tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 2, 2016 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
routine activity or lifestyle theory comes from the criminal justice literature and the confluence of a crime. specifically personal victimization occurs when there are motivated offenders sit swaited with suitable targets of an environment lacking or weak. we know from research that motivated offenders are typically men but not always that adhere to hypermasculine beliefs and attitudes. research 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 or sexualized violence can be anyone. as i described earlier, victims of previous interpersonal victimization are at a higher risk than others for future abuse and assault. one explanation is that such individuals develop avoidant coping strategies which may be cues to would-be perpetrators that such a person is victim to perpetratation. for example women working in a male-dominated environment, working in an environment with
alcohol and 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 not only to individual and police and other protective forces but practices, policies in which offenders and targets are situated that fail to protect those subjects from harm. imagine the military situation. it is conceivably ripe with routine theory. because the military is an all-volunteer force, it's members are self-selected. its hierarchal -- there are
likely to be men who want to protect their dominance in their careers. women in the military are more likely to be divorced and is lower economic status. 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. research on sexual harassment consistently finds women outnumbered by men are at a higher risk for sexual harassment. the military structure and the environment and culture results in a week capacity to protect
vulnerable targets from harm. the sexual assault and abuse can spill over from one locale to another and can be labeled and adjudicated differently depending where it occurs. for instance, ent mat partner violence in the living quarters or sexual harassment at work a sexual assault elsewhere. and there may a lack or different rules that may impede the investigation of sexual victimization. strong obedience to the chain of command encourages the belief
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 perview 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 development. 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 bystander 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
-- continuum of sexual and gender related victimization is gaining ground in the military and advocacy groups such as service women's action 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 bib log -- bibliography, which i
did read and for me i 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 passed 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 societal problem that extends beyond the military? so i'm just curious. >> that's a great question. certainly if you were going to take this to court, if you have a case of sexual harassment, it would go through civil law and eeoc and sexual assault it would be a criminal offense and it's a different set of standard and procedures for that. but if you think of an organization, so i come from a university, college, and we have certainly like any other university problems with campus sexual assault and sexual harassment. and we have an office for equal opportunity that really handles the sexual harassment, whether it's against students or
employee but they talk to each other a lot and they're very highly coordinated. they know when to hand off one case or another or when to co-investigate. and that might be something that hopefully our experts can talk a little more about. >> hi. >> so there's been a lot of talk about screening and i was on a panel to discussion whether there should be retune screenou screenings because those are predictive of negative outcomes and various things and the
consensus of the panel in end is that we did not think that there should be routine assessment because of the potential that that information could be used 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 accommodation, 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 caree career. >> i would still be concerned of discrimination. >> could be. >> i came here because i was connected to a research center in pennsylvania.
my daughter was victimized by an rotc early childhood development program cadet. my daughter is graduating next month, along with the perpetrator. my reason in coming here is to just let everyone know here that 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 making a visit to the valley forge 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 investigation to investigate the background of the perpetrator. so this is what i'm saying. there's a lot of psychological effects that i agree with and on the other hand, there's not enough support yet for the victims. and sometimes the victims, like my daughter, they're going to
use other avenues to handle their situation and seeking help from the professors. they have been very outstanding with her. again, being the complainant on a title 9 investigation, it's frowned upon. so this is why i'm here. to hopefully -- that 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. for my daughter's sake and for myself. >> thank you for sharing that and i'm sorry to hear about your daughter's experience. you did mention title 9, which
is for student-based assault and harassment is the legislative approach to that. and there -- there's a growing consensus that title 9-related procedures and processes have really got to become more comprehensive and there's been some recent improvements to law in that area and procedures. part of it lies in the university, i assume this was a university experience, in their respond of the handling of the claim of abuse, victimization, but because it's an rotc program, i would think that the military would need to have a role in that, too. i know some of the research
that -- >> there on campus, they refused, they did not allow my daughter to file a complaint through their system because they told her she was a civilian. but again, i did my research and i told my daughter so is the perpetrator, she's still a civilian. she has not been commissioned officially into her military branch. >> thank you again for bringing that issue. i think that's something that helps raise awareness. thank you. >> army retired. my question to you is you were talking about the general environment and setting the tone for how these things happen or,
you know, how men feel empowered in certain environments to take advantage of the situation. we've been at war now for almost 15 years in countries where women are not educated, they don't drive, they don't spend money unless they have permission. what impact do you think that environment has had on the current situation that we're in? >> that's a really good question. i don't have an answer to it. on the one hand, i would hope that by being in environments where women have far fewer rights than we have here, that it may open their eyes a little bit. on the other hand, it may have the opposite effect, saying, well, you're not in a country where women are allowed to drive, for example. so i could see it going both ways. i don't have a basis to
speculate on what that may be. but that's an intriguing question. maybe some of the other panelists may -- you're not going to step in and help me on this, i see. thank you. okay. good point. 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 your moderator, ellen haring. ellen is a senior fellow at the international security and member of the board of service women'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 resolution. she's been a guest speaker on foreign and domestic news shows, including cnn, newshour, national public radio and she frequently guest lectures at universities and colleges.
