DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEOMI Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS) Report Organization: USS GEORGE BUSH Commander/Director: CAPT Bailey Admin Number: 1804149 Tuesday, May 08, 2018 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Directorate of Research Patrick AFB, FL Management or disciplinary actions should not be taken based solely on the results of this report. RCS: (AR) 2333 TABLE 0? CGNTENTS Page I. How to Interpret your DEOCS 3 II. Demographic Breakout 5 111. Overall Unit Summary 6 IV. Climate Factor Subgroup Comparisons 9 V. DEOCS Summary of Survey Item Responses 11 VI. Recommendations 26 Appendix A: Your Locally Developed Questions 28 Appendix B: Your Short?Answer Questions 30 Appendix C: Written Comments from Your Organization 97 Appendix D: Operational Stress Control (OSC) Report 171 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Careful deliberation should be taken prior to making any management or disciplinary decisions based solely on the survey results. The DEOCS report provides valuable information about members? perceptions of the organization?s climate. It is important to review all sections in this report. Compare the information presented in Section 111, Overall Unit Summary, Section I V, Climate Factor Subgroup Comparison, Section V, DEOCS Summary of Survey Item Responses, along with Appendix, Written Comments from Your Organization. Doing so can help create a more complete picture and help validate potential areas of concern. DEOMI recommends organizations use multiple approaches, including individual interviews and/or focus groups, observations, and reviews of records and reports to more comprehensively characterize the command?s climate. For example, the climate factor subgroup comparisons provided in Section I can help identify subgroups with lower favorability ratings, and conducting focus groups and interviews with members of these subgroups can clarity their perceptions regarding a climate factor, and the reasons why these perceptions exist. For information regarding climate factors, focus group/interview questions, and/or additional materials to assist with action planning, please visit ?Assessment to Solutions? at: 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute i. SSW T8 YGEJR EEOQS . Start by looking at the demographic breakout in Section Demographic Breakout. The table displays the number of respondents by their demographic features. Survey respondents can select different options when completing the demographic portion of the survey, so numbers may not match the total personnel assigned. Determine how closely participants in each demographic group represent the overall assigned population. Note: disparities in responses presented in the tables throughout the report are due to missing or erroneous responses. . Identify areas of concern and strength (both for your overall unit and subgroups) using the color-coded comparisons: a. Unit: Examine Section [11, Overall Unit Summary to compare your unit?s favorability* percentage to units of a similar organization function, and your parent Service branch on each DEOCS factor. b. Subgroups: Examine Section I V, Climate Factor Subgrozqu Con-zparr'sons to compare perceptions among subgroups. No data are displayed in cases where fewer than five people in any subgroup complete the survey. . Examine the item-level results using the favorable/unfavorable response rates in Section V, DEOCS Summary of Survey Item Responses. This can help identify those items with high levels of unfavorable responses. . Examine the written comments associated with an area of concern to determine whether any of the comments re?ect negative perceptions that may help explain the numerical ?ndings. Comments can be easier to analyze if they are broken into themes. . Based on the degree of favorability of the item-level responses and written comments, determine if the apparent climate of your unit or any subgroup(s) warrants further action. . In such cases, use those findings to guide follow?on climate assessment actions determine the demographic composition of focus groups and the topics to discuss with them; identify records and reports to analyze to validate perceptions, develop a plan of action to correct validated issues, etc.). For more strategies to create a healthier command climate, refer to Section VI, Recommendations. Note: There are seven response Options for each item that range from unfavorable to favorable. Because the scale has a 7?point range, three of the response options are categorized as unfavorable strongly disagree, disagree, disagree), one response option is considered neutral (neither agree nor disagree), and three response options are categorized as favorable agree, agree, strongly agree). Negative worded items noted with an asterisk have their scales reversed. Therefore, a favorability percentage would be interpreted as the average of your favorable reSponse options summed. 