Very Nervous

The following is from

Organizational Coping Patterns

by Rick Brenner

If your organization doesn’t cope well with adversity, it might be caught in one of several ineffective coping patterns. To help it to be more effective, begin by understanding how different organizations cope. In this essay, I adapt a well-known model of coping styles for individuals to describe organizational coping. You can use this model to recognize how to enhance or change the coping strategies of your organization.

Organizations deal with adversity by coping in characteristic ways. Although every organization is unique, you can understand its coping patterns in terms of three basic elements. The description that follows is based on a model of personal coping behavior first developed by Virginia Satir [Satir 1976, Satir 1988] and elaborated by others. I found Weinberg [Weinberg 1994] and McLendon and Weinberg [McLendon 1996] especially helpful.

The fundamental idea of Satir’s model, as applied to organizations, is that organizational coping patterns take reality into account in different ways. We can represent reality as a combination of three elemental factors: the Self, the Other and the Context. In organizational terms, the Self represents the internal world of the organization itself. The Other represents people or organizations external to the organization, but close to the organization. Finally, the Context represents the world beyond that — everything else.

Once you’ve identified a pattern that your organization uses repeatedly, you have all the tools you need to modify that pattern. If one or more elements of reality is under-represented or over-represented, you can work to bring things back into balance.

Here’s an example. Let’s suppose that we’re trying to understand how a project team came to a certain state of stress, and we’re looking at the flow of its communications with Marketing. Applying Satir’s model, Self would be the Project Team, Other would be Marketing, and all other factors are part of Context. In this example, the CEO and the Finance organization, as well as the Federal Communications Commission and the Law of Gravity, are part of Context.

When we put appropriate weight on each of these three elements, we have the best chance of coping well with reality. When coping and communication are effective, the organization’s internal representation of reality coincides with — is congruent to — reality itself. In the same way, the organization’s representation of itself to the outside world coincides well with — is congruent to — the internal reality of the organization. An organization that’s coping with reality from this position is said to be in a Congruent stance. When an organization’s views disregard one or more of these three elements, unfavorable outcomes are more likely. This is called incongruent coping.

The Blaming Configuration

Satir represents these possibilities using a simple graphical notation. To the right is an example of her notation as applied to the incongruent coping stance called blaming. In blaming, Self and Context are taken into account, but the Other (the one blamed) isn’t. In the graphic, I’ve chosen to represent with the dark color an element that’s taken into account. Elements that are disregarded or not taken into account are represented with the light color.

Typically, when we blame, we disregard or deliberately hide the true worth of the person or thing blamed. For example, when we blame Congress for writing such complex laws, and when we really get worked up about it, we tend to ignore the good things Congress has done, and continues to do. It may well be true that Congress has written some bad laws — but it’s just as certainly true that it has produced some good ones. It would be unwise to eliminate Congress just because it has made some mistakes.

Yet, in project work, when a colleague has made a drastic error that costs the project dearly, we sometimes blame the project’s failure on that one person. And, sometimes, such people are terminated, demoted, or moved to other assignments, even when we need their unique capabilities. Although this is sometimes the right thing to do, it’s also true that the blaming position can lead to the unnecessary loss of capability that the organization really needs. And it can bring unjustified harm to any person’s career. An organization that’s conversant with Satir’s model of coping stances has the best chance to notice itself adopting a blaming pattern in a situation like this one. Once it has noticed the pattern, it can begin to formulate alternate choices, and perhaps find a way to deal with the problem while avoiding undue harm to the person who erred, and to itself.

An eEmergency project situation

In the rest of this essay, I’ll list all eight patterns of organizational coping. To help convey the characteristic behavior of each pattern, each description contains a brief summary of how an organization that has adopted that pattern would respond in a typical emergency project situation:

The scene is a hastily-called meeting of executives, managers, and project managers. The agenda for this meeting is a review of the status of a key project, upon which the future of the organization depends. The meeting is being held because the project’s manager, in response to new information about three problematic tasks, has re-estimated the delivery date, and now expects a significant slip, which would have serious negative consequences for the organization and its customers.

Each of the eight characteristic organizational patterns suggests a characteristic atmosphere for such a meeting. That’s why this scenario is so useful for conveying the character of each pattern. And, of course, we’ve all attended such meetings, so we have our own experiences to compare to. Comparing the different responses within this one vignette helps clarify the distinctions among the eight patterns.

Each description concludes with a brief discussion of what might be needed to change that coping pattern to the Congruent pattern. You might be able to use these insights to help guide your organization to behave more congruently in similar situations.

The eight organizational coping patterns are:

Congruent

When an organization copes on the basis of understanding its own value, its own flaws, and its own limitations, it has the best chance of achieving its potential — and great things.