ellen. [ applause ] >> good afternoon. i'd like to introduce the next panel. the next speaker will be dr. andrew morral, a senior bra behavioral scientist at rand corporation. his expertise includes areas of program evaluation, survey research and risk management. he recently completed the largest ever survey of sexual assault and sexual harassment experiences of u.s. service members. dr. morral led large national and international service
evaluations and published dozens of peer review reports and policy journals and has served as a science visor 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. >> thank you, ellen, 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 out to over half a million service members -- 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 events. it's the first time such a survey has had enough male sexual assault victims that we can characterize 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 men are much more
likely than women to experience multiple incidents in the last year, they're more likely to be assaulted by multiple offenders during each incident 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 physical injuries during penetrative assaults. compared to women, men are less likely to experience a sexual assault that involves alcohol use or to tell anyone about the sexual assault. so what you see is 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 repeated over the course of the year. furthermore, 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 or humiliate them may have implications for prevention programming and the reporting programs at the department of defense. specifically, if men are not recognizing that some of these
events are in fact sexual assaults, it may not occur to them to report and they don't report as the slide reports. they don't report at nearly the rates women do. so it suggests at a minimum and our recommendation to the department was that the prevention programming should be reviewed to ensure that the kinds of experiences that men are having, as well as the kinds of experiences that rwomen are having, are well represented in the prevention training programs and leadership programs, and that the reporting system available to men and women be reviewed to see if there are ways of taking advantage of this information that if some of the sexual assaults against men may not be perceived against sexual assaults and thereby with that recognition designing procedures that could increase reporting. that's the first finding. the second finding concerns
differences between the services. with this slide shows the rate of sexual assault experienced by men. that's the lavender color and women, the purple color in each service. and the thing i want to point out to you is that there are pretty striking service differences in sexual assault rates and particularly you see the men and women in the air force are exposed to much lower risk, by a significant margin, by factors of two to four in this sort of raw data. now, it could be that this is just a matter of demographic differences between the services. we know that the marines and the navy are much younger services. the personnel in those services are young people and a much larger proportion are young and
sexual assault is age -- youth is a 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 that when we were comparing rates, we're comparing rates for people of the same age -- what's going on? oh, the slides are cut off. >> we're trying to fix it. >> what we did is we redid the comparison between the services, controlling for a bunch of differences that exist between the personnel and their experiences in each service. so we controlled for the age of service members and their race, their marital status, their education, their afqt scores, which is a test of skills that enlisted get, how many depend t
dependents they have and then we have all these military factor experiences we controlled for, including pay grade, entry age, rank and things like that. and then we also controlled for things like the environment in which they were working in the military. so factors like the percentage of men in the unit and installation, as dr. stockdale mentioned, this is a known risk factor, the proportion of men in your environment contributes to risk. we controlled for all these factors so we were sure we were comparing services on a completely apples-to-apples basis, at least on all the characteristics we included in the model -- oh, they're all cult ocut off. the differences between the army, navy and marines were
explained. there was no longer deferences betwe -- differences between them. the fact that the air force had such lower rates was not explained. women in the services had 1.7 times the risks of sexual assault as those in the air force and men in the services had 4 times more risk than 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 and the other services. they could attract different people and the 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 services are structured or organized or how the physical organization, like where people
sleep might be quite different across services. we think that it would be valuable and useful 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 point is the differences between the reserve component members and active component members. what you can see on the slide is that both men and women in the reserve component are exposed 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.
so this is another very good comparison. these are all service members, one group of whom spends more time in the civilian world socializing with other civilians and in their civilian workplace, and the other spends most of their time in military environments and there's this big difference in risk and we did the same kind of statistical analysis and we don't find that any of the variables that we tried to adjust for explain this difference. there's 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 or with a military perpetrator. we reduced the size of the reserve component sample just to those part-time reservists, working 38 to 39 days a year for the military and we find 85% of
the assaults that they experienced in the past year were hilt related, which is a much higher proportion than might be expected. that doesn't prove that being in the military is the risk factor. and, in fact, we have heard speculation that there may be something specific about being in the reserve component and what it's like to leave your family once a month and go off to drill training and some of the risk factors associated with that lifestyle that may be a part of the explanation here. we don't know. but we strongly recommended that this is another signal or clue about what's going on with risk in the military that could be further pursued and understood to better drive down risk. okay, the last thing i want to
talk about concerns sexual harassment. sexual harassment is really quite common in the military. we estimate that about 116,000 active duty members were sexually harassed in the past year and about 44,000 experienced gender discrimination. it's so common that 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 close to 50% of the men say it's common or very common in the military. we know that sexual harassment is associated with a lot of negative workplace outcomes involving productivity, retention, morale and other -- bad outcomes. but as dr. stockdale mentioned,
there's also evidence that sexual harassment is strongly associated with sexual assault. now, what we find in this data is that women who were sexually assaulted were -- sexually harassed, rather, in the past year, were 14 times more likely to also have been sexually assaulted in the past year, so very strong association there and men who were harassed were 49 times more likely to have been sexually assaulted. that doesn't prove there is a correlation. there a correlation. that doesn't prove that there is
a causal association between sexual assault and sexual harassment. there could be. doesn't it 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 installations, that my be a way that they could identify those places where risk is highest 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 after the next speaker. >> so our next guest is miss brenda farrell. she was appointed to serve as the director of the government
accountability office of the defense management team in 2007 where she is responsible for dod civilian personnel issues, including readiness, pilot issue, personnel security, clearance processes and workforce issues. she is the recipient of the congressional dished award and two gao meritous awards leading multiple complex defense reviews and today she is presenting the results of the november 2015 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 to s.w.a.n. for having gao represented here today. sexual assault is a heinous crime that devastates victims and has a far reaching negative effect for d.o.d. because it undermines the department's core value, subverts strategic goodwill and raises financial cost. importantly, data suggests that reported sexual assaults represent a fraction of the sexual assault incidents that are actually occurring in d.o.d. d.o.d. data show that reported incidents involving service members more than doubled from about 2,800 in fiscal year 2007 to about 6,100 in fiscal year 2014. however, based on a 2014 survey done by my colleagues at rand, they estimated that 20,300
active duty service members were actually assaulted in the prior year. since 2008, gao has issued multiple products and made numerous recommendations related to d.o.d.'s efforts to prevent and respond 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 d.o.d. has taken steps to address sexual assaults of service members generally, and they like to refer to it as their policies are gender neutral. to address the sexual assaults of service members generally but it is not used all of the data, such as analysis that shows significantly fewer male service members than females reporting when they are sexually assaulted to inform their decision making, such as tailoring their training or incorporating activities to prevent sexual assault. gao's analysis of sexual assault
prevention using results of the rand study conducted for d.o.d. shows at most 13% of males reported their assaults, whereas at least 40% of females reported their incidents. today i will primarily discuss our report issued in november 2015 on d.o.d.'s updated prevention strategy. let me start, though, with some background information. for over a decade congress and d.o.d. have taken a variety of steps to prevent and respond to sexual assault in the military. in 2004 following a series of high-profile sexual assault cases involving service members, congress required the secretary of defense to develop, among other things, a comprehensive policy for d.o.d. on the prevention of and response to sexual assaults involving service members. in response to statutory requirements in 2005, d.o.d. established its sexual assault prevention and response program
to promote the prevention of sexual assaults, to encourage increased reporting of such incidents and to improve victim responsibility capability. in 2008 d.o.d. published its first sexual assault prevention strategy. in april 2014, d.o.d. updated its prevention strategy and that updated strategy is the focus of my discussion. i will discuss two objectives from our november 2015 report that addresses the extent to which d.o.d. has, one, developed an effective prevention strategy, and, two, implemented activities departmentwide and at military installations related to the department's effort to prevent sexual assault in the military. for the first objective we found that d.o.d. developed its strategy to prevent sexual assault using the centers for disease control and prevention's framework for effective sexual
violence preventive strategies, but d.o.d. does not link activities to desired outcomes for fully identify risk and protective factors, specifically d.o.d.'s strategy identifies 18 prevention related activities, but they are not linked with the desired outcomes of the department's overall prevention efforts. a step that is necessary to determine whether efforts are producing the intended effect. d.o.d.'s strategy establishes collaboration forums to capture and share prevention, best practices and lessons learned. in a different section of d.o.d. strategy, it lists five general outcomes of its prevention efforts such as acceptance and endorsement of the values that seek to prevent sexual assault and an environment in which service members network present
a sexual assault environment of prevention. dod does not discussion what connection exists between the 18 related activities and the outcomes in the department's effort to prevent sexual assault. without a defined link between activities and desired incomes, d.o.d. might not be able to determine which activities are having the desired effects and when necessary to make timely and enforced adjustments to its efforts to help ensure it continues toward desired outcomes. d.o.d. may lack the information that is needed to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of its efforts. further, in adapting cdc's framework to address the unique nature of the military environment, d.o.d. did not fully identify risk and protective factors, factors that may put a person at risk for committing sexual assault or that alternatives may prevent
harm in its updated strategy. d.o.d. adapted cdc's approach by adating five environments. for example, within the individual domain, d.o.d. identified risk factors such as alcohol and drug abuse and hostility toward women as risk that may influence sexual violence, however, d.o.d. does not specify risk factors for who domains after which it has the most influence, leaders and the military community. it does not identify risk factors associated with with these factors. one such risk factor may be
hazing. in our february 2016 report on d.o.d.'s policies to address and track hazing, we reported initiation and rites of passage can be effective tools to instill loyalty among service members included in many traditions through d.o.d. however many traditional activities have at times included cruel or abusive behavior and it has 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. we noted that service officials and male service members at several military installations gave example of both hazing and sexual assaults.
