From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, www.gao.gov Transcript for: : Hazing in the Military Description: Audio interview by GAO staff with Brenda Farrell, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Related GAO Work: GAO-16-226: DOD and Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Increase Oversight and Management Information on Hazing Incidents Involving Servicemembers Released: February 2016 [ Background Music ] [Narrator:] Welcome to GAO's Watchdog Report, your source for news and information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. It's February 2016. Military life is full of rituals and rites of passage that promote camaraderie among service members, but some actions cross the line into hazing. While hazing can take a toll on anyone, in the military, it can also undermine an entire unit's cohesion and effectiveness. A team led by Brenda Farrell, a director in GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management team, recently examined what the Department of Defense and Coast Guard are doing to address hazing in their ranks. Eden Savino sat down with Brenda to talk about what they found. [Eden Savino:] Traditions are important in the military, but when do rites of passage cross into hazing? [Brenda Farrell:] The military services, including the Coast Guard, practice traditions that often celebrate an event in a service member's life. And for example, the Navy has something called "Crossing the Line" when a sailor crosses the equator or the International Date Line for the first time. And they might have a comical play, dress up in costumes to celebrate. It crosses the line, though, into hazing when a service member places another service member in an activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, demeaning, or harmful. [Eden Savino:] What are the services doing to address hazing? [Brenda Farrell:] In 1997, the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued the overarching policy for hazing and then the services followed suit. They issued their regulations and their policy guidance. At the conclusion of our review, in December 2015, DOD updated its definition of hazing. And in their updated definition, they distinguish between hazing and bullying, and they cite that hazing occurs when one is being brought into a group or one's status changes, whereas bullying occurs when an individual is singled out because they are different or weak. Besides the definition, which obviously is key, the policy directed that commanders as well as non-commissioned officers take prompt action whenever an incident of hazing is reported to them and investigated and determined what are the next steps, if any. Also, that policy noted that training should be provided, but there's been no oversight to actually see what's working, what's not working, or changes needed. [Eden Savino:] So let me ask you, then, are there any figures or information available on the extent of military hazing? [Brenda Farrell:] We talk about the prevalence of hazing in this report. When we ask DOD about the prevalence or how widespread is hazing, they referred to the reported number of incidents. We don't think the reported number of incidents by themselves give you a complete picture because we suspect that hazing incidents are underreported. And if there were estimates about prevalence, which could be based off of surveys and an estimate made as they do with sexual assault incidents, they might get a better handle on what exactly is occurring and if they need to do more or need to do something different. [Eden Savino:] Are certain services better or worse at tracking this information or soliciting responses? [Brenda Farrell:] The services have different methodologies for how they collect the data and they have different methodologies because the DOD policy does not have a consistent methodology of what they should be capturing. So, the Army captures data on substantiated claims made to the military police or the criminal investigators, but they don't capture the claims that are made to other chains of command officials as well as the Inspector General. The Navy collects all substantiated cases, but they do not collect unsubstantiated cases. The Marine Corps collects both, but when we look more carefully at their data, we found double counting, which meant that the data was inaccurate. The Air Force and the Coast Guard don't have a requirement in their policy to collect the data. [Eden Savino:] Since it sounds like DOD doesn't really know the extent of hazing or whether anti-hazing policies are being implemented, tell me a bit about the recommendations your report is making. [Brenda Farrell:] We have a number of recommendations. We have 12 in total, and as you can probably conclude, there are a number of recommendations about how to go about collecting the data, but also very key is oversight. [Eden Savino:] So for those who are perhaps considering a career in the armed services, what would you say is the bottom line message of this report? [Brenda Farrell:] I think if DOD does move forward with implementing our recommendations-and we believe they will, they fully concurred with the recommendations, as did the Coast Guard—these recommendations provide a nice road map of the way forward in terms of really understanding hazing in the military and what, if anything, they need to do differently. [ Background Music ] [Narrator:] To learn more, visit GAO.gov and be sure to tune in to the next episode of GAO's Watchdog Report for more from the congressional watchdog, the U.S. Government Accountability Office.