Placating

A Placating organization shows undue concern for possible negative consequences. The group can be so driven by avoidance of discomfort right now, that it’s willing to exchange it for far greater — even inevitable — discomfort in the future. When the group placates, it collectively avoids confronting issues or people, preferring instead to take full responsibility itself for any disappointing outcomes.

Blaming

When an organization copes by Blaming, it seeks people or things to hold responsible for any problem, not to learn from its mistakes, or to prevent them in the future, but to preserve its view of its own infallibility — and the fallibility of others.

Loving/Hating

In coping by Loving/Hating, the organization is driven by its relationship with other organizations, people or ideas. Whether finally to destroy that organization, person or idea; or to attach itself thereto in permanent adoration and ethereal bliss, it ignores almost everything and everyone else external to the focal relationship.

Narcissistic

When an organization is coping in the Narcissistic pattern, it’s driven by its love of itself and disregard for everything else. No other organization, no person, nothing external to itself is of any worth or value, except perhaps as support or utility to itself. The Narcissistic organization is prepared to use, abuse or exploit anyone, any idea, or any other organization, including its organizational parent, to further its own ends.

Infatuated

The Infatuated organizational coping pattern displays complete devotion to a particular person, idea or organization. It remains dedicated in the face of almost any contradictory data, which can lead it to decisions that expose itself to inordinate risk or even to organizational disaster.

Irrelevant

Irrelevant coping in an organization is coping by flight. In the face of adversity, the organization copes by avoiding not only the adversity, but any recognition of it.

Super-reasonable

Super-reasonable organizational coping emphasizes Context, usually through a devotion to “objectivity” and at the expense of human considerations or considerations of relationship. Super-reasonable coping can lead an organization to adopt self-destructive strategies because they make sense for the “bottom line,” or because they emphasize some specific organizational priorities, even if they’re self-destructive.

VariabFlexibility of coping stances

When an organization copes with a situation, it assumes a coping stance, which might be any one of the eight possible stances, or it might be a combination of two or more. To perhaps a greater extent than personal coping, organizational coping can more easily involve combinations, because so many people are involved. For instance, some of the people in the organization might prefer Blaming, while others might prefer Placating. What emerges for the organization is the result of everyone’s contributions.

The incongruent coping patterns of organizations are thus distinct from what might be perceived as organizational behavior disorders, in that they’re transient. Coping styles can vary with time and certainly with situation. Like people, the coping behavior of an organization in any specific situation might not fit any neat categorization scheme. Nevertheless, patterns of coping can emerge. An organization might favor one or two incongruent coping stances, on the whole and most of the time, but it still has the potential for Congruence at any time. An organization that behaves congruently most of the time can still occasionally adopt a blaming or placating stance once in a while. Variation is the only constant.

LearniLearning to use the model

Learning to use the model is difficult, especially when we try to apply it to an organization in which we play a key role, in part because of our own role in the incongruence. It might be easier to begin by studying incongruent coping of organizations in which you play a minor role, or no role at all. One very effective approach might be to study a historical situation from the perspective of this model. Historical examples are especially useful, because we often have access to detailed background information that’s difficult to obtain in real-life personal experiences. For example, the Munich Pact of 1938, under which Germany acquired the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, could be an example of organizational placating by Great Britain. By exploring historical examples, you can become familiar with the model and its application to organizations.

Once you have this familiarity, try tracking specific situations within your own organization. And when the time is right, try to move your organization towards congruence.

At the University of Seattle psychologist John Gottman (click to find his book at Amazon. com) has been researching the ingredients that make for successful marriage and successful therapy of couples who are wanting to make their relationships more fulfilling.

Gottman challenges many of the myths we hear in our day to day lives:

He reminds us that research does not support the idea that neurotic conflicts bring failure in marriage.

He cautions that having common interests can mean smooth or rough sailing depending on how you treat one another when you are sharing time together.

He has found that in happy marriages couples are not keeping tabs on one another and thus the quid pro quo theory of blissful matrimony is bogus.

He warns that avoiding conflict is not an asset in a marriage, depending on the personality of the individuals involved.

He recognizes that affairs to not generally break up marriages but that failing relationship intimacy leads to affairs. (I am sure he would agree that this is not always the case.)

He especially goes after the myths about men having poor relationship skills and a need to “spread their seed:” a sort of

And finally he asserts that while men and women have differences due to gender, this does not necessitate that they live on different planets.

So what does he look for and work for in helping his couples improve their lives?