service officials stated that training on hazing-type activities and their relationship to sexual assault would be particularly beneficial to males in that it might lead to increased reporting and fewer dod also included six protective factors identified by cdc in its prevention strategy but does not specify how the factors such as emotional health relate to dod's five domains. the protective factors that dod included in its strategy are grouped together rather than being listed underneath the domain to which they belong. thus, dod may not be able to accurately characterize the environment in which sexual assaults occur or to develop activities and interventions to more effectively prevent them. for the second objective in our november 2015 report on implementing prevention activities we found that dod and the military services developed and are in the process of
implementing prevention focused activities. but they have not taken steps to help ensure that these activities developed at the local or installation level are consistent with the overarching objectives of dod's prevention strategy. as noted previously, dod updated prevention strategy identified 18 prevention focused activities, and, according to dod officials, two have been implemented in efforts to address the remaining 18 are ongoing. the remaining 16 activities identified in the strategy will never be considered complete because as the program develops the department will consistently revise and renew its approach in these areas. as such officials said the status of the remaining 16 activities will indefinitely remain as ongoing. in addition to the activities listed in dod strategy, installation-based personnel have developed and implemented various prevention activities at their installations.
dod acknowledged that the 18 activities in the updated strategy are not the only required prevention activities and encouraged the services to develop their own specific initiatives. however, dod also noted the objectives of dod's prevention strategy are to achieve unity of effort and purpose across all of dod and the execution of sexual assault prevention focused activities, but they have not taken steps to help ensure that the activities developed at the local level are consistent with the overarching objectives of its strategy. these installation developed activities may not be consistent with dod's prevention strategy because dod and the services have not communicated the purpose of the strategy and disseminated it to installation based personnel responsible for developing and implementing activities at the local level. for example, during our site visits to select installations
we found that program managers were largely unfamiliar with dod's prevention strategy and, hence, may not be implementing activities in a manner consi consistent with the objectives of the strategy. further, the military services sexual assault response policies key con duets of such communication have not been updated to align with the guidance in the updated strategy. we also found during our visits to select installations that there is limited collaboration for a number of reasons takinging place on the prevention activities developed locally which could further effect the effectiveness and efficiency of the department's efforts for prevention. for example, during a visit to an army base, program officials informed us of an attempt to collaborate with the other certificaservices on prevention activities. however, the other services declined to collaborate because the other services whose programs were solely focused on addressing sexual assault thought it would be confusing to collaborate with the army since their program addresses both
sexual harassment and assault. in conclusion, since our first report in 2008 on sexual assault in the military, dod has made progress in improving its efforts to incidents across the department. still, without fully developing its prevention strategy and communicating it throughout the department, 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.gov. and if you have trouble finding it, then just shoot me an e-mail. i think our addresses are listed in the brochures. that concludes my remarks. [ applause ] so now we're going to take some questions. and while our microphone gets queued up for questions, i have a couple i wrote as i was listening to you all. one of my first questions is to
dr. morral, if you looked at sexual orientation as a risk factor in the population. does that put people at more or less risk for sexual harassment and assault? >> well, we didn't study it. we actually wanted to ask -- we wanted to have a question on the survey that asked about sexual orientation because it is a risk factor in other populations. it's a risk factor -- it's been seen to be a risk factor for bullying and harassment and assault in high schools and colleges and prison, and so it's certainly possible that sexual orientation is a risk factor in the military as well. we weren't able to -- at the
time there was a policy against dod collecting that information. i think that policy has been changed. i think behavioral risk factor survey that just went out did have that question. >> do we have any audience questions? yes? >> hi, i'm from the army sharp program office. the question i had is about male experiences of sexual harassment and assault, and i really appreciate you bringing that up. to what extent do you think existing instruments capture male experiences? >> survey instruments? we were given an opportunity to completely rewrite the sexual harassment and sexual assault items that had previously been used for the wgra, and one of the -- one of the objectives we had in designing the new survey
questions was to capture both male and female experiences as they relate to the law. the prior sexual harassment questions that had been used and are widely used concerned a form of sexual harassment that wasn't tightly aligned to the law necessarily. it was more -- i think the developer, dr. fitzgerald, describes it as a kind of psychological construct of sexual harassment. so our instrument was connected to military equal opportunity, hostile work place environment, sexual quid pro quo, and gender discrimination. and we tried to develop questions, we pretested it with men and women that would capture both male and female experiences. i think we captured a lot of male experiences. our estimates -- the estimates
from our survey suggest there are more men who are sexually assaulted and harassed than there are women. so we certainly got a lot of them. >> if i may, the 2014 report that rand led is a vast improvement over previous efforts by dod to collect information. you still have to be careful in terms of trends. rand has tried to maintain previous questions with their new questions to get at the heart of some of these issues more so. but when we looked at male victims, we found that there is data, a lot of data, going back years including on male victims. but dod had not used it. and that's an issue, as you probably know. the report to congress is hundreds and hundreds of pages of data and there's even more behind that. being from gao, we like to see decisions data driven and we
know that there is a lot of data that's available regarding male victims and dod needs to capitalize on that in order to determine where does that fit in this prevention strategy. >> hi, good afternoon. i work for the coast guard sexual assault prevention response office. we did participate in the rand 2014 study, so i just would ask why those results weren't compared? we were pretty in line with the air force. also realizing i know we do fall under the department of homeland security with the gao reports, because i believe with all of the services we all suffer the same issues and can learn from each other. i guess my question is more or less how come sometimes we're compared but sometimes we're not? >> that was my fault. i apologize.
