We noted  that service officials and male servicemembers at several military  installations gave us examples of recent incidents involving both hazing  and sexual assault. DOD and the Coast Guard Have Issued Policies to Address Hazing but They Do Not Know the Extent to Which the Policies Have Been Implemented and Servicemembers Need Clarification on the Policies

Each of the military services has issued policies to address hazing  incidents among servicemembers consistent with DOD’s 1997 hazing  policy. The Coast Guard’s hazing instruction permits command-authorized  rituals, customs, and rites of passage that are not cruel or abusive, and  requires commanders to ensure that these events do not include hazing. DOD and the Coast Guard Do Not Know the Extent to Which Their Hazing Policies Have Been Implemented

DOD and the Coast Guard do not know the extent to which hazing  policies have been implemented because—with the exception of policy  compliance inspections conducted by the Marine Corps—DOD, the  military services and the Coast Guard do not conduct oversight by  regularly monitoring the implementation of their hazing policies. Although most service  policies designated implementation responsibilities, DOD, the military  services, and the Coast Guard generally do not know the extent or  consistency with which their policies have been implemented because— with the exception of the inspections conducted by the Marine Corps— they have not instituted headquarters-level mechanisms to regularly  monitor policy implementation, such as by collecting local command data  on hazing policy implementation or conducting site inspections to  determine the extent to which the policies have been implemented,  among other things. These inspections do not necessarily cover all aspects of  hazing policy implementation. DOD and the Coast Guard Have Limited Visibility Over Hazing Incidents

		DOD and the Coast Guard Do Not Have Complete and Consistent Data on Reported Hazing Incidents

The Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps track data on reported  incidents of hazing. For example, until October 2015 the Army only collected data on cases  investigated by criminal investigators and military police, whereas the  Navy collected data on all substantiated hazing incidents reported to  commanders, and the Marine Corps collected data on both substantiated  and unsubstantiated incidents. In the absence of DOD guidance, the Air Force has  taken an ad hoc approach to compiling relevant information to respond to  requests for data on hazing incidents, and in the absence of Coast Guard  guidance on tracking hazing incidents, the Coast Guard has also taken an  ad hoc approach to compiling hazing data. DOD and the Coast Guard Do Not Know the Extent of Hazing In Their Organizations

To date, DOD and the Coast Guard do not know the extent of hazing in  their organizations because they have not conducted an evaluation of the  prevalence of hazing. In contrast to the limited data on reports of hazing  incidents, information on the prevalence of hazing would help DOD and  the Coast Guard to understand the extent of hazing beyond those  incidents that are reported. The prevalence of hazing could be estimated based on survey responses,  as DOD does in the case of sexual assault. However, as previously noted, the data  that are currently collected on hazing incidents are neither complete or  consistent, and data obtained through other sources, such as surveys,  suggest that hazing may be more widespread in the military services and  the Coast Guard than the current numbers of reports indicate. Table 2 shows the statements in the  organizational climate surveys about hazing and demeaning behaviors. These surveys do not measure the prevalence of hazing. Despite these limitations, analysis of these data yields insight into  perceptions of hazing within and across the services. Conclusions

Incidents of hazing in DOD and the Coast Guard can have effects that  extend beyond their victims and perpetrators, undermining unit cohesion  and potentially reducing operational effectiveness as a consequence. To promote greater consistency in and visibility over the military services’  collection of data on reported hazing incidents and the methods used to  track them, direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military  departments, to issue DOD-level guidance on the prevention of hazing  that specifies data collection and tracking requirements, including  the scope of data to be collected and maintained by the military  services on reported incidents of hazing; a standard list of data elements that each service should collect on  reported hazing incidents; and definitions of the data elements to be collected to help ensure that  incidents are tracked consistently within and across the services. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DOD and DHS for review and  comment. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) and  the Coast Guard have developed and implemented policies to address  hazing incidents, we reviewed DOD’s 1997 hazing memorandum, its  December 2015 updated hazing and bullying policy memorandum, and  the hazing policies of each military service and the Coast Guard. 1.
Why GAO Did This Study

Initiations and rites of passage can instill esprit de corps and loyalty and are included in many traditions throughout DOD and the Coast Guard. However, at times these, and more ad hoc activities, have included cruel or abusive behavior that can undermine unit cohesion and operational effectiveness.
Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to report on DOD, including each of the military services, and Coast Guard policies to prevent, and efforts to track, incidents of hazing. This report addresses the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have (1) developed and implemented policies to address incidents of hazing, and (2) visibility over hazing incidents involving servicemembers. GAO reviewed hazing policies; assessed data on hazing incidents and requirements for and methods used to track them; assessed the results of organizational climate surveys that included questions on hazing; conducted focus groups with servicemembers during site visits to two installations selected based on available hazing and sexual assault data, among other factors; and interviewed cognizant officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD), including each of the military services, and the Coast Guard have issued policies to address hazing, but generally do not know the extent to which their policies have been implemented. The military services' and Coast Guard's policies define hazing similarly to DOD and include servicemember training requirements. The military service and Coast Guard policies also contain guidance, such as responsibilities for policy implementation and direction on avoiding hazing in service customs and traditions, beyond what is included in DOD's policy. However, DOD and the Coast Guard generally do not know the extent to which their policies have been implemented because most of the services and the Coast Guard have not conducted oversight through regular monitoring of policy implementation. The Marine Corps conducts inspections of command hazing policy on issues such as providing servicemembers with information on the hazing policy and complying with hazing incident reporting requirements. While these inspections provide Marine Corps headquarters officials with some information they can use to conduct oversight of hazing policy implementation, they do not necessarily cover all aspects of hazing policy implementation. Without routinely monitoring policy implementation, DOD, the Coast Guard, and the military services may not have the accountability needed to help ensure efforts to address hazing are implemented consistently.
DOD and the Coast Guard have limited visibility over hazing incidents involving servicemembers. Specifically, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps track data on reported incidents of hazing, but the data are not complete and consistent due to varying tracking methods that do not always include all reported incidents. For example, until October 2015, the Army only tracked cases investigated by criminal investigators or military police, while the Navy required reports on substantiated hazing cases and the Marine Corps required reports on both substantiated and unsubstantiated cases. The Air Force and Coast Guard do not require the collection of hazing incident data, and instead have taken an ad hoc approach to compiling relevant information to respond to requests for such data. In the absence of guidance on hazing data collection, DOD and the Coast Guard do not have an accurate picture of reported hazing incidents across the services. In addition, DOD and the Coast Guard have not evaluated the prevalence of hazing. An evaluation of prevalence would provide information on the extent of hazing beyond the limited data on reported incidents, and could be estimated based on survey responses, as DOD does in the case of sexual assault. Service officials said that currently, reported hazing incidents are the primary indicator of the extent of hazing. However, data obtained through other sources suggest that hazing may be more widespread in DOD and the Coast Guard than the current reported numbers. For example, GAO analysis of organizational climate survey results from 2014 for the military services and the Coast Guard found that about 12 percent of respondents in the junior enlisted ranks indicated their belief that such incidents occur in their units. Although these results do not measure the prevalence of hazing incidents, they yield insights into servicemember perceptions of hazing, and suggest that an evaluation of the extent of hazing is warranted. Without evaluating the prevalence of hazing within their organizations, DOD and the Coast Guard will be limited in their ability to effectively target their efforts to address hazing.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 12 recommendations, among them that DOD and the Coast Guard regularly monitor policy implementation, issue guidance on the collection and tracking of hazing incident data, and evaluate the prevalence of hazing. DOD and DHS concurred with all of GAO's recommendations and have begun taking actions to address them.