First, he is concerned about the pattern of relationship repair. He has noticed in his observation of couples that those who succeed find ways to engineer “personal space walks” to fix what is failing or has injured their marital ship.  He says that “In the strongest marriages, husband and wife share a deep sense of meaning…don’t just ‘get along’–they also support each other’s hopes and aspirations and build a sense of purpose into their lives together.” (source: The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work)

He has noticed that couples who are successful avoid “harsh startups.”  This is about how spouses bring up issues, approach each other in problem solving.  Contempt can be found in a soft but cunning voice or in a loud abrasive and accusatory challenge.  It is the negativity and hostility factor that makes for the difference.

He goes on to identify The Four Horsemen of the Marital Apocolypse:

1. Relating by criticizing rather than complaining.  Complaints address issues and problems while criticism addresses global characteristics and escalate the conflict.

2. Contempt, demonstrated by frequent sarcasm and cynicism, of expression is a marriage killer.  He says, “Contempt is fueld by long-simmering negative thoughts about the partner.”  The cousin of contempt, he says, is belligerence: aggressive anger that contains a threat or provocation.

3. Defensiveness, he says, maintains these first two characteristics of marital failure.  By focusing on the partner’s faults or avoiding responsibility for relationship sabotage, the power struggle then escalates and solutions do not develop.

4. Finally, he posits that Stonewalling or tuning out is the ultimate killer, often arriving later on the marital scene, as hope begins to falter or is lost in the negative spiral of unsuccessful problem solutions.

He recognizes that a spouse will begin to stonewall as a protection agaisnt feeling overwhelmed or flooded by angry and painful emotions.

All of these factors are conveyed and expressed through body language that reveals an alarmed somatic reaction to the marital stress: increased adrenaline, fight or flight reactions, mounting blood pressure, and other significant hormonal changes:  Selye’s stress cycle.

These problems, as they become chronic in a failing marriage, make it much more difficult for repair attempts to succeed. He observes that “The more repair attempts fail, the more these couples keep trying.”  As the marriage continues bad memories begin to replace the dreams, high hopes and expectations that held the marriage together in the first place.  History gets rewritten, he says, and distorted memories begin to intensify.

Gottman’s Principles for Rebuilding Marital Relationship Include:

1. Enhancing Love Maps: Sharing and Getting to Know Your Partner Again
2. Nurturing Fondness and Admiration: Fanning the Flames of Appreciation
3. Turning Toward Instead of Away From Each Other: Learning How to Have Stress Reducing Conversations
4. Letting Your Partner Influence You: Practicing Emotional Intelligence and Yielding
5. Solving Solvable Problems and Being Tolerant of One Another’s Faults
6. Overcoming Gridlock by

• Finding Common Ground
• Defining Areas of Flexibility 
• Establishing Temporary Compromises 
• Addressing Short-Term Needs or Wishes

He encourages the development and maintenance of family rituals:  having meals together; attending reunions and religious services; having family outings; establishing repetitive events that express the unique interests or goals of members of the family, such as attending sports events or hiking.

Photobooks, memory books, and or photo collections can also cement marital and family relationships and help form a symbolic and expressive symbolic expression of a couples’ life journey.

The Tarasoff Statute is precedent-setting and specifies that the therapist or counsellor has a duty to warn “where the patient has communicated a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims.” In these situations, the therapist’s duty is to make a “reasonable effort to communicate the threat to the victim or victims and to a law enforcement agency.” Failure to act may also result in potential civil liabilities. 

A new California statute (AB733) became effective January 1, 2007 and  clarifies further Tarasoff Mandated Reporting:  The court expanded the definition of Civil Code 43.92 to include family members as persons covered within the statute:

The intent of the statute is clear. A therapist has a duty to warn if, and only if, the threat which the therapist has learned - whether from the patient or a family member - actually leads him or her to believe the patient poses a risk of grave bodily injury to another person. “The expanded duty from now on applies to credible threats received from the patient, or the patient’s family, however, the court made clear that its decision did not go beyond “family members.”

Myths and Facts About Domestic Violence

Myth # 1: Battering is rare.

FACT: Domestic violence is extremely common. The F.B.I. estimates that a woman is battered every fifteen seconds in the United States.

Myth #2: Domestic violence occurs only in poor, poorly educated, minority or “dysfunctional” families. It could never happen to anyone I know.

FACT: There are doctors, ministers, psychologists, and professionals who beat their wives. Battering happens in rich, white, educated and respectable families. About half of the couples in this country experience violence at some time in their relationship.

Myth #3: Battering is about couples getting into a brawl on Saturday night, beating each other up, and totally disrupting the neighborhood.

FACT: In domestic assaults, one partner is beating, intimidating, and terrorizing the other. It’s not “mutual combat” or two people in a fist fight. Its one person dominating and controlling the other.