i have sometimes included the coast guard findings alongside the dod findings. i didn't prepare that for this briefing. i'll say the coast guard looks very much like the air force in terms of sexual assault rates. they are significant. men and women are exposed to significantly lower rates of sexual assaults and that's not explained by all those demographic differences that may exist. i apologize to the coast guard for not including that data in this. >> i would just like to ask a follow-up to that. do you think it's related to the percentages of women that serve in the air force and coast guard relative to the other services. the population with the fewest women, the marine corps, has the highest with harassment and assault and the populations with the most women, the air force and the coast guard, seem to have fewer or less. >> so what we were able to control for in our statistical
analysis of the differences is the percentage of men in your unit and in your installation. so we ruled those two differences out as an explanation and so i think the answer is no. we know the percentage of men is a risk factor and that does not explain the differences. >> when gao looks at this issue it is the coast guard when we started this in 2008. that was the scope of our efforts. sometimes we have focused just on a service like the air force. after the scandals at the initial training, you were asked what the air force was doing.
44 recommendations that they implemented most of those focused on basic training and how to prevent sexual assault. currently we have a review that's just focused on the army reserve components which, of course, is the army reserve and the 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. our work is driven primarily by mandates from congress, gao is part of the legislative branch, generally with the national defense authorization. sometimes there's requests. this work we have now driven by mandates but it actually started
with a request. >> i saw another hand out there. >> from the university of san francisco, i actually have two different points. one concerns the question we were just talking about what might explain some of these differences and i'm thinking it if we look at combat and masculinity, we might be getting somewhere. i don't know if you've looked at that at all. the differences in terms of the significance of particularly infant infantry. that's what i'm talking about and how does that play into this because feminist research is the masculine nature and not all of these other issues that we're talking about, so that was my first point. the second one in terms of whether you have on your very first point on the different patterns of reporting and the
different language used, again, coming from the feminist literature, i would think that there's issues around same sexual violence as private versus a public issue. all of these things play into how men and women report. >> in terms of -- two of the things were the differences can be explained by the proportion of personnel receiving combat pay. those services that have a higher percentage of their personnel getting combat pay, have higher exposure to those environments. that did not explain the service
differences. simultaneously we controlled for the number of months deployed, and so that is, you know, not a perfect control. that didn't explain the differences. what it means to be deployed in the navy versus in the marines for instance, quite a different environment and we can't control for that perfectly. i'm sorry, the second one was? >> so the second one was about the question of reporting. >> yeah, yeah. >> and the different language used. >> right. >> i think it's very likely even when -- we don't have direct evidence to draw on to answer this question but my hunch is that, yeah, men may have
different kinds of shame or feelings of humiliation in some cases that from reporting or wanting to think of it as a sexual assault. i can kind of believe they didn't think it was a sexual assault, they thought it was the kind of razzing or horse play or other kinds of misbehavior that can occur in a unit. >> in 2008 when we start this had work and dod could not tell us where the most incidents were happening or the least incidents so that we could go to those who had the least number reported and see if they had best practices that should be shared.
dod has come a long way, being able to pinpoint where the incidents are happening and the 2013 is robust with data. as far as the males not report i ing, it's part of the culture being in that male dominated environment. when we looked at male victims and at hazing, hazing is a term that's thrown out a lot especially i've noticed in the last couple of years. each service does it
differently. certain sources can be referred at the ig's office, a criminal investigation. hazing in 2016 reminds me dod was in 2008. there is no oversight in terms of, yes, there's a policy in hazing, there's boundaries about what's acceptable and what's appropriate but seeing if those policies are being implemented as intended. there's a lot of theories about hazing and sexual assault and male victims but not a lot of data still to understand the issues.
>> thank you. [ inaudible ] >> i am a retired army major. i've been in special operations. i've been in training. i've been in just about every kind of environment. i know about hazing and i know about sexual assault and harassment gnaw[ inaudible ] fo about 20 years, but one of the things that i'm kind of surprised at, my fellow leaders at this forum because so much of what we do is really top down driven and leadership driven. we are mandated to do these briefings and things like this but, also, you notice in a military setting that pretty much the command is dictated by the person at the top. i'm really disappointed we don't have more folks here. but my question was in terms of this overlapping between hazing and also sexual assault, i was
certainly surprised and curious how you uncovered that in your survey. >> the survey we did had a question. for those people who we identified, we asked them a bunch of questions about what they did about it and who did it to them and what the circumstances were and alcohol and all these other things and one of the questions we asked them to define the concept of hazing and then said that that's what we meant by hazing and then it said do you consider this event that you experienced to be hazing. so gave them a definition and then asked them does that describe what happened to you? and so men were six times as likely as women to say yes to that question. >> and to your earlier point, we did invite dod.
we sent an invitation to quite a few offices, and we were surprised at the lack of interest as well. we held this event here very close to the pentagon with the express purpose of having as many dod participants as possible. it's unfortunate that there's not -- gnaw [ inaudible ] >> yeah. thank you for that. i saw another hand over here. i think it's on. >> hi. is it on? >> i'm a retired navy captain, worked in the assault program back when we were first creating it. i just want to go back to something you said which was more men are sexually harassed and sexually assaulted in the
department of defense, and i just want to point out 85% of the people that are in the services are male so, of course, the numbers are going to be higher. the incidents are not higher. the percentage of women is much higher than the percentage of men. and so i just want to be clear about that because, you know, dod makes a huge effort to try to make it sound as if sexual assault, sexual harassment are gender neutral, and they are not gender neutral crimes. they're not gender neutral in the civilian system and they're not in the department of defense either. so i just want to make sure we're clear, you know, about those numbers. >> thank you for clarifying that. you're absolutely right. women are about -- across the services are about five times as likely as men to be sexually assaulted and four or five times -- three or four times as likely to be sexually harassed, i think, if i have that right.
