Download:
pdf |
pdfNational Science Foundation (NSF)
Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
United States Antarctic Program (USAP)
Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention
and Response (SAHPR)
FINAL REPORT
June 22, 2022
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
United States Antarctic Program (USAP)
Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention
and Response (SAHPR)
Volume One:
Needs Assessment
-3-
Needs Assessment
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 5
Introduction.............................................................................................................10
Methodology ...........................................................................................................17
RESPONSE
Introduction to Response...................................................................................30
Response Findings – Key Issues..........................................................................32
Response: Recommendations and Prioritization of Corrective Actions ............77
PREVENTION
Introduction to Prevention ................................................................................86
Prevention Findings – Key Issues .......................................................................94
Prevention: Recommendations and Prioritization of Corrective Actions ........125
Conclusion ........................................................................................................137
References .............................................................................................................138
Appendix A: Preliminary Key Stakeholder Interview Script and Questions ..........142
Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Script and Questions .............................144
Appendix C: Focus Group Script and Questions ....................................................149
Appendix D: USAP Participant Survey ...................................................................184
Appendix E: Major Code Categories......................................................................194
Appendix F: Polar Code of Conduct.......................................................................196
Appendix G: ...........................................................................................................199
Volume Two: Implementation Plan.......................................................................201
-4-
Needs Assessment
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the SAHPR needs assessment2 is to determine the current state of
sexual harassment and sexual assault in the USAP community, assess USAP
capacity for a comprehensive approach to address those issues, provide
recommendations for solutions, and prioritize corrective actions. Key findings and
recommendations from this Needs Assessment Report will be utilized to
determine the most efficient and effective route to better address and prevent
sexual harassment and sexual assault in the USAP. Detailed action steps are laid
out in Volume Two: SAHPR Implementation Plan and Training Materials.
To create a workplace and community that foster climates free from sexual
assault and harassment within such a challenging and unique environment
requires a comprehensive and tailored approach that effectively responds to and
prevents sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Summary of Methods
Team LDSS launched the needs assessment in April 2021. The objective was to
create multiple forums through which members of the USAP community could
share information, observations, and their experiences regarding sexual assault
and harassment, and associated trainings and policies, within the USAP.
During the needs assessment, USAP community members were invited to share
their experiences and perspectives with Team LDSS in four primary ways:
1. Key Stakeholder Interviews (KSIs) with select individuals from NSF, Leidos
(lead for Antarctic Support Contract (ASC)), the U.S. Military, and the
grantee community
2. Focus groups with key populations across the USAP
3. Online surveys, open to both civilian and military3 USAP participants who
have deployed in the past three years
4. Supplemental materials shared by key stakeholders
2
Per requirement 2.4.1.7.
Because the military data collection approval process is separate and extensive, service members were
unable to participate in a focus group and did not receive the survey until much later in the data
collection process, making their responses unable to be included in this report.
3
-5-
Needs Assessment
Data was analyzed to assess for the current state of sexual assault and sexual
harassment, and prevention and response mechanisms in the USAP.
Summary of Key Findings: Response
Effective response is grounded in trauma-informed, survivor-centered approaches
that create individual and systemic responses to sexual misconduct. Effective
response systems encourage reporting of sexual assault and sexual harassment,
hold those who cause sexual harms accountable, respect victim privacy and
survivor confidentiality, support survivor access to services, ensure informed
decision-making, and promote survivor (and community) healing and recovery.
The complex and unique nature of the multi-jurisdictional conduct policy
enforcement mechanisms across USAP creates gaps that hinder current response
and prevention efforts. Overall, findings suggest the current response systems to
be inadequate and points to a significant mistrust of Human Resources by the ASC
contract workforce because of their lack of appropriate response to sexual
harassment and sexual assault. The following findings assess the current state of
sexual harassment and sexual assault in the USAP and related response systems.
Finding: Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Stalking Are Problems in the
USAP Community
Analysis of needs assessment data showed that many USAP community members
believe that sexual assault, sexual harassment, and stalking are problems in the
USAP.
Finding: There Is a Lack in Trust in ASC Human Resources
ASC contractors and subcontractors reported they do not trust their human
resources (HR) departments when it comes to addressing sexual assault and
sexual harassment. Interviewees frequently shared their perceptions that victims
were not encouraged to report and were actively discouraged from doing so.