Myth #4: The problem is not really woman abuse. It is spouse abuse. Women are just as violent as men.

FACT: In over 95% of domestic assaults, the man is the perpetrator. This fact makes many of us uncomfortable, but is no less true because of that discomfort. To end domestic we must scrutinize why it is usually men who are violent in partnerships. We must examine the historic and legal permission that men have been given to be violent in general, and to be violent towards their wives and children specifically. There are rare cases where a woman batters a man. Battering does occur in lesbian and gay male relationships. Survivors of abuse in such relationships should hear that because their situation is rare - or because they are in a societally unaccepted relationship - that does not make it less valid or serious. The National Domestic Violence Hotline believes that violence is unacceptable in intimate relationships and provides services to any person who has been victimized.

Myth #5: When there is violence in the family, all members of the family are participating in the dynamic, and therefore all must change for the violence to stop.

FACT: Only the perpetrator has the ability to stop the violence. Many women who are battered make numerous attempts to change their behavior in the hope that this will stop the abuse. This does not work. Changes in family members’ behavior will not cause or influence the batterer to be nonviolent.

Myth # 6: Batterers are crazy.

FACT: An extremely small percentage of batterers are mentally ill. The vast majority seem totally normal, and are often charming, persuasive, and rational. The major difference between them and others is that they use force and intimidation to control their partners. Battering is a behavioral choice.

Myth # 7: Domestic violence is usually a one-time event, an isolated incident.

FACT: Battering is a pattern, a reign of force and terror. Once violence begins in a relationship, it gets worse and more frequent over a period of time. Battering is not just one physical attack. It is number of tactics (intimidation, threats, economic deprivation, psychological and sexual abuse) used repeatedly. Physical violence is one of those tactics. Experts have compared methods used by batterers to those used by terrorists to brainwash hostages.

Myth #8: Battered women always stay in violent relationships.

FACT: Many battered women leave their abusers permanently, and despite many obstacles, succeed in building a life free of violence. Almost all battered women leave at once. The perpetrator dramatically escalates his violence when a woman leaves (or tries to), because it is necessary for him to reassert control and ownership. Battered women are often very active (and far from helpless) on their own behalf. Their efforts often fail because the batterer continues to assault, and institutions fail to offer protection.

Myth #9: The community places responsibility for violence where it belongs - on the criminal.

FACT: Most people blame the victim of battering for the crime, some without realizing it. They expect the woman to stop the violence, and repeatedly analyze her motivations for not leaving, rather than scrutinizing why the batterer keeps beating her, and why the community allows it.

Myth #10: Drinking causes battering.

FACT: Assailants use drinking as one of many excuses for violence, and as a way of putting responsibility for violence, and as a way of putting responsibility for their violence elsewhere. There is a 50% or higher correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence, but no causal relationship. Stopping the assailant’s drinking will not end his violence. Both problems must be addressed.

Myth #11: Stress causes domestic assault.

FACT: Many people who are under extreme stress do not assault their partners. Assailants who are stressed at work do not attack their co-workers or bosses.

Myth #12: Men who batter do so because they cannot control themselves or because they have “poor impulse control.”

FACT: Men who batter are usually not violent towards anyone but their wives/partner or their children. They can control themselves sufficiently to pick a safe target. Men often beat women in parts of their bodies where bruises will not show. Sixty percent of battered women are beaten while they are pregnant, often in the stomach. Many assaults last for hours. Many are planned.

Myth # 13: Rapists are strangers.

FACT: One out of ever seven married women is raped by her husband. At least 60%, and possibly all, physically battered women are sexually abused by their partners. This abuse includes, but is not limited to: forced sex in front of children, forced sex with animals or in groups and prostitution.

Myth #14: If a battered woman wanted to leave, she could just call the police.

FACT: Police have traditionally been reluctant to respond to domestic assaults, or to intervene in what they think of as a private matter. Police have usually temporarily separated the couple, leaving the woman vulnerable to further violence.

Myth #15: If a battered woman really wanted to leave, she could easily get help from her religious leader.

FACT: Some priests, clergy, and rabbis have been extremely supportive of battered women. Others ignore the abuse, are unsupportive, or actively support the assailant’s control of his partner.

Myth #16: Men who batter are often good fathers, and should have joint custody of their children.

FACT: At least 70% of men who batter their wives, sexually or physically, abuse their children. All children suffer from witnessing their father assault their mother.

Myth #17: If a battered woman really wanted to leave, she could just pack up and go somewhere else.