>> next? right here in the middle. >> hello. [ inaudible ] okay, so my name is liz medina and i served five years in the marine corps and am currently in the reserves. i have a two-part question, kind of. it shows the marine corps has the highest number of sexual assaults. now the marine corps is talking about doing integrated training for their basic training. do you think that will increase the number of sexual assaults or decrease it based on the other services who already have integrated training? >> great question and it allows me to clarify one thing that i didn't. we weren't able to is yosurvey e who were in basic training, so we don't have a -- we did -- for those people who had been in the service at least six months, we were able to survey them.
and so we asked did it occur during basic training? so we got some information about how often this occurred during basic training. just like all the prior wgra, the work place and egender relations survey of active component members, we didn't -- we didn't survey basic training. but the question is, would integrated training increase rates? and so most perpetrators are men. and so if you're bringing women into an environment that has more men, i think the risk of sexual assault will increase. >> my second question regards the training for sexual harassment. so basically my entire marine corps career training is just a check in the box. we go to the trainings because it's mandatory and it's always power points, it's always
someone walking around, tapping a shoulder, pay attention. so they're not paying attention in these trainings. these events are happening. in my active duty service i've had one approach me that she was attack attacked. as a reservist i had six. and within the last year i have permission to tell her story. she's my friend who was brutally raped in japan, and it was towards the end of her pcs where she had her next station in north carolina. she got to north carolina. she's there for about six months and she has to go back to japan to testify against her offender. she comes back. she has zero support from her command. they kind of label her like, oh, she's always gone to these medical appointments. why is she always late to formation and it's because she's on heavy duty medication that makes her sleep in. but instead of helping her, they
victimize her and now she went from a super strong woman to a shell of a person who lives off medication with a service dog who can't go to the corner store without someone there with her and zero support from the command. so, to me, this training, i feel like it's a waste of our time because we're sitting here in an auditorium listening to the power points but i see people texting, talking to each other, falling asleep. no one is paying attention to the training. so i want to know what's really going to happen to really pay attention to, hey, this is happening. this is happening to our community. this is affecting morale and leadership. like the major said, it comes interest the top. it comes from the commander, and your pamphlet showed that 60% of perpetrators are from a supervisor or someone in a high lead ership position, so it's kind of hard to say, hey, i trust my c.o. when he could be the one to harm me. >> so, thank you for that
question. actually the next panel will talk a little bit more specifically to some of your questions and what are we doing at an individual and also at an organizational level, so the army will talk about some new army ways because we do recognize that much of the training that's been developed hasn't been as effective as we want it to be and that we're constantly trying to evolve and develop new ways of tackling this problem. i mean, this is complicated. >> there is a continuum of harm here that includes hazing and sexual harassment and assault that one of our recommendations to dod was that it would be useful to review the trainings to make sure that there's prevention occurring on all these levels and, of course, effective training is the only kind of training that is worth doing. >> i'll just add that i mentioned we made a number of recommendations including recommendations to measure the
effectiveness of the training because i know what you're talking about. the 200 people crammed into an awuditorium just sitting throug a power point slide is probably not going to be effective, and there are other ways to deliver the training and make it such. on the sexual harassment, we issued a report on that back in 2012, and what we found at that time was that not too much was known about sexual harassment. commanders' climate surveys which you probably are familiar with, have been in play for years and years and years, and the commanders' climate survey that is administered at the installation level could be a way to understand more about sexual harassment. but in 2012 at the sites we visited, the majority of the installations, the commanders had not administered those
surveys to take a temperature pulse read on is harassment an issue in their unit they need to address. there's been improvements. in fact, it's now statutorily required for commanders within a certain period of time to administrate those surveys and there is a set number of questions that have to be asked and then they can on their own initiative ask up to an additional ten questions to try to understand the environment for the command that they've taken over and then those results are to be forwarded so that somebody else can take a look and see what's going on at a particular location and are there issues that are related to harassment or hazing or assault that need to be addressed. >> thank you. judy? tonight our road to the white house coverage continues in indiana. republican candidate donald trump is in south bend live at 7:00 p.m. on c-span 2 and ted cruz this indianapolis live at 7:30 p.m. on c-span.
madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ next national security surveillance of the african-american community and its impact on the freedoms of black americans. this hour and a half discussion was part of a symposium held by georgetown law school in washington, d.c.
ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct pleasure to introduce professor chris henning, leader of georgetown law's juvenile defense clinic. as i said in the morning i think it's a little misleading to think of surveillance only in the context of fancy gizmos that are developed by engineers and that we really need to see the policing techniques used every day on the street. those two are surveillance and professor henning will talk about that and so much more. a round of applause for professor henning. >> so my 16-year-old african-american client may not know that his public benefits
are being tracked or he will one day be tracked by the fbi when he grows up to become a black activist but he certainly knows that he is being watched, monitored and regulated every single day. in his school, on the street, at the beach, in the store, on his front porch, in the court yard of his housing complex, in his car, and on his job. black boys are born suspect. they are born into a life of surveillance and this is their story. imagine your elementary and middle school education is yo surrounded by police officers. every day you enter the front
door through security, through metal detectors and security cameras. every day you are greeted by a school resource officer who is likely in uniform with a gun, pepper spray, and a baton at his waist. and in the extreme, if you live in compton, california, you're likely to see a school resource officer who is authorized to carry a military grade assault rifle, converting your school in a correctional facility or a military zone. and when you behave like you are 6 or 9 or 15 years old, you're not like ly to be sent to detention but instead are likely to be pulled out of your class by the police, interviewed, and arrest ed for your normal childish and adolescent behavior. now many people who support the presence of police in schools
argue that police officers are -- it's more about -- it's less about surveillance and more about the relationship between police officers -- by improving the relationship between police officers and youth. but let's look at this. consider the south carolina teenager who was dragged out of her seat after she sent a text and refused to get up. >> on your back. let me see your hands. give me your hands. give me your hands. >> now this was a high-profile case, right? but she's not alone. consider jefferson parrish, will you will you, where
