. the final report of the subcommittee will be snitt e submitted in a couple of weeks as judge jones set out. the panel will deliberate on the subcommittee report. how do we do this? 30 panel meetings and comparative systems subcommittee meeting and preparatory sessions to gather information. from the meeting we heard from more than 380 presenters. the list gives you a sense of the different part of the response that exists out there. and our effort to try to hear from as many interested and as many expert individuals and agencies as we could. so it runs from statisticians,

experts on social science to people on the ground in the military justice system and civilian jurisdictions where responding through sexual violence units to respond sexual assault. in the last bullet there, we did this. we managed this flow of information with a website that posted much of it due to efforts of our staff and then also multiple and progressive dliks sessions where we try break down the different parts of our scope. assign them to expert members of the subcommittee, bring them backet to sub committee to deliberate and hammer out the final recommendations. i'll say not everybody agrees on what do next. just to make that clear. okay. these are site visits that we undertook in order to try see to the extend we could given the short time we had. what is happen on the ground elsewhere. that is besides the impression we were getting from the leaders of military response teams and

civilian response teams who were reporting in to us. we, the member of the subcommittee, committed to making the site visits and just about everybody participated. and the staff participated in every one. which made it possible for us to go. we went to the first few. there are the civilian agencies or lotions we visited. the defense forensic science center, and the georgia bureau investigations laboratory to make sure we understood the forensic side of the investigative and successful prosecution part of this. next, the philadelphia sexual assault response center to understand the ways in which civilian organizations are integrating the various aspects of responding to a report from the sexual assault. and the rest there are military installations we visited. army and air force, navy, and marine corps.. we talked to people from all the different aspects of the response to a report of sexual assault. we heard about prevention, we

heard about the reporting process to whom these are reported. we saw some reports happening in action. we talked to the first responders. we talked to investigators, we talked to defense counsel. we talked to prosecutors. we talked to commanders. we tried hard to get a sense of the entire chain of events that happens when a report triggers the responses in the military. notion -- in addition to the site visits, we collected as much information as possible. we collected information, heard from the sites, and requested information on the many subjects we weren't entirely clear about what was happening at this time. it included more than 150 requests for information to the secretary of defense and to the service secretaries. also input from victim advocacy organizations. we have and will receive more from public comments. we have them both in public testimonies but also written

submissions that the public made in the site visits as judge jones testified earlier, we made clear that the comments we received were not for atry booux hoping to get clear unvarnished look at what was happening. we trance described the meetings. all of our deliberations were tribed verbatim so our staff could understand where they were headinged a they attempted to bring the information together to the report. the public can see how the deliberations went in process of crafting the final report. and then the last piece here. we looked at a lot of documents. as i mentioned earlier we're not the only ones to look at the problem. others have looked and our analysis would be incomplete if we were not to reckon with the report. they institute much information of value. many of which have been implemented. some have been left hanging. we look at those in analyzing

the recommendations. we reviewed the transcripts of witness testimony, and assessed the data available getting update from the military and civilian organizations. on the numbers we could possibly compare. so this is the structure of the recommends that i'll set out for you today. the find and rights are in six categories. we start with trying to define the problem. i said it was complex. the c is tough to see the problem. we would like to share with the perspective how we do and don't understand what the problem is right now. that's the survey sek at the top here. it's really the surveys on which we relied that is assessing the extent of the problem. the surveys on which we relied. we heard a lot of testimony about. we want to characterize what the testimony taught us about how the surveys work in the military compared to civilian surveys to which they are often set next to. next we'll talk about investigations, training, prosecution of defense,

sentencing and clemency, and proposed legislation. comments about legislation appear in some instances throughout the different sections of the report. i don't want to hide the ball for you too long. i want to tell you what our big conclusions were at the start and set out some themes that run throughout this many dozens of recommendations. so, first, crime victimzation data is difficult to collect. we need it to compliment the workplace assessments and our understanding of the environment and the culture that is out there on the ground that some of the public health surveys we do. give us more information on.çóñ soñifáxdñiñr%/gq without crime it's tough to compare to the civilian jurisdictions. second, training is absolutely essential. there is no military unit that doesn't realize this. it's true in responses to sexual

assault. noti in addition to training, collaboration with civilian experts and military members essential to be effective on the ground because of the breadth of the reach of the services installation. the diffuse nations of where persons get assigned and the need to leverage the experience out there so we're effective on the ground. we don't have the same length of time in similar duties in the military as we do in the civil sector. third, we need to balance the emphasis on prosecuting the cases that should go to trial with resources for defense counsel. this is important to protect the eight -- right of the accused and the legitimate si of the military justice system i.t. we can't have a system that tilts so far of prosecution.

they need]yñó to be treated wit dignity and respect. we would be remiss to not put that in the comparative systems look here. it's certainly a premise that underlies all the effective response to civil wan sexual assault as well as military out there. number five, it's a little technical. we have the standardized terms here. we need an easier way to understand what is happening across the services and compare it to what is happening across civil sector. the problem compare los angeles to new york or comparing what is happening in iowa to what is happening in florida. we have an advantage in the military we can establish what the reporting process ought to be. and we can create data that will

be comparable. we need to set it out and make recommendations how we can do if. altogether we have a uniform code of military justice. we have a lot of commitment to different way of counting that are out there in the branching of service. a lot of missions that are big military is addressing that leads to what are reasonable distinctions but lead in reporting and terminology but leave us unable to make the distinctions and understand success in and assess progress given the way it is right now. finally, by granting military judges greater authority, authority closer to what judges have in civilian criminal justice systems we can enhance fairness, improve on deficiency, racialty, and also may be improve the confidence of victims in there the treatment they'll receive from the beginning to the end of the system. i'm going it pause and stop talking for a moment and

introduce one of the subcommittee members to you. to introduce the topic of the -- oh. i'm going do surveys first then we'll do russ for investigate i'm already looking for help and shouldn't be yet. it's most related to what you heard earlier. which is the assessment of the slides. that slide that was put out before i started. survey first and investigation. here is the first recommendation. we think there should be a crime victimzation survey developed in conjunction with the bureau of justice statistic to assess the incidents of crime in the military. our challenge there is that the survey that estimate incidents in the military don't necessarily overcount.