Further, a notable number of community members perceive that contractor and
subcontractor human resource departments are dismissing, minimizing, shaming,
and blaming victims who report sexual harassment and sexual assault. A
significant number of community members also believe that contractor and
subcontractor human resources departments retaliate against victims and those
who support them.
-6-
Needs Assessment
Finding: NSF Lacks Adequate Reporting and Response Systems
While NSF has taken actions to provide greater clarity of expected behavior and
oversight of contractor, subcontractor, and grantee responses to sexual
misconduct, NSF does not yet have systems in place to ensure that it is
appropriately informed of and responsive to incidents of sexual assault and sexual
harassment within the USAP community. For a variety of historical, institutional,
and structural reasons, NSF is not informed as to the frequency, scope, severity,
or outcomes of incidences of sexual assault and harassment that occur within the
USAP.
Finding: Sexual Misconduct Is Not Perceived as a Safety Issue, Leaving Alcohol
Misidentified as the Primary Culprit for Sexual Misconduct
Workplace safety is viewed as a singular priority and training on safety-related
issues is routine. Safety violations are grounds for immediate discipline and retraining. Yet in interviews and focus groups, it was clear that sexual assault and
harassment are not viewed as workplace safety issues. Further, key informant
interviews made evident that senior administration felt alcohol was the sole or
most significant contributing factor to many safety and violence issues on-ice.
Because of a lack of awareness of the scope of sexual misconduct, sexual assault
and harassment are not framed as safety hazards and therefore do not elicit
similar attention or response.
Summary of Recommendations: Response
Recommendations for addressing sexual assault and sexual harassment, and
improving response mechanisms include opportunities to:
• Increase opportunities for community feedback and engagement.
• Establish a Coordinated Community Response Team (CCRT).
• Integrate more robust support mechanisms for victims.
• Establish a communication plan.
• Increase community education efforts.
• Restructure policies, protocols, and oversight mechanisms.
Summary of Key Findings: Prevention
The prevention section of the Needs Assessment Report identifies four
components that are integral to the success of prevention efforts in the USAP: (1)
Leadership Support, (2) Infrastructure, (3) Education, and (4) Engagement. The
-7-
Needs Assessment
team analyzed gaps and assets across key indicators of each component. The
following are key findings across those core components.
Finding: Leadership is Committed to Addressing Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment
Existing assets that can be leveraged to strengthen leadership buy-in include
broad agreement that sexual assault and sexual harassment need to be
addressed, illustrated by this response from a key-stakeholder, “I’m very invested
in this. This is ultimately the most important thing I can do is develop a system to
create a better culture down here. I’ll make time and I want to be more involved.”
Finding: Trust of Leadership Response to Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment
is Low
Lack of trust in leadership is significant. Leadership has not earned the most basic
level of trust for more than one fourth of survey respondents who reported not
believing or not knowing if the organization for which they work cares if they are
safe. The percentage rises considerably for groups that are often marginalized
and/or in lower-status positions, including gay and lesbian community members,
seasonal employees, younger workers, those who earn less, and women.
Finding: There is Low Consensus Among Leadership that Sexual Assault and
Sexual Harassment are Significant Problems
Only 23% of leadership (defined by older, higher salaries, and higher-status
positions) agree or strongly agree that sexual assault is a problem and 40% agree
that sexual harassment is a problem.
Finding: There are Early Indicators of Initial Progress Toward Creating a Healthy
Climate
Despite significant gaps, there are early indicators of initial progress towards
creating a healthy climate. A large majority of those in high-status positions
believe prevention is possible and they have a role to play. Further, despite a
deep lack of trust in leadership regarding these issues, a large minority (over 40%)
still believe positive strides are being made and leadership is doing their best.
Finding: Infrastructure Dedicated to Prevention Is Nearly Absent
Data collected suggests overall infrastructure dedicated to prevention to be
nearly absent. Existing infrastructure, including staffing, funding, policies, and
collaboration is almost entirely focused on response rather than prevention.