african-american students accounted for 80% of students who were arrested and referred to the police. although they made up only 41.5% of the students in the school and consider delaware where african-american students accounted for 67% of students referred to the police although they made up only 32% of students in the school system. so when we think about whether police are in schools for surveillance or whether they're in schools to police -- to improve the relationships between youth and police officers, we have to consider that police are always police. police dress like police. they talk like police. they interview like police and they investigate like police and they arrest like police even when they are in school. and students come to believe
that their interactions with police and schools will be representative of their interactions with police officers on the street and, indeed, in numerous accounts of police/youth interactions we have black boys who complain about the sheer number of police officers in their neighborhoods. they complain about being stopped based on ridiculously vague descriptions such as black boys running or black male in jeans and a hoodie, black males in athletic gear. and even when the police officers know or the black boys know that they have engaged in criminal conduct, they complain about the way they are stopped by police, being pushed, shoved,
hit, grabbed, choked, and tackled to the ground. they complain about police officers being rude, hostile, demeaning, antagonistiantagonis profanity, racial slurs, and about terms like punk and sissy. now black boys are treated like they are out of place. not only in white middle class neighborhoods but also in public spaces in their own neighborhoods, at their own schools, on their own front porches. and we all know about the arrest of skip gates as he was trying to get in the front door of his home in that wealthy cambridge neighborhood where so many harvard police officers live, but what about hawkins, the 14-year-old boy who was stopped on a miami-dade beach for playing and rough housing with his friend and playing with his
puppy. >> he got mad. that's when he slapped me. he started chokinging me. >> new at 6:00, a teenager's mother releases video of police. did officers overreact? miami-dade police say teen's behavior and body language left them no choice but to act the way they did. >> and what about the hundreds of black boys that i meet in my practice as a defense attorney who complain about walking while black, about two months ago we were appointed to represent a young man who was walking down the street with a friend and the police officers rode up next to him and asked if he heard gunshots, of which there were none. and when my client said, no, we didn't hear anything and tried to continue walking, the officers said, well hey, lift up your shirt and let me see your
waists. when the officers didn't see anything in the boys' waists, well, can we search you? at which point either my client or his friend said yes. four officers jumped out of the car, forced the boys up against the wall and they searched them. unfortunately, they found a gun on my client. now a traditional reading of the fourth amendment would say the police officers' conduct was completely legal. the boys consented from beginning to end, but is this really voluntary consent? black boys are so afraid of police today that they do one of two things. they either do bhawhatever the police officers say or run like hell to get out of there. i have to say if my client had run, a traditional reading of the fourth amendment would say his flight was consciousness of guilt justifying the officers' search. but what was the basis? what was the basis other than racial profiling that led those
officers to pull up next to those boys in the first place? now some of you might be thinking, wait, this is a good thing because a gun was found but what about the hundreds of black boys and black men who are stopped every single day without any contraband at all. consider the story of the young boys aged 7 to 8 stopped recently right here in the district of columbia while riding their bikes some time after there was a report of bikes being stolen from the walmart. the boys were forced off of their bikes, told to sit on the curb and interviewed for 45 minutes until one of the mothers came running up with the receipt for the bike that she had purchased for her son. only then were the boys let go. and what about the students from maya angelou public charter school, also right here in the d.istrict of columbia, who were repeatedly stopped and harassed a couple years ago by police officers while they were sitting on the front steps eating snacks
and talking and laughing as many children do as they have breaks between their classes. so the reality is that black boys are policed like no one else in society. the reality is society is uniquely afraid of black boys. consider the rhetoric of the princeton professor who coined the phrase back in 1995 juvenile super predator, and he predicted that a new generation of street criminals would be upon us. the youngest, the biggest, the baddest, any generation has ever seen and he racialized that theory when he wrote his now famous my black crime problem and ours. and he predicted that as many as half of those young super
predators could be young black males. now we know that is the type of rhetoric that led to the full-scale attack and surveillance of black boys in the 1990s and we know that surveillance has not stopped today although delulio has long since retracted his theory. so let's consider the contemporary data from new york. data that reveals that more than 5 million new yorkers have been stopped and interrogated by police between 2002 and 2015. in 2014, new yorkers were stopped by the police 46,000 times. and of those 46,000 times, 82% of the persons were innocent. 53% were african-american and 27% were latino. and in 2015 when new yorkers
were stopped only a mere 23,000 times, 80% were still found to be innocent. 54% were black and 11% were latino. now all across the country we also have to consider the hundreds of black men and women who are stopped in the complexes -- excuse me, in the court yard of their housing, questions about guns and drugs and crimes they know nothing about. and in newark, new jersey, they call these field inquiries. explicitly acknowledging that stop and frisk sounds too invasive and considering the hundreds of black men and women like sandra bland who are stopped for driving while black and most of us have heard of the old 1995 study about the new
jersey turnpike which found that african-american drivers were nearly five times more likely than others to be stopped although they were only 13.5% of the area's population and only 15% of those found speeding on the road. but how many of us heard about the more recent study about arizona highways between twibs and 2007 where it was found that african-american drivers were 2.5 times more likely to be searched in their cars than whites. and although african-americans were twice as likely to be searched, the records show they were no more likely it to have contraband. and how many of you have ever heard of photo books? fphoto books used by police departments to track black men and black boys who might one day cause trouble. a few years ago i was appointed
to represent a young man who had been identified as a suspect in a robbery by a civilian who point ed him out in a photo spread, and i was confused because my client had never been arrested before so i didn't know why the police would have his photograph. so i asked my client, so where did this photograph come from? and he said, oh, yeah, about six months ago a police officer approached me and said he was new to the neighborhood and wanted to get to know me. i wasn't doing anything wrong and the officer said i wasn't doing anything wrong but he wanted to get to know me. he wanted to take my photograph so he could remember my name and my face. and it was only then i realized as a public defender just how much my clients were being trapped and being labelled and being followed in their everyday lives.