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute DJ HOW TO INTERPRET DEOCS COLOR CODING Color Coding Category Criteria General Interpretation 90% and above - Almost complete unit endorsement of scale Excellent favorable - Area of excellence and maintenance/stability actions responding recommended Between 70% and Majority of unit endorsed scale and reached Adequate 89% favorable recommended endorsement threshold responding - Area not of concern but room for improvement Between 50% and - Majority of unit endorsed scale but did not reach . recommended endorsement threshold Yellow Caution 69% favorable - Area flagged for concern. Actlons should be respondmg conSIdered to boost endorsement Below 50% Majority of unit did NOT endorse scale Improvement . . favorable - Area of great concern and corrective actions must be Needed . responding taken ASAP 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute ii. EEMOG FEEC BREAKOUT Tabie 1: Demographic Representation REPRESENTATEON USS GEORGE BUSH Number Percent Majority 407 44.5% Minority 383 41.9% Declined to Respond American lndian or Alaskan NatIve 13 7% 9% Asian 30 3.3% Black 154 16.8% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific lslander 1.7% White 52.7% Selected Multiple Races 6.0% Hispanic .. .. . . .. 161% Not Hispanic 70.5% Women EFT .. . ., . .. . Me JunlorEnhSted . . . 59. 99% Senior Enlisted (E7 - E9) Warrant Of?cer (WO1 CW5) 0.4% Junior Of?cer (01 - 03) 4.8% Senior Officer (04 - Above) 3.0% Junior Federal Civilian (Grades 1 - 12) 0.0% Senior Federal Civilian (Grades 13 SES) Non-Appropriated Funds (MAP) 0.0% Wage Grade 0.0% pal-WIS of (CM ?g n..Non -Supervisor (civilian only) Total 915 For the subgroup categories, the majority category includes respondents who listed their race as ?White,? and their ethnicity as ?not Hispanic.? All respondents who select any other race andfor Hispanic are included in the minority subgroup; the "Declined to ReSpond" designation includes those respondents whose responses to the race and ethnicity items render it impossible to classify them as majority or minority. Ail Warrant Of?cers - CW5) be combined with Junior Of?cers in Section IV. Climate Factor Subgroup Comparison. Additionally, ail Wage Grade and Non-Appropriated Fund civilians not be in the JuniorISenior Civilian breakout within Section IV. Climate Factor Subgroup Comparison. 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute OVERALL UNIT SUMMARY The ?gures below compare your organization's favorability ratings for each climate factor against units in your Service with similar functions, and to your parent Service. Similar function units and Service favorability ratings are updated on a bi-annual basis. The box to the right of each ?gure displaying your organization?s favorability rating will be color-coded red, yellow, blue or green. Please refer to How to Interpret DEOCS Color Coding (pg. 4) for more information regarding the color-coding. Percentages for Unit Type and Service will not be available until a representative sample can be obtained to generate an accurate percentage. Figure 2: Unit Summaries Unit Type Aircraft Carrier Commitment Your Unit I 59% Unit Type 0% USN I 69% Your Unit 66% I Unit Type 0% USN 73% Your Unit 64% I Unit Type 0% I USN 72% I Your Unit 58% Unit Type 0% USN 70% Your Unit I 68% . Unit Type 0% USN 77% Improvement Needed Caution Below 50% fmnrahlc Between 50-69% favorable responses responses 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 6 Figure 2 (cont): Unit Summaries Unit Type Aircraft Carrier Job Satisfaction Your Unit 53% . Unit Type 0% USN 68% I Your Unit I 58% Unit Type 0% USN I 64% Your Unit Unit Type 0% USN 76% I Your Unit 56% Unit Type 0% USN I 67% I Your Unit 58? 0 Unit Type 0% USN 70% I Your Unit I 67% . Unit Type I 0% USN I 76% Caution Between 50-69% favorable Improvement Needed Below 50% fm'ornhle responses responses 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 7 Figure 2 (cont): Unit Summaries Unit Type Aircraft Carrier Sexual Assault Prevention Climate Your Unit .i Unit Type 0" USN 80% I Your Unit 62? 