FACT: Battered women considering leaving their assailants are faced with the very real possibility of severe physical damage or even death. Assailants deliberately isolate their partners, and deprive them of jobs, of opportunities for acquiring education and job skills. This combined with unequal opportunities for women in general and lack of affordable child care, make it excruciatingly difficult for women to leave.

——————————————————————————–

Reproduced with permission. The Domestic Violence Project, Inc., SAFE HOUSE (Shelter Available for Emergency) P.O. Box 7052, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107.

CREATE YOUR OWN SAFETY PLAN!

You can create a less threatening environment for yourself and your children and regain control of your life by preparing for dangerous situations in advance.

IF YOU ARE LIVING WITH YOUR ABUSER:

Call the police (dial 911) if danger is escalating.

Tell a neighbor, co-worker, friend or family member about your situation, and ask them to call the police if you or your children are in danger.

Teach your children how to dial 911 and rehearse what they need to say.

If you have access to a cell phone, keep it handy at all times and know your location so you can call the Police if you are threatened.

Keep the Domestic Violence Hotline number available should you need assistance or guidance other than Emergency Police protection or intervention.

Educate yourself about the Protection Order and other legal options.

Educate yourself about shelters and resources available for battered women. Know what’s available before an emergency arises!

During an argument, stay out of the rooms where you know there are weapons such as guns, knives, tools, etc. Police may remove firearms when responding to domestic violence calls if the firearm is in view.

When the police arrive, stay calm and describe the incident as clearly as possible.

Keep an extra car and house key in a separate and secret place outside the home.

Plan where you will go if you have to leave in a hurry. For example: a shelter, a friend’s home, or a family member’s residence or maybe to the Police Station.

Be sure to have copies of all important documents, e.g. birth certificates, marriage license, passports, alien cards, tax returns, bank statements, bank checks and savings accounts, medical insurance information, legal documents, and keep in a safe place outside the home.

Keep an “Escape Bag” with a little money, clothing, toys for the children, snacks, important telephone numbers, and anything else you may need. Critical items such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, medication, appointment calendar, and updated pictures of your children might also be helpful. Put it in place where it cannot be found by the abuser–perhaps with a friend, neighbor or your workplace.

IF YOU ARE NOT LIVING WITH YOUR ABUSER:

Call the police (911) if you don’t feel safe.

Change the locks to your residence if the abuser has a key.

If you have a Protective Order, keep a copy with you at all times and call the police if the abuser violates the Order. Give a copy of your Protective Order to schools, daycare providers, a supportive neighbor, family or friend, and your workplace. Be sure they know to call the police if the abuser violates the order.

Get an answering machine with caller I.D. to screen your telephone calls.

Ask a work colleague or guard to escort you to your car, bus, or train after work.

Inform daycare centers, sitters and schools as to who has permission to pick up your children.

During exchange of children for visitation, arrange to meet in a public place such as a police station, a library, inside a shopping mall (but not in a parking lot), or at a family member’s home. It’s generally not a good idea to have visitation in your home without some other means of security available.

Do not allow the abuser into the home if he doesn’t live there. Tell your children not to open the door to anyone.

If you are receiving harassing telephone calls, dial *57. This will activate the telephone company’s CALL TRACE SERVICE. If the abuser leaves threatening messages on your machine, keep the tape.

Keep a journal documenting any harassment, incidents of abuse or threats. Include photographs of injuries and any damage to your property. Maintain a list of witnesses, if any.

If your abuser is in jail, keep informed of his status. If he is on probation, be sure you know the probation officer’s name and telephone number.

WHAT A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE

It is important to clarify at the beginning of the statement that this is a subjective and personal view of the victim, since thoughts and information expressed are not subject to rules of evidence or civil procedure regulations.

The statement consists of a brief summary of the harm or trauma suffered by the victim as a result of the abuse.  An effective statement is approximately 3-4 pages in length.

A summary of the economic loss or damage suffered by the victim and victim’s family as a result of the abuse.  Include requests for restitution for out-of-pocket expenses.

The victim’s recommendations, reactions or considerations regarding the proposed sentence or military order.

A concise statement of what outcome the victim would like and the reasons to support this opinion.

Highlights about the victim. Their past accomplishments, hopes for the future, and what the abuse has done to curtail these activities.

The overall effect the critical incident has had on the victim and family.