now this is a conference about the government surveillance of the black community, but i would be remiss if i did not at least note the ways in which the police and the government draw civilians into the surveillance of black people. we live, as has been said multiple times today, we live in a see something, say something culture. if you see a sketchy looking person, a suspicious looking person around your neighborhood, there is an app for that. consider sketch factor which allows its users to notify others when there's a sketchy person in your neighborhood in the district of columbia or in new york city. consider nextdoor.com which allows residents of oakland,c california, to report suspicious activity about their black neighbors. consider ghettotracker.com which allows users to rate neighborhoods based on whether
they are safe or ghetto. now these are civilian apps, right, but they follow the lead of those created by police departments and government agencies like the san francisco bay area, rapid transit systems, b.a.r.t. which allows its riders to report suspicious activity and crime instantaneously. and the data from that app shows that in a one-month snapshot, although only 10% of the riders were african-american, 68% of the reports that included a description involved african-americans. and consider operation group me right here in the district of columbia which was launched in february of 2014 by the government -- excuse me, the georgetown business improvement district who partnered with the
metropolitan police department to launch a real time mobile messaging app that allowed business owners, police officers, and community members to exchange thousands of images and descriptions and photographs surreptitiously taken of customers they believed to be suspicious. consider this, american apparel employee sends out a message, suspicious shoppers in store, three females, one male, strong smell of weed. all african-american. help, please. well, what did they look like? response, an urban slang term for trashy that has heavy racial connotations. and then there's my favorite, the hughes wear employee who takes a photograph of a man in distressed jeans, a gray scarf
and a long brown coat. the employee sends out a message, african-american male just left headed towards 29th street about 6 foot, tats on neck and hand, very suspicious looking everywhere. fortunately suit supply employee responds, he was just in suit supply, made a purchase of several suits and some gloves. ladies and gentlemen, this is the story of everyday surveillance. it's not just about the fbi. it's not just about the nsa watching our tapping our phones or reading our e-mails. it is about the ways in which black boys are monitored and watched and regulated and marginalized in society by police officers who search them in their schools, follow them in the stores, harass them on the
street, pull them out of their cars and solicit civilian tips that have a color of surveillance. this is a story of every day surveillance. thanks. [ applause ] >> i've thought about this several times today, and let me try it on you for a response. and i say this as someone who presently now lives in a city where the lack of black representation on the police force relative to the black population of the city is striking and notorious. to what degree is greater african-american recruitment in law enforcement agencies a
solution to what we've talked about today? >> so i am extremely ambivalent about it and i probably come out on the side of concluding that diversity alone is not enough. i do think diversity is critical. it changes the nature of the conversation. and hopefully opens doors to thinking about or rethinking how we police. but the reality is i live in the city right here in washington, d.c., that is, you know, black from top down, you know, from the mayor's office. we've had black chief of police and the like over time and the policing doesn't change. i think so ciety has been socialized. the professor earlier talked about blind folks, you know. it is socialized throughout our so society. implicit racial bias carries regardless whether you are african-american or whether you're white. so i think that solution alone is just not enough. [ applause ]
>> there was a time in washington, maybe about a year ago, when if you asked a room full of conservative republicans and liberal democrats, who's for body cameras, all their hands would shoot up. and i think there's a saying in the law where easy cases make bad law. and harlan yu, civil rights consultant, has been leading the civil rights community's efforts to evaluate body camera -- police body camera policies and figure out which ones are going to work for civil rights and for privacy. please join me in welcome harlan yu. mra[ applause ]
surveillance video takes you back to 2014. so when we hear about body cameras in the public discourse, we often hear about their p potential to bring transparency and accountability to community and police interactions. i'd like to begin this talk with a short video from marion county, florida, from 2014, which some of you may have seen. jay stanley recently wrote about it a couple weeks ago. i think it's important for everyone here to see this video because i think it illustrates in a visceral and powerful way the potential peril that may come from the use of cameras. >> surveillance video takes you back to 2014. derek price, the man running in the white shirt, gets arrested on a drug warrant. he throws his hands up appearing to surrender. that doesn't stop five marion county policemen from kicking
him, pounding on his head, neck and body while he's down. at no time do you see him put up a fight. >> stop resisting. get your hands -- >> stop resisting. >> stop resisting. >> video from another angle, the body camera footage from one of the deputies tells a different tale, one that appears to be misleading. they scream at price to stop resisting and put your hand behind your back. and even cut the body camera off at one point. back to that surveillance video that makes a strong case that price was not resisting. marion county sheriff chris blair says that -- >> stop that right there. so derek price was beaten by the police that day and thank goodness for that fixed surveillance camera which shows what the body camera could not, in particular and in part because the officer turned on his camera too late to capture
the entire incident. indeed, had we only had that body camera foot aage it probab would have served as a compelling piece of evidence against mr. price. cameras have the potential to help everyone better understand how a particular incident unfolded. and it can certainly be a good thing, but it's also important to remember that cameras are just one perspective. the perspective of the officer with cameras worn on the officer facing out recording the community and legitimate fears rather than providing accountability that cameras will be another tool for government surveillance and control. that is to say this is going to be a tool where the surveillance system is concentrated where officers are most present in heavily policed communities of color. they don't automatically bring about accountability. the policies that departments adopt to guide the use of this new technology is going to matter greatly.
it's for this reason that last may a coalition of 34 civil rights, privacy and media rights groups came together to assert a set of civil rights principles on body worn cameras. importantly, the groups recognized that without carefully crafted policy safeguards in place there's a real risk these devices could become instruments of injustice rather than tools for accountability. the set of five principles was not an endorsement of body worn cameras. in fact, many groups opposed cameras as a useful reform and certainly cameras are no subs substitute for broader reforms and policing practices. but given that police departments across the country have been rushing to adopt this new technology, these principles were meant to ensure cameras will be used by departments to help enhance rather than detract from people's civil rights. the principles demand that departments develop their camera
policies in public in consu consultation with the community and commit to a set of narrow and well defined purposes for which cameras and their footage will be used. they require departments to specify clear observational policies for recording and retention and access as well as placing a strict limit on when officers may view their footage in the process of completing their written reports. and critically if cameras are to serve any accountability purpose at all, relevant footage must be made available especially those filing a police complaint or those in a court of law. unfortunately, police departments across the country have a long, long way to go. cameras are hitting the streets now but in far too many cases the policies may not serve the goals of transparent si and accountability. last november my organization upturn together with the leadership conference on civil and leadership rights released body worn cameras policy
scorecard. the scorecard evaluates the policies of 25 local police departments including 15 of the largest departments in the country that have or will soon have body worn camera programs. here's a high level overview of the ten largest departments we examined. as you can see each represents one department in our analysis and for each department we scored the department's policy using eight different criteria that were derived from the civil rights principles from last may. and so the goal of our scorecard is to spotlight for both local advocates and for police departments themselves exactly where and how their departments could improve their policies from a civil rights perspective. here's a summary, for example, of our analysis of the nypd policy. for each criterion we scored the department on a three level scale. a green check mark means that the policy fully satisfies our