0 Unit Type 0% USN 63% Your Unit Unit Type 0% USN 87% Your Unit 66% . Unit Type 0% USN I 78% Your Unit . 68% I Unit Type 0% USN 79% Needed Caution Belt)? 50%. I'm umhlc Between 50-69?Vo favorable responses responses 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 8 IV. CLIMATE FACTOR SUBGROUP COMPARISONS Organizational Effectiveness Factors The following ?gure displays the Organizational Effectiveness (OE) Factor favorability ratings by demographic subgroup. NO data are displayed in cases where fewer than five people in a subgroup completed the survey; this helps maintain reSpondent anonymity. Refer to Section V, DEOCS Summary of Survey Item Responses to view the respective item level response frequencies for each factor. Figure 3: OE Subgroup Comparison USS GEORGE BUSH Organizational Effectiveness Senior Org Group Trust in Job Org commit Leader Perform Cohesion Leader Satisfaet Process E?gage Minority 59% 68% 65% 59% 68% 53% 59% 65% Majority 63% 67% 67% 61% 56% 61% 66% women 56% 63% 60% 54% 63% 50% 51% 57% Men 60% 67% 66% 60% 54% 61% 67% Enlisted Of?cer Junior Enlisted Senior Enlisted Junior Of?cer Senior Of?cer Military Civilian Junior Civilian Senior Civilian Non-Supervisor Supervisor Your Unit 59% 66% 64% 58% 68% 53% 58% 64% Caution Between 50-69% favorable Improvement Needed Belo? 50% favorable responses 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 9 Equal Opportunity Equal Employment Opportunity Fair Treatment Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Climate Factors The following ?gure displays the E0 EEO Fair Treatment SAPR Climate Factor favorability ratings by demographic subgroup. No data are displayed in cases where fewer than ?ve people in a subgroup completed the survey; this helps maintain respondent anonymity. Refer to Section V, DEOCS Summary of Survey Item Responses to view the respective item level response frequencies for each factor. SH and SA refer to Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault respectively. Figure 4: Treatment SAPR Subgroup Comparisons USS GEORGE BUSH Treatment . . . SH SA SA Report SA SA IncluSIon SH Retaliation Prevent Response Retaliation Minority 56% 55% 64% 64% Majority 60% 64% Men 610/0 Enlisted 54% 560/0 Of?cer Junior Enlisted Senior Enlisted Junior Of?cer Senior Of?cer Military Civilian Junior Civilian Senior Civilian Non-Supervisor Supervisor Your Unit 560/0 580A. 670A) 680/0 660/0 Imprm cment Needed Caution Below 0 fan orahlc Between 50-69% favorable responses (:34 3.111055 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 10 V. DEOCS SUMMARY OF SURVEY ITEM RESPONSES The following tables and ?gures provide the item-level response frequencies across all the DEOCS factors. The total percentage of responses and color coding for each factor mirror those found for that factor in Section Overall Unit Summary. Factor results for Bystander Intervention, Sexual Assault Reporting Knowledge, Unwanted Workplace Experiences, Connectedness, Hazing, and Bullying are presented at the end of the following tables due to different response scales. Only favorable response totals are presented in the color shaded area. Table 2.1 Commitment Question - Strongly Disagree Neither? Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree I feel like "part of the family" in 82 67 53 127 121 326 136 this workgroup. This workgroup has a great deal of 83 87 48 178 149 236 131 personal meaning to me. I feel a strong sense of belonging to 84 82 57 168 145 247 128 this workgroup. 9% 9% 6% 15% 29% 14% Total w- 17% - . - 23% 59% Table 2.2 Senior Leadership Question - Strongly Disagree Neither Agree - I. Strongly? Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree My senior leader puts processes in 78 61 53 1 12 130 308 166 place to facilitate the sharing of information throughout the organization. My senior leader clarifies our 343 177 organization?s goals and priorities. My senior leader communicates a 84 66 50 120 144 281 158 clear vision for the future. My senior leader listens to the 91 58 43 139 121 289 167 concerns of the organization's military members and employees. 8% 7% 5% 14% 33% 18% Total 13% - 20% 66% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 1 1 Table 2.3 Organizational Performance Question Strongly Disagree I Agree I ?__S?trongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree When short suspense/tasks arise. 63 63 68 137 136 298 137 people in my organization do an outstanding job in handling these s?ua?ons My organization's performance316 176 compared to similar organizations, is high. My organization makes good use of 66 56 61 145 141 305 131 available resources to accomplish its mission. 