A narrative format is recommended because this allows the victim greater freedom in expressing their needs and sharing their story.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE MILITARY FACTS AND STATISTICS

“On average each fiscal year from 1990 to 1996, 23.2 per 1000 spouses of military personnel experienced a violent victimization. “–FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense

“On average each fiscal year from 1990 to 1996, 17.4 per 1000 reports of violent victimizations were substantiated by the Department of Defense.”–FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense

“The rate of violent victimization of spouses in the U.S. military has steadily increased from 18.6 to 25.6 per 1000 during the same time period.” –FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense

“The predominant type of substantiated spouse abuse is physical abuse. Eighty-five percent of the abuse perpetrated by offenders is physical abuse.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996

“A total of 61,903 substantiated offenders, either active duty personnel or civilians married to active duty personnel, have been identified for FY91-95.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996

“The offender rates are unreliable because each offender is only counted once, rather than counting the total number of incidents of abuse. The counts also do not include any subsequent offenses by the same offender.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996; and Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“The Army consistently shows the highest rate followed by the Marines,
Navy and Air Force.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996; and Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“The demographic characteristics of offenders indicates that substantiated spouse abuse is predominantly perpetrated by male (76%), active duty personnel (81%) of rank E6 or lower who are, on average slightly less than 27 years of age.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996; and Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“The spouse abuse victims have children (78%) and more than half have been married for two years or less.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996; and Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“The demographic characteristics of victims indicates that the victim is predominantly female, civilian spouse of active duty personnel who are, on average, slightly less than 25 years old.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse, Caliber Associates, 1996; Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“Fifty-two percent of the victims live off the installation and forty-seven percent reside on the installation.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996

“One in four female service members under age 50 has been physically abused.”–Women Veterans’ Experiences with Domestic Violence and with Sexual Harassment, Drs. Murdoch and Nichol, 1993

“Thirty-one percent of female military personnel who suffer domestic violence have been forced to have nonconsensual sex.”–Women Veterans’ Experiences with Domestic Violence and with Sexual Harassment, Drs. Murdoch and Nichol, 1993

“Thirty-three percent of the substantiated offenders are involved in mutual abuse.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996

“Recidivism and reoffense data from the Department of Defense is unreliable.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996; Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“Offenders are somewhat less likely to be promoted and somewhat more likely to be separated from the Service. The fear of negative consequences is probably out of proportion to the true impact. Commander discretion plays a major role in determining the extent of impact, as well as the service member’s performance and amenability to treatment.”–Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“Forty-three percent of the active duty offenders are separated from the service within three years of the initial substantiated offense.”–Final Report on the Study of Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996

“Seventy-five to eighty-four percent of active duty offenders are discharged honorably.”–Abuse Victims Study, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel, 1994

“Two hundred and fifty individuals currently receive transitional compensation as dependent abuse victims of Department of Defense personnel. Fifty are vested retirees.”–Department of Defense

Facts and Findings:  2005

     ~ Recent estimates suggest that spouse abuse in the military declined from 29.1 per 1000 in 1998 to 24.6 per 1000 in 2003.-FY 98-04, Family Advocacy Program, Department of Defense, 2005.

     ~ In FY 2003, 17,000 reported cases of spouse abuse occurred involving military personnel. Ninety-eight hundred were substantiated, rate of substantiated aggression of 14.2 per 1000.-FY 98-04, Spouse & Child Maltreatment, Family Advocacy Program, Department of Defense, 2005.

     ~The predominant type of substantiated spouse abuse is physical abuse.  Eighty-five percent of the abuse is physical abuse.  -Final Report on Spouse Abuse in the US Armed Forces, Caliber Associates, 1996.

     ~The severity of non mutual abuse increased from about 8% in 1999 to 13% in 2002 in the US Army.  Female victims accounted for 78.5% of the severe non mutual abuse cases and 58% of the severe mutual abuse cases.-Patterns of mutual and non mutual spouse abuse in the US Army (1998-2002), Violence and Victims, 2004.

      ~It is apparent that relatively few military personnel are prosecuted or administratively sanctioned on charges stemming from domestic violence.-Initial Report, Department of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, 2001.    

     ~Commander discretion plays a major role in determining the extent of impact, as well as service member’s performance and amenability to treatment.  -A Considerable Service, Domestic Violence Report, 2001.

      ~Less than seven percent of spouse abuse cases are adjudicated by court-marital.-Symposium on DV Prevention Research, Department of Defense, 2002.

     ~Rates of marital aggression are considerably higher than civilian rates, double, three to five times.-The War At Home, 60 Minutes, January 17, 1999; Heyman and Neidig. (1999). A comparison of spousal aggression prevalence rates in U.S. Army and civilian representative samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67 (2), 239-242; Rosen, Brennan, Martin, and Knudson. (August 2002).  Intimate Partner Violence and US Army Soldiers in Alaska, Military Medicine; The War At Home, 60 Minutes, September 1, 2002.