criteria. i'll explain in a second what each of the criteria mean. the green circle represents the fact the policy partially satisfies our cry tearian and a red x is it does not address the issue or runs counter to our criteria. it's rather extensive because for each rating we've extracted and provided an excerpt of the relevant policy language. the goal here is to highlight the policy language we find most promising in the hopes it can serve as a model for other departments looking to adopt better policies. so just very briefly describe and walk through each of our civil rights evaluation criteri criterion. the first is most basic about whether the department makes its policy publicly and readily available. in order to have any kind of community discussion about the rules of the cameras, departments must at least need to make a draft policy available as they're being discussed and
developed. the second criterion examines whether the department limits officer discretion on when to record. based on some early experiences with body worn cameras when officers have had too much large fraction of use of force incidents were found to have happened off-camera and were never recorded. on the flip side, the third criterion looks at when cameras actually need to be turned off to protect the privacy of individual community members, especially for victims of crimes. departments need to be extremely thoughtful about the privacy implications that cameras will have because cameras are going to capture individuals in some of their worst moments of their lives. think about an officer who arrives on a call where they find a victim of a sex crime or a heated domestic dispute. in many of these cases, these vulnerable individuals should at least have the option of opting out of the recording. the fourth criterion we used is
among the most hotly contested policy issues right now, and it's about whether officers are allowed to view footage during the process of writing their incident reports. now departments will argue that allowing officers to review footage will make for more accurate reports. but the civil rights push-back here is this practice gives officers an undue advantage over other witnesses in a court of law. because by allowing so-called pre-report viewing, statements from officers will always appear more accurate and more credible than other witness statements, which would unnecessarily tilt the justice system even further against criminal defendants. put in a slightly different way, it's unlikely that any prosecutor or investigator would ever allow other witnesses to watch footage of an event before getting an unbiased or untainted statement from that individual, and we believe that this should be no different for officers. in the worst case with pre-report viewing, an officer could conform his or her report to match only what's seen in the
video rather than what -- rather than giving an independent account of what the officer actually saw. fifth, we examined whether the department policy limits the retention of footage. as you can imagine, the vast majority of recorded footage is pretty mundane and doesn't really have or serve any accountability or investigative purpose at all. so such footage ought to be purged after a short amount of time. and doing so would actually save departments money because much of the cost of body-worn cameras comes not from purchasing the cameras themselves but from the continued online storage of thousands and thousands of hours of unneeded footage. sixth, we looked at whether the department policy expressly protects footage from tampering and misuse. so the potential concern here is about officers deleting or otherwise modifying unfavorable footage, especially when it comes to police shootings and other uses of force. so it's important for these
policies to expressly prohibit tampering and misuse of the footage. seventh, we examined the availability of footage outside of the department. officer accountability is only possible if those who need to see the footage actually have access to it. of particular interest, we believe that recorded individuals who are seeking to file police misconduct complaints ought to have ready access to their own footage. finally, our eighth criterion, which looks at whether the department limits the use of biometric technologies like facial recognition, voice recognition, or even tattoo analysis, which could be used to automatically identify individuals either in real-time as an officer walks the beat or in a search over all archival footage that the department has collected. this is a very alluring prospect for many departments from an investigative perspective. if we're worried about cameras turning into a tool of police
surveillance, then limiting biometrics is going to be a very important part of that. so what's the overall picture here? departments across the country are very quickly deploying body-worn cameras. the department of justice has been giving out millions of dollars of grants to help local police departments accelerate their body camera adoption. and many state legislatures are also looking into the issue. now, departments that we've seen are experimenting with a really wide range of policies in each of the dimensions that we studied. what we found is no department has a perfect policy. each one has its pros and cons, and we found that every department has significant room for improvement. so across the board, i suggest three critical areas for advocates to focus on, and it's unsurprisingly where a lot of red x's are on our scorecard. so first on officer pre-report viewing, which is the fourth column here, many departments across the country allow or even encourage or even require their
officers to view footage while completing their reports. second, on footage access, which is the seventh column here, where, for example, in all california departments, all footage is considered an investigatory record and that the public thus has no right to see the footage at all. third, the eighth column on limiting biometric use, where baltimore, we found, was the only department in the country that sharply limits its own use of facial recognition together with cameras. so just to wrap things up, as you can -- you can find the entire scorecard again and the principles at bwcscorecard.org. we're doing our best to bring the scorecard out into communities so local advocates can use the scorecard in their own advocacy. so at the moment, this initial release only hits 25 police departments across the country, but we're actively working right now to expand that to many more major cities across the country. and so thanks, and i'm happy to answer any questions.
[ applause ] >> foot academic issue but what what whawhat, for example, a complainant wanted to show that a particular officer had a pattern of abusive behavior or wanted to look how that officer was dealing with other people or if an academic wanted to do some research generally about how the police department is working? is that something that anybody thinks about? >> these would be nice things for the public to know, but with camera programs and the policies being developed around them, right now that's certainly not going to be possible, especially in states like california.
>> this is really exciting. thanks for doing this work. i imagine that the argument they give for asking officers to look at the -- before they do the report is that they end up with a more accurate report. so i'm wondering if you have a different definition of success that you've put forward like around fairness or something that's actually quantifiable, which is what they love so much, so you could advocate for not letting that happen. >> sure. i think accuracy of reports and independent nature of officer statements aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. i think one very promising policy going forward is actually a two-step process, which is probably just a best practice that should be used in video overall. and the way that this process would work is that the officer would write an initial report based on his or her independent recollection of the events, and then have an opportunity to view the footage and then to write a supplemental report to reconcile any potential differences between the officer's memory and what was shown in the video. so at the end of the day, the
whole package, what you have is something that is an accurate recollection based on the footage but at the same time, we have the officer's independent recollection that could be used to better evaluate the actions of officers in a particular situation. [ applause ] >> thanks. >> right now if you visit the department of homeland security's website and you look under a tab that i think is called "mission," the first thing you will see is the statement that the department of homeland security is structured to combat terrorism. i am paraphrasing so i'm sure i'm off a little bit, but look that up. and then look up an article from the intercept revealing -- and it was the first of many pieces of journalism that would reveal this -- that the department of homeland security was conducting monitoring on the black lives matter movement, including
entirely peaceful activities. and i think one was a funk parade, for example. we are lucky to have with us brandi collins from colorofchange.org. they're the organization that is leading the freedom of information act requests to dhs to figure out exactly what kind of watching was going on. please join me in welcoming brandi collins. [ applause ] >> thank you, everybody. i am from, as alvaro mentioned, color of change. i want to talk a little about who we are for some folks who may not be familiar. we are a ten-year organization. we were started in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. our two founders, van jones and james rucker, like many of us, were sort of sitting at home
watching the television, watching a lot of folks, mostly poor folks, mostly people of color and black folks in particular, being sort of overwhelmingly abandoned and left to literally drown by our government. and what we felt from that was that there was no sense of accountability, that nobody was sort of worried about the threat of letting black folks down. to that end, we created -- or they created. sorry, not we. i've only been there a year. color of change as an organization that is meant to build and change what power looks like in black communities. we want to change the written and unwritten rules that govern our systems and structures. we want to challenge the sort of profiteers of pain. so, in other words, when our communities suffer, who's cashing in?