	Background

The reports of sexual misconduct at Aberdeen Proving Grounds led the Secretary of Defense to establish the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues and to ask the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services to meet with trainees and trainers. Visits lasted 1 to 4 days depending on the numbers of participants in the various activities. Methodology

The Army’s Senior Review Panel on Sexual Harassment used four methods to collect data: individual interviews, focus groups, surveys, and observations. Members of field teams conducted individual interviews with 808 military and civilian Army leaders and personnel in Army support groups. The study took 8 months to complete and obtained information from over 32,000 Army personnel. Use of Multiple Methodologies and Extensive Documentation Allowed Making Conclusions and Recommendations

The panel’s methodology supported making conclusions and recommendations. Participants in the trainer focus groups were trainers for at least 1 year. Problems With the Methodology Limit the Usefulness of the Report

The value of the information included in the Committee’s report for making conclusions and recommendations is limited because the Committee did not follow recommended focus group methodology. However, the fact that the same questions were not asked of each similar focus group, along with the number of questions, size of the groups, and length of the sessions may have combined to limit full discussion. In addition, the focus groups’ discussions were not systematically recorded. As a result, the extent to which the recommendations are supported by the Committee’s work cannot be assessed. Methodology

DACOWITS used focus groups as its primary means of data gathering. Overall, they solicited the opinions of over 1,200 trainees, trainers, and supervisors in the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard in focus group discussions at 12 gender-integrated training schools at 9 installations. The individual installation visit reports support the opinions and perceptions that appear in the report to the Secretary of Defense. The literature suggests that focus groups should be no larger than  12 participants. DACOWITS did not document the individual focus groups as recommended by focus group literature. While the installation reports document the work performed and the issues surfaced during the training installation visits, they do not capture enough information about the discussions in each focus group to be really useful. Also, in accordance with the limitations of the methodology, the DACOWITS report made no conclusions or recommendations on military training. A report should clearly state what the purpose of the study was, what its scope was, how the data were collected and analyzed, and what, if any, significant limitations exist on the data or the use of the data. In the Marine Corps men and women live, eat, and train separately.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed three studies on gender-related issues affecting initial entry training in the Department of Defense (DOD), focusing on: (1) how the groups conducted their work; (2) how well the work supported making conclusions and recommendations; (3) the availability of documentation supporting the report; and (4) the extent to which the final report described the study methodology and disclosed limitations.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual harassment used four methods to collect data: individual interviews, focus groups, surveys, and observations; (2) during its 8 months of work, the panel visited 59 installations worldwide, conducted interviews with 808 military and civilian Army personnel, ran focus groups with over 8,000 soldiers and civilians, and surveyed 22,952 individuals; (3) the use of multiple methods of data gathering, the rigor with which the various methods were conducted, and the publication of the data in the report provides ample support for making conclusions and recommendations; (4) the Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues used focus groups as its primary method of data gathering; (5) although FAC conducted over 300 focus groups and individual interviews, their value for making conclusions and recommendations is limited because the Committee did not: (a) systematically collect the same information from all groups; (b) document the information generated in each of the interviews and focus groups; or (c) explain how what was heard in the interviews and focus groups led to their conclusions and recommendations; (6) in addition, the length of the focus group sessions, the number of participants, and the number of questions addressed may not have provided adequate time for full participation of the respondents on all issues; (7) given these limitations, the extent to which the Committee's work supports its conclusions and recommendations cannot be determined; (8) the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) also used focus groups of trainees, trainers, and supervisors in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard to identify what issues concerned women and men at training installations; (9) members of the DACOWITS held focus group discussions at 12 schools at 9 installations in the United States and prepared a summary report of the results at each installation; (10) the DACOWITS Chair used these to prepare a report to the Secretary of Defense that accurately reflected the opinions and perceptions cited in the individual installation reports; (11) the DACOWITS focus groups were: (a) larger than recommended in the literature; (b) were sometimes not long enough to allow meaningful participation; and (c) were not recorded or documented on a group-by-group basis; and (12) the DACOWITS report summarized the opinion and perception data obtained from focus groups; and (13) it made no conclusions or recommendations on military training based on that information.