     ~Firearms were used against 35% percent of female victims.  Twenty-eight percent of female victims were beaten or strangled.  Females were over 10 times more likely than males to be strangled.-Homicide victims in the military (1980-1992), Military Medicine, 1995.

     ~Recent estimates suggest that sexual assault in the military is experienced by three percent of female service members, according to a recent survey released by the Department of Defense.-Armed Forces 2002 Sexual Harassment Survey, 2004. An earlier study conducted by the Defense Manpower Center indicated that 6 percent of female respondents and 1 percent of male respondents were victims of actual or attempted rape.-Department of Defense Sexual Harassment Survey, 1995.

    ~The prevalence of adult sexual assault among female veterans has been estimated as high as 41%. -Prevalence of physical and sexual abuse in women veterans, Military Medicine, 1996; Factors associated with women’s risk of rape in the military, Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2003; and Prevalence of military sexual assault, Interpersonal Violence, 2000.

    ~Thirty-seven percent of women who reported a rape or attempted rape had been raped more than once; fourteen percent of the victims reported having been gang raped. -Factors associated with women’s risk of rape in the military, Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2003.

Department of Defense

DIRECTIVE

NUMBER 1030.1

April 13, 2004

USD(P&R)

SUBJECT:  Victim and Witness Assistance

References:  (a)  DoD Directive 1030.1, Victim and Witness
Assistance, November 23, 1994 (hereby canceled)

(b)  Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, “Uniform
Code of Military Justice”

(c)  Sections 10606 and 10607 of title 42, United States
Code

(d)  Sections 1512-1514 of title 18, United States Code

(e)  DoD Instruction 1030.2, “Victim and Witness Assistance
Procedures,” December 23, 1994

1.  REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

This Directive:

1.1.  Reissues reference (a) to update Department of
Defense (DoD) policies and responsibilities for providing
assistance to victims and witnesses of crimes committed
in violation of reference (b).

1.2.  Implements references (c) and (d) by providing
guidance for assisting victims and witnesses of crime
from initial contact through investigation, prosecution,
and confinement.

2.  APPLICABILITY

This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Military Departments, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the
Office of Inspector General of the DoD (IG, DoD), the
Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all
other organizational entities in the Department of Defense
(hereafter referred to collectively as “the DoD Components”).
  The term “Military Services,” as used herein, refers
to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine
Corps.

3.  DEFINITIONS

Terms used in this Directive are defined in enclosure
1.

4.  POLICY

It is DoD policy that:

4.1.  The necessary role of crime victims and witnesses
in the criminal justice process should be protected.

4.2.  The DoD Components shall do all that is possible
within limits of available resources to assist victims
and witnesses of crime, in accordance with the requirements
listed in DoD Instruction 1030.2 (reference (e)) without
infringing on the constitutional rights of an accused.
  Particular attention should be paid to victims of
serious, violent crime, including child abuse, domestic
violence, and sexual misconduct.

4.3.  This Directive is not intended to, and does not,
create any entitlement, cause of action, or defense
in favor of any person arising out of the failure to
accord to a victim or a witness the assistance outlined
in this Directive.   No limitations are hereby placed
on the lawful prerogatives of the Department of Defense
or its officials.

4.4.  Law enforcement and legal personnel directly engaged
in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crimes,
shall ensure that victims are accorded their rights.
  As provided for in references (c) and (d), a crime
victim has the right to:

4.4.1.  Be treated with fairness and respect for the
victim’s dignity and privacy.

4.4.2.  Be reasonably protected from the accused offender.

4.4.3.  Be notified of court proceedings.

4.4.4.  Be present at all public court proceedings related
to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony
by the victim would be materially affected if the victim
heard other testimony at trial.

4.4.5.  Confer with the attorney for the Government
in the case.

4.4.6.  Receive available restitution.

4.4.7.  Be provided information about the conviction,
sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender.

4.5.  Court-martial convening authorities and clemency
and parole boards shall consider making restitution
to the victim a condition of pretrial agreements, sentence
reduction, clemency, and parole.   They may consider
victim statements on the impact of crime.

5.  RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD(P&R)) shall:

5.1.1.  Develop overall policy for victim and witness
assistance and monitor compliance with this Directive
and reference (e).

5.1.2.  Approve procedures developed by the Secretaries
of the Military Departments that implement this Directive
and are consistent with reference (e).

5.1.3.  Maintain a Victim and Witness Assistance Council
to provide a forum for the exchange of information and
the consideration of victim and witness policies, and
provide a liaison with the Department of Justice Office
for Victims of Crime.

5.1.4.  Ensure the Defense Manpower Data Center assists
in formulating a data collection mechanism to track
and report victim notifications from initial contact
through investigation, prosecution, confinement, and
release.