76 16% -66 666 166- 19% 64% Table 2.4 Group Cohesion Question Strongly $7535.12? __siig'h'tif 'SEg?h?tl?? Agk? ?Strongly- Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree My workgroup is united in trying reach its goals for performance. We all take responsibility for the 84 81 69 138 133 283 120 performance of the workgroup. If members of our workgroup have 110 91 65 158 137 227 120 problems in the workplace, everyone wants to help them so we can get back on task. Total 9% 9% 8% 15% 15% 29% 13:41?? 26% 58% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 12 Table 2.5 Trust in Leadership "Question '4 Strongly Disagree 1 ?Neill?1219"? Agr'e? "shims; Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree 1 can rely on my immediate 66 44 48 121 1 17 306 203 supervisor to act in my organization's best interest. My immediate supervisor follows 62 50 49 131 1 17 308 192 through with commitments he or she makes. I feel comfortable sharing my work 82 53 51 136 1 18 313 155 dif?culties with my immediate supervisor. My immediate supervisor treats fairly. 7% 5% 5% 12% 35% 21% Total 14% 17% 68% Table 2.6 Job Satisfaction Question? Strongly Disagree .. _h Neither- Slightiy - Agred Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree 1 like my current jobfeel satis?ed with my current jobhappy with my current job15% 24% 14% Total 16% -- 30% 53% Table 2.7 Organizational Processes Question Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly? Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree Programs are in place to address 50 42 32 139 143 360 144 military members? and employees' concerns. Discipline is administered fairlyDecisions are made after reviewing 89 10relevant information. 1 1% 8% 6% 14% 32% 12% Total 16% -- 25% 58% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 13 Table 2.8 Engagement - ?Question?- Strongly, Di?sagree _N2i_thei- - Agree Strongly? Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree At my workplace, I am mentally 31 28 36 158 110 345 197 resilient. I am enthusiastic about my work. 80 64 43 172 183 241 127 Time ?ies when I am working15% 30% 19% Total -- -. 17% . 18% 64% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 14 Table 2.9 Inclusion at Work Question Strongly Disagree "N?fm?i- Agree Strongly .. Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree Coworkers are treated as valued members of the team without losing their unique identities. Within my workgroup, I am 83 65 55 176 135 274 121 encouraged to offer ideas on how to improve operations. Military members/employees workgroup are empowered to make work-related decisions on their own. Outcomes training 149 80 79 162 128 227 86 opportunities, awards, and recognition) are fairly distributed among military mem bers/em ployees of my workgroup. The decision-making processes that impact my workgroup are fair. Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree I feel excluded by my workgroup 41 41 52 21 62 273 232 because I am different.* Total 10% 8% 7% 19% 14% 29% 13% 25% 56% Note. The item marked with the asterisk indicates the question is negatively worded: therefore agreement with this item indicates an unfavorable response 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Table 2.10 Discrimination ??Q'l'le's??gf _snng? Neither Strongly Disagree mStroiigl-y I - Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree Pi?iini??iit?llf?i Discrimination based on does not occur in my workplace. Race/Color/National Origin 81 64 51 151 57 245 265 Religion 244 232 Sexual Orientation 87 60 24 185 43 259 252 (28? Discrimination Behavioral Subfactor I believe I can use my chain of 91 45 37 154 79 303 201 (220/) command/supervision to address concerns about discrimination withPutfsaEOF retaliati9s/ren'iissl- . . . Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree Racial slurs, comments, and/or 78 133 62 195 37 171 234 jokes are used in my workplace.* Sexist slurs, comments, andlorjokes 78 133 71 186 44 192 208 are used in my workplace.* 9W 60/ 2 0 Total 19% 0 6 /o 23% 58% Note. The items marked with the asterisk indicates the question is negatively worded; therefore agreement with this item indicates an i unfavorable response. Table 2.11 Discrimination Summary 1.551335? workplace. Unfavorable "neutral Fir?V8151; _Eac_e[_C_o_lorfNational Origin 196 151 Religion 150 176 585 Sen. 203 165 __543 ?Sennalgrientation 171 185 554 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 16 Table 2.12 Sexual Harassment Question Strongly Disagree? Neither .. ?Sligh? _Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree My chain of commandfsupervision 36 14 12 215 50 314 266 adequately responds to allegations of sexual harassment. My chain of commandlsupervision 28 15 21 204 74 319 247 plays an active role in the prevention of sexual harassment. Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree Individuals from my workplace use 36 56 56 229 48 250 238 offensive gestures that are sexual in nature.* Individuals from my workplace 30 23 8 190 24 224 413 have been offered rewards or special treatment in return for engaging in sexual behavior.* Total 3% 33?: 23% E71- 39'?me 9% 67% Note. The items marked with the asterisk indicates the question is negatively worded; therefore agreement with this item indicates an unfavorable response Table 2.13 Sexual Assault Prevention Climate Question Strongly Disagree ?Neifh?er?m Agree? Strong?1y - Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree My immediate supervisor models 35 24 30 141 87 358 238 respectful behavior. My immediate supervisor promotes 27 l9 14 133 51 365 305 responsible alcohol use. My immediate supervisor would 46 44 22 186 47 323 243 correct individuals who refer to coworkers as 'honey', 'babe', 'sweetie?, or use other unprofessional language at work. My immediate supervisor would 31 50 36 180 83 31 220 stop individuals who are talking about sexual topics at work. My immediate supervisor would 25 26 19 156 60 354 270 intervene if an individual was receiving sexual attention at work. My immediate supervisor 27 26 17 164 74 337 266 encourages individuals to help others in risky situations that could result in harmful outcomes. Total 3% . . 17% . 73/3 28% 9% _13/ 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 17 Question If a coworker were to report a sexual assault, my chain of command/supervision would take the report seriously. If a coworker were to report a sexual assault, my chain of commandfsupervision would keep the knowledge of the report limited to those with a need to know. If a coworker were to report a sexual assault, my chain of command/supervision would discourage military members or employees from spreading rumors and speculation about the allegation. If a coworker were to report a sexual assault, my chain of command/supervision would promote healthcare, legal, or other support services to the reporter. If a coworker were to report a sexual assault, my chain of command/supervision would support the reporter for speaking up. Total Table 2.14 Sexual Assault Response Climate Strongly Disagree 14 36 39 13 23 3% Disagree ll 31 26 I3 16 2% Disagree 14 28 23 16 23 2% 70/0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 120 132 142 150(16%) 153 Agree 31 56 52 40 53 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Agree 298 303 302 324 297 Strongly Agree 421 319 320 346 336 18 The items for both the Sexual Assault Retaliation and Sexual Harassment Retaliation factors are negatively worded; therefore agreement with these items indicates an unfavorable response. Because all of the questions on this scale are negatively worded, the total disagreement responses to the items are color coded. Following the color?coding convention as in the rest of this report, this color coding re?ects the percentage of favorability on the questions/ scales. Table 2.15 Sexual Assault Retaliation Climate Question Strongly Disagree Neither Agree sir?a'g?r" Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree In my work group, reporters sexual assault would be excluded from social interactions or conversations. In my work group,.reporters sexual assault would be subjected to insulting or disrespectful remarks or jokes. In my work group, reporters sexual assault would be blamed for causing problems. In my work group, reporters sexual assault would be denied career opportunities. In my work group, reporters sexual assault would be disciplined or given other corrective action. In my work group, reporters sexual assault would be discouraged from moving forward with the reportTotal 24% .. 66% 10% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 19 Table 2.16 Sexual Harassment Retaliation Climate Strongly - Disagree Eifg?iy? -?Either "gang?s? Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree Agree Agree In my work group, military members or employees who file a sexual harassment complaint would be excluded from social interactions or conversationswork group, military members or employees who ?le a sexual harassment complaint would be subjected to insulting or disrespectful remarks or jokes. In my work group, military members or employees who file a sexual harassment complaint would be blamed for causing problems. In my work group, military members or employees who ?le a sexual harassment complaint would be denied career opportunities. In my work group, military members or employees who ?le a sexual harassment complaint would be disciplined or given other corrective action. In my work group, military members or employees who ?le a sexual harassment complaint would be discouraged from moving forward with the complaint. Total 1804149 312 308 322 325 322 34Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 20 14 22 17 15 l4 Bystander Intervention Experience in Past 12 Months Respondents were asked if they have observed a situation they believed was, or could have led to a sexual assault within the past 12 months. Respondents? responses to this observation question are displayed in Figure 5. Figure 5. Respondents who Observed a High Risk Situation In the past 12 months, I observed a situation that I believe was, or could have led to, a sexual assault10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 7'0% 80% 90% 100% If respondents answered ?yes? to the observation of a high risk situation question, they were prompted to identify the response that most closely resembled their actions. Table 3 displays the responses of those who completed the question across your organization. Table 3. Respondents? Reported Actions Taken Following High Risk Situation If yes, in response to this situation, select the one response that most closely resembles your actions. Number Percent I stepped in and separated the people involved in the situation. 6 20.0% I asked the person who appeared to be at risk if they needed help. 3 10.0% I con??onted the person who appeared to be causing the situation. 4 13.3% I created a distraction to cause one or more of the people to disengage from the situation. 3 10.0% I asked others to step in as a group and diffuse the situation. 2 6.7% I told someone in a position of authority about the situation. 2 6.7% I considered intervening in the situation, but I could not safety take any action. 2 6.7% I decided to not take action. 8 26.7% Total 30 100.0% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 21 Sexual Assault Reporting Knowledge Knowledge of the sexual assault reporting options is assessed using two questions. The ?rst item reads, ?All of the following types of people can receive an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault. However, 3 Restricted (con?dential) Report can only be made to certain people. Please identify which of the following types of people can and cannot take a Restricted Report.? The Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, Victim Advocate, and Military Service Healthcare Personnel take a Restricted Report. ?Anyone in my chain of command? and ?Criminal investigator and military police of?cer? are incorrect answers. These persons cannot take a Restricted Report. Figure 6 displays the percentage of members within your organization who correctly and incorrectly identi?ed who can and cannot take 3 Restricted Report. The second item reads, ?Service members who report they were sexually assaulted are eligible for the service of a military attorney.? The correct answer is ?True?. Figure 7 displays the percentage of members in your organization who correctly identi?ed who is eligible for the service of a military attorney. Figure 6. Respondents? Restricted Reporting Knowledge. Restricted Reporting Knowledge Correct I Incorrect Not suretDo not know I I - - 157115.092? 568 HI Erratum-1.) Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (can) Victim Advocate (can) Military Service 533 no :m Healthcare Personnel (can) 632 (9.594.) [no answer 43? (519%) 214 Anyone in my chain of commandlsupervision (cannot) . . I Criminal investigator andlor military police of?cer (cannot) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Figure 7. Respondents? Knowledge of Military Attorney Eligibility. Service members who report they were sexually assaulted are eligible for the service of a military attorney. I True (Correct) I False (Incorrect) .. Not Sure/Do not know 003 5 (3.40:1. 21.3 [aw-rm 0% 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 22 Unwanted Workplace Experiences Below is the presentation of Yes/No response frequencies to the Unwanted Workplace Experience items. No data are displayed in cases where fewer than ?ve people in a subgroup complete the survey. Table 4. Respondents? Overall Unwanted Workplace Experience Responses While under your current senior leader within the last 12 months, did someone from your workplace: (Overall) Yes Percent No Percent Repeatedly tell sexual "jokes" that made you uncomfortable, aneg, or upset? 