In the Army, "SHARP" stands for Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Program, and it's the focus of a lot of action right now. A two-day conference on the subject has begun at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to discuss what Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno "has called the biggest problem facing the service."
[Source]
This is in the wake of four significant incidents that have garnered a lot of media attention.
First, the Air Force lieutenant colonel in charge of sexual assault prevention was arrested on May 6th and charged with sexual battery.
[Source]
Then there was the sergeant first class at West Point who is now charged with filming female cadets, followed by a SHARP coordinator at Fort Hood who "came under investigation amid allegations of running a small-time prostitution ring."
[Source]
Finally, a major general was relieved for "
failing to report or properly investigate an allegation of sexual assault."
In my unit, there has been a flurry of activity to recertify the unit SHARP representatives, increase awareness among officers and NCOs, and meet the prevention objectives our commanding generals have laid out.
The barracks policy now prohibits any male-female visitations (any "co-mingling" now requires a hotel off-post), and the battalion SHARP representative position is now full-time (up from being an "additional duty," previously). Whether these and the other steps we're taking will produce positive results, I'm not sure, but I'd like to see more of a focus on statistics.
In the Army's Safety Program, for example, there's a huge focus on accident prevention. After any sort of accident, an investigating officer tries to identify the proximate cause -- be it individual carelessness, a systemic failure, or a leadership deficiency. Results are compiled into databases that help identify high-risk activities and prevent the same things from happening again.
Obviously, issues like victim advocacy and criminal prosecution create critical differences, but a greater emphasis on facts could be helpful. When and where did the incident occur? Was alcohol involved? Did you know your assailant? Answers to these questions could help focus future prevention efforts without unnecessarily broad restrictions that punish people who are not involved.
The Army has set a goal of 100 percent reporting and a 75 percent reduction in assault cases by 2016
[source], but I don't see that happening without a shift in focus. Instead of trying to answer the question, "What actions are you taking?" perhaps we should be asking ourselves, "How do we change the cultural, systemic, environmental, and individual failures to reduce the risk of these tragedies?"
In the Army, "SHARP" stands for Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Program, and it's the focus of a lot of action right now. A two-day conference on the subject has begun at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to discuss what Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno "has called the biggest problem facing the service." [Source]
This is in the wake of four significant incidents that have garnered a lot of media attention.
First, the Air Force lieutenant colonel in charge of sexual assault prevention was arrested on May 6th and charged with sexual battery. [Source]
Then there was the sergeant first class at West Point who is now charged with filming female cadets, followed by a SHARP coordinator at Fort Hood who "came under investigation amid allegations of running a small-time prostitution ring." [Source]
Finally, a major general was relieved for "failing to report or properly investigate an allegation of sexual assault."
In my unit, there has been a flurry of activity to recertify the unit SHARP representatives, increase awareness among officers and NCOs, and meet the prevention objectives our commanding generals have laid out.
The barracks policy now prohibits any male-female visitations (any "co-mingling" now requires a hotel off-post), and the battalion SHARP representative position is now full-time (up from being an "additional duty," previously). Whether these and the other steps we're taking will produce positive results, I'm not sure, but I'd like to see more of a focus on statistics.
In the Army's Safety Program, for example, there's a huge focus on accident prevention. After any sort of accident, an investigating officer tries to identify the proximate cause -- be it individual carelessness, a systemic failure, or a leadership deficiency. Results are compiled into databases that help identify high-risk activities and prevent the same things from happening again.
Obviously, issues like victim advocacy and criminal prosecution create critical differences, but a greater emphasis on facts could be helpful. When and where did the incident occur? Was alcohol involved? Did you know your assailant? Answers to these questions could help focus future prevention efforts without unnecessarily broad restrictions that punish people who are not involved.
The Army has set a goal of 100 percent reporting and a 75 percent reduction in assault cases by 2016 [source], but I don't see that happening without a shift in focus. Instead of trying to answer the question, "What actions are you taking?" perhaps we should be asking ourselves, "How do we change the cultural, systemic, environmental, and individual failures to reduce the risk of these tragedies?"
No comments:
Post a Comment