don't necessarily under count. but don't count in the same way that civilian crime victimization surveying counts. and because of that, we don't get numbers that are useful in term of drawing comparisons. so the last bullet there mentions that public health surveys are distinct from viemzation. they serve a different set of goals. crime victimization is when we use uncertain definition it leads to confusion. the first recommendation there is that we have a crime victimization survey. we get numbers question compare. second, we want to define some of the terms in the surveys. we think we should use the uniform code of military justice. it exists and sets out what sexual assault institutes. it enannals -- enables us to have data we can compare. unless we change the statute

again. we think it might be a good idea. recognize some of our recommends exist. but we do think that comparing data over time is important. when we collect information we won't be able to assess whether the crimes are being reckoned with properly. it will help us track law enforcement and prosecutionxd definitions. we'll tistick to the same langue and terminology throughout. it will help us deal with the unknown nature of the problem because of the fact being under reported as a crime and help us assess some of the programs we have implemented. next on the surveys. workplace gender relations assessment which is the survey the military has used to which general snowe referred and i did earlier this ñimorning. is what the numbers about the actual incident of sexual assault in the military have

been drawn from. that survey is intended to assess attitudes, identify areas for improvement and revise workplace policies as needed. it's not structured in a way that gives us reliable and comparable crime victimization data. it's not irrelevant to the crime of victimization. it can't result in numbers. just by the design that lead to something we can compare specifically to the sort of crime victimization survey that the bureau of justice statistics does in the civil sector. the next thing on surveys we recommend here. this is not surprising recommendation. we want to continue to improve response rates. and perhaps not only improve them but keep them from getting worse. because of the extend to which we use surveys to understand critical things that are happening. the response rate to the last workplace survey was 24%. that's low. that's lower than other military

surveys. we got higher after the national service academy because of the nature and our ability to deliver those surveys and get responses in a way we can't do with the force out there in all the different military installations they are. in general response rates under 80 require a nonbiassed analysis. you can see the bias that is apparent in that limited response rate to the workplace gender assessment. that leads us to unreliability of the data and unevenness over time leaves us not knowing what the actual incident has been. there's other things that affect our ability to understand what is out there. that is one of them. we want to keep working to get higher response rates. that is so common in the particular area of time.

we have to make sure we get responses we analyze appropriately. related to that. many were collected in the military survey. if we release that data and we publish the nonresponse bias analysis that has been done by it we will enable more inspent resources. we like that information shared so we can collectively get better at understanding the problem. there's specific suggestions from efforts that could flow from sharing the data. targeted prevention and understanding environmental factors.

can lead to faster improvement and sense of momentum that will enable the effort to proceed more effectively. okay. number six on the survey recommendations. not only want to release the data already collected. but we want an expert advisory panel. the general snowe referred to safro outsourced to rand. assigned, selected them to do the next survey. and they're developing that. we think they should consult experts. especially the experts from bureau of justice statistics. the committee there specialists in studying sexual violence who can help us make sure we're tracking best practices there. the survey design can lead to tremendous differences in response rates and because of those that is response data. tremendous difference in outcomes because of that the crafting and the implementation

of the survey are critical to us getting useful information out of it. okay. the terminology slide. i'll let this wash over you for a moment. the terms we use here are not consistent across the branchs of service. you may see some unfamiliar. there's also some acronyms that refer to more than one thing. number two, and then the last one on the page, for instance. the special victim capability is something different. is so the special victim capability is that set of resources enable effective prosecution that include a few different persons in that that i'll talk about. the special victim counsel isñi new set of lawyers we integrated into the process. so these are the some of the words that i'll use if i'm staying on track why refer to these. you should be familiar with in

term of understanding the way we talk about these in the military. here is the special victim capability slide. i'm not sure you can read that from where you. let me summarize. the top line is the civilian general approach and the lower line is the military general approach. it starts with an advocate for the victim. so in the siflt sector, the advocate is from a nonprofit organization who is sometimes a million 3;uperson. sometimes is from the police department. sometimes there's a nurse. there's a more robust accompaniment through the process that begins with a victim advocate the sexual assault response coordinator and the special victim counsel from the start. that second block that is empty is a carry over. that team of persons in the military who start actually work through the process with the victim after report happens.

the victim witness liaison, which is listed in the civilian and military lines of the slide is designed to make sure that the prosecution process get translated to the victim in a way that makes sense and keeps the victim engaged in the process. you can see the individuals in the military assigns throughout these different processes. it's about the integration of investigators, prosecution, and the support victim advocate we assign as they move through the criminal justice process or observe the criminal justice process when the offender they named in the report case moves ahead. okay. i'm going turn to russ now to talk about this. he's our investigative expert. he has almost 40 years of law enforcement experience education, investigation, and