52 5.7% 862 94.2% by repeatedly suggesting that you do not act like a 52 5.7% 8 61 94' 1% Make repeated sexual comments about your appearance or body that made you uncomfortable. angry, or upset? 42 46% 872 953% Make repeated attempts to establish an unwanted romantic or sexual relationship with you? 33 3.6% 878 96.0% Intentionally touch you in a sexual way when you did not want them to? 30 3.3% 883 96.5% Figure 8. Respondents? Overall Unwanted Workplace Experience Responses by Sex Repeatedly tell sexual "jokes" While under your current senior leader and within the last 12 months, did someone from your workplace: I Yes I No 27 237 that made you uncomfortable. Female Mag 25 625 Embarrass, anger, or upset you 18 246 by repeatedly suggesting the you do not act like a 1 lwoman is su osed to8.3% 242 91.7% Make repeated W5 1 about your appearance or body ema that made you uncomfortable, Male angry?I or upset? 20 (3.10/11) 630 (96.30/11) 21 242 establish an unwanted romantic . . . 9 Male or sexual With you. [2 636 . . 12 4.5% 252 95.5% ?Wm a sexual way when you did not em want them to? Male 18 631 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 23 Connectedness Connectedness is de?ned as a frame of mind that re?ects an individual?s outlook on life and perceptions of belongingness, well-being, and social support. Re?ects a member's viewpoint that they are relevant, contributing, and have relationships upon which they can con?dently depend on in times of need. Burdensomeness and Belongingness are two subfactors that when combined, create an overall Connectedness factor. Figure 9. Percentage of Respondents' Overall Connectedness Connectedness (Overall) IFavorable IUnfavorable 75.4% 20.3% Table 5. Respondents' Connectedness Responses Burdensomeness Question Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree My future seems dark 230 300 Very true True Somewhat Somewhat Untrue Not at all for me for me true for untrue for for me true for me me me These days, I think I am a burden on 24 34 99 - 75 219 458 people in my life. Belongingness Not at all Untrue Somewhat Somewhat True Very true true for for me untrue for true for for me for me me me me These days, I feel like I belong. 67 72 102 - 208 301 161 ?These days, I feel that there are 57 52 60 204 295 240 people I can turn to in times of need. 0 0 Total 6 A: 6/0 9A: 20% Note. The total may not equal 100% due to the changing from a seven point scale to six point scale. The loss of a response option accounts for the difference in percentage for the factor overall. Table 6. Respondents' Knowledge of ideation of, attempted or death by suicide I know someone in my organization who has thought of, attempted, or died by suicide. Number Percent Thought of 155 17.1% Attempted 29 3.2% Died by Suicide 99 10.9% Thought of, Attempted 49 5.4% Attempted, Died by Suicide 12 1.3% Thought of, Died by Suicide 18 2.0% Thought of, Attempted, Died by Suicide 98 10.8% None of the above 449 49.4% Note. Results presented below the line are the possible combinations of the items above, as it was a ?select all that apply.? 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 24 The de?nitions of Hazing and Bullying were obtained directly from the Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Hazing and Bullying Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces," dated 23 December 2015. Hazing The ?gure below displays response frequencies to the Hazing item. Please note that respondents? Option to select more than one type of Hazing behavior accounts for disparities that may appear in the totals shown below. Figure 11. Respondents' Responses to Hazing Individuals in my workplace are pressured to engage in which of the following acts as part of an initiation or admission process (without a proper military or other governmental purpose). (Select all that apply) Physically harmful acts 18 harmful acts 33 Illegal or dangerous acts 22 859 Bullying The ?gure below displays response frequencies to the Bullying item. Please note that respondents? option to select more than one type of Bullying behavior accounts for disparities that may appear in the totals shown below. Figure 12. Respondents' Responses to Bullying Individuals in my workplace who are seen as "different" are targets of: (Select all that apply) Aggression 42 Abusive