5.1.5.  Change, reissue, or amend reference (e), as
required.

5.2.  The IG, DoD shall oversee the development of investigative
policy and perform appropriate oversight reviews of
the management of the victim and witness assistance
program by the DoD criminal investigative organizations.
  This is not intended to substitute for the routine
managerial oversight of the program provided by the
DoD criminal investigative organizations, the USD(P&R),
the Heads of the DoD Components, the Component responsible
officials, or the local responsible officials.

5.3.  The Secretaries of the Military Departments and
the Heads of the Other DoD Components shall:

5.3.1.  Ensure compliance with this Directive and establish
policies and procedures to implement this program within
their Component.

5.3.2.  Designate the “Component Responsible Official,”
as defined in item E 1.1.2. of enclosure 1.

5.3.3.  Maintain a central repository, as defined in
item E1.1.1. of enclosure 1, for each Military Service,
to ensure that victims shall be notified of changes
in a confinee’s status.

5.3.4.  Ensure that a multi-disciplinary approach is
followed by victim and witness service providers, including
law enforcement personnel, criminal investigators, chaplains,
family advocacy personnel, emergency room personnel,
family service center personnel, judge advocates, unit
commanding officers, corrections personnel, and other
persons designated by the Secretaries of the Military
Departments; and ensure that those providers receive
training to assist them in complying with this Directive.

5.3.5.  Establish procedures to ensure that local installation
responsible officials provide victim and witness services
as required in reference (e) at the installation level
through coordination with the representatives identified
in paragraph 5.3.4., above.

5.3.6.  Establish oversight procedures to ensure establishment
of an integrated support system capable of providing
the services outlined in reference (e).   Such oversight
could include coverage by Military Service or organizational
Inspectors General, staff assistance visits, surveys,
and status reports.

5.3.7.  Report annually to the OUSD(P&R) in the format
prescribed in reference (e) for the preceding calendar
year.

6.  INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

The annual reporting requirements in paragraph 5.3.7.,
above, have been assigned Report Control Symbol DD-P&R(A)1952.

7.  EFFECTIVE DATE

This Directive is effective immediately.

Enclosures - 1

E1.  Definitions

E1.  ENCLOSURE 1

DEFINITIONS

E1.1.1.  Central Repository.   A headquarters office,
designated by Service regulation, to serve as a clearinghouse
of information on a confinee’s status and to collect
and report data on the delivery of victim and witness
assistance, including notification of confinee status
changes.

E1.1.2.  Component Responsible Official.   Person designated
by the Head of each DoD Component to be primarily responsible
in the Component for coordinating, implementing, and
managing the victim and witness assistance program established
by this Directive.

E1.1.3.  Confinement Facility Victim Witness Assistance
Coordinator.   A staff member at a military confinement
facility who is responsible for notifying victims and
witnesses of changes in a confinee’s status and reporting
those notifications to the central repository.

E1.1.4.  Local Responsible Official.   Person designated
by the Component Responsible Official who has primary
responsibility for identifying victims and witnesses
of crime and for coordinating the delivery of services
described in this Directive through a multi-disciplinary
approach.   The position or billet of the local responsible
official shall be designated in writing by Service regulation.
  The local responsible official may delegate responsibilities
under this Directive as provided in reference (e).

E1.1.5.  Victim.   A person who has suffered direct
physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of
the commission of a crime committed in violation of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice) (Chapter 47 of
10 U.S.C., reference (b) or in violation of the law
of another jurisdiction if any portion of the investigation
is conducted primarily by the DoD Components).   Such
individuals shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:

E1.1.5.1.  Military members and their family members.

E1.1.5.2.  When stationed outside the continental United
States, DoD civilian employees and contractors, and
their family members.   This applies to services not
available to DoD civilian employees and contractors,
and their family members, in stateside locations, such
as medical care in military medical facilities.

E1.1.5.3.  When a victim is under 18 years of age, incompetent,
incapacitated, or deceased, the term includes one of
the following (in order of precedence): a spouse, legal
guardian, parent, child, sibling, another family member,
or another person designated by the court or the Component
responsible official, or designee.

E1.1.5.4.  For a victim that is an institutional entity,
an authorized representative of the entity.   Federal
Departments and State and local agencies, as entities,
are not eligible for services available to individual
victims.

E1.1.6.  Witness.   A person who has information or
evidence about a criminal offense within the investigative
jurisdiction of a DoD Component and who provides that
knowledge to a DoD Component.   When the witness is
a minor, that term includes a family member or legal
guardian.   The term does not include a defense witness
or an individual involved in the crime as a perpetrator
or accomplice.