or malicious pranks 36 Active attempts to damage their reputation 64 Physical harm 4 harm 68 MA 784 (85.7% 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 25 Vi. The following section provides interpretation of the DEOCS report and recommended follow-?on actions. Based on the data obtained, your organization?s DEOCS results may display both organizational and concerns. It is important to not only review Section V, DEOCS Summary of Survey Item Responses, but to contrast that information with Section I V, Climate Factor Subgroup Comparison. Additionally, the l/Vritten Comments, may also help to validate some areas of concerns within Sections 1V and please ensure you review that area to determine if there are comments that address any areas of concern. This section also seeks to provide guidance for identifying additional steps in the climate assessment effort, and prescribe actions to help address organizational concerns. Compare subgroups to determine whether diminished perceptions of climate factors are more prevalent among speci?c groups, and the sources of those perceptions. Excellent/Adeg uate Seek to identify and reinforce those practices and programs currently in place. Reinforce behaviors that create a climate of inclusion, supporting and preserving the dignity and worth of all members. Continue to promote and maintain a healthy human relations climate. This can be done by ensuring all members in the unit understand their roles and responsibilities. Share positive results to enhance members? commitment to the organization and its mission. Consider utilizing training aids to further provide awareness and knowledge regarding key factors. 1804149 Caution/Improvement Needed Examine favorability ratings among Speci?c climate factors and demographic subgroups to determine whether diminished perceptions are more obvious among some of them. After identifying the speci?c climate factors with low favorability ratings and those demographic subgroups that harbor negative perceptions regarding them, use these findings to plan follow-on assessment efforts, including focus groups, interviews, and written record reviews. Conducting focus groups and interviews with members of these subgroups can help determine the source and extent of specific perceptions. Develop an action plan to address each specific validated concern, and socialize the plan with members. Set a timeline for each action item, and provide timely feedback on progress accomplishing them. This will demonstrate your willingness to listen to your subordinates, and take action to improve conditions whenever possible. Defense Equal Opportunity Management institute 26 MAKING CLIMATE ASSESSMENT RESULTS WORK FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION 1. Share the results with members of your organization. 2. Involve key leaders; let members know you are acting on their feedback. 3. If needed, establish an action team to develop and implement a plan for organizational improvement. 4. Conduct another climate assessment in accordance with your Service component directives to determine the effectiveness of the corrective actions that were taken to remedy validated perceptions. We trust these recommendations for interpretation will prove useful. The DEOCS can help commanders improve the readiness within their commands. To make best use of this tool, DEOMI provides tools and products designed to address the mission impacting issues that were identi?ed during the climate assessment process. ASSESSMENT TO SOLUTIONS Assessment to Solutions was created to support leaders and equal opportunity professionals throughout the climate assessment process. Assessment to Solutions provides products that help identify appropriate follow-on climate assessment efforts, aid in the development of an action plan to rectify workplace conditions that negatively impact climate, and training materials that can be incorporated in an action plan. The Assessment to Solutions area parallels the main assessment sections of the DEOCS, which include OE, treatment, and SAPR. Each area further addresses each climate factor included in the section, and provides a host of products for each. Access to products can be found at the ?Assessment to Solutions? website which is designed to support leaders and equal opportunity professionals. To access the site go to: The DEOCS Support Team is available to assist you and can be contacted at: 321?494?2675/3260/4217 DSN: 854-2675/3260/4217 support@deocs.net 1804149 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 27