-8-
Needs Assessment
Finding: There is Not Effective Prevention Training and Evaluation is Lacking
Input from surveys and focus groups indicate that the content currently provided
in training is not useful, the training is poorly timed and inadequately tailored,
and the delivery is extremely ineffective, sometimes to the point of alienating
participants.
Finding: Despite Insufficient Opportunities Provided for the USAP Community
Members to Engage in Prevention Efforts, there is Significant Motivation to
Engage
There are negligible (or no) organized opportunities to engage the USAP
community in prevention efforts. Further, there are insufficient opportunities for
community members to learn the basic skills necessary to engage in prevention
activities outside the scope of an organized activity or event. However,
there is broad consensus that these issues are important to address, and
prevention is possible. These core beliefs are significant assets that can be
leveraged to increase engagement.
Summary of Recommendations: Prevention
Recommendations for developing and implementing a comprehensive prevention
strategy include opportunities to:
• Develop a communication strategy.
• Provide a toolkit of prevention resources for leaders.
• Allocate funding to prevention infrastructure, including prevention staffing.
• Develop prevention polices.
• Establish a prevention collaborative body.
• Increase prevention education opportunities.
Key findings and recommendations from this Needs Assessment Report will be
utilized to determine the most efficient and effective route to better address and
prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault in the USAP. Detailed action steps
will be laid out in the forthcoming SAHPR Implementation Plan and Training
Materials.
-9-
Needs Assessment
Introduction
The United States Antarctic Program
The United States Antarctic Program (USAP), a U.S. Government-wide program,
manages all scientific research and related logistics in Antarctica. The lead civilian
manager of the USAP is the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar
Programs (NSF, OPP respectively). The program has established communities at
three permanent stations in Antarctica (McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer), as
well as numerous field sites and associated research vessels. USAP participants
include members of research teams funded by NSF and other federal agencies,
personnel under the Antarctic Support Contract (ASC) hired to support logistics,
military personnel, and representatives from a variety of other research
institutions. USAP operates within, and is restricted by, several different
contractual, legal, and federal requirements. There is some level of collaborative
accountability between the various partners through contract terms, Request for
Proposal (RFP) guidelines to grantees, and the NSF Code of Conduct Board.
However, the complex and unique nature of the multi-jurisdictional conduct
policy enforcement mechanisms across USAP creates gaps that hinder current
response and prevention efforts.
Context
In 2018, NSF published new requirements for NSF-funded research teams and
contractors to help ensure research environments are free from sexual
harassment.4 Requirements include:
• Scientific grant awardee organizations must report to NSF when Principal
Investigators (PI) and Co-PIs working on NSF-funded research are placed on
administrative leave, subjected to administrative actions, or when there are
findings and determinations by the organizations that PIs and Co-PIs
engaged in sexual harassment.
• Two online portals are established: a secure portal for awardee institutions
to submit harassment notifications and a separate portal for individual
members of grantee teams to file sexual harassment complaints.
• Related policies and procedures are instituted, including the Polar Code of
Conduct, currently signed by all USAP participants, and the USAP Executive
Management Board’s Affirmation of Non-Harassment Policy. The 2018
4
2.2 Background. Statement of Work, NSF OPP, Federal Consulting Group Interagency Agreement
Number: 12125
-10-
Needs Assessment
Polar Code of Conduct is an expansion of the 2013 USAP Code of Conduct
(AIL-POL-1000.03).
• Communication is increased regarding harassment issues and reporting
mechanisms through briefings, trainings, and postings at the stations and
on NSF-operated vessels.
USAP Population and Organizational Structure
To understand the key findings in the Needs Assessment Report, it is important to
understand USAP’s unique context, population, and the organizational structures
in Antarctica.
Population
Contractors, grantees, and personnel from the Department of Defense (DoD)
comprise the three primary populations of the USAP community.
1. Contractors: Antarctic Support Contractors (ASC) under NSF are the largest
group. ASC employs workers from lead contractor Leidos, and
subcontractors from Pacific Architects and Engineers (PAE)5, University of
Texas, Medical Branch (UTMB), Six Mile, DAMCO, Gana-A ‘Yoo Service
Corporation (GSC), and GHG Corporation, among others. Contractors who
do not report under Leidos include Air Center Helicopters, Inc. (ACHI) and
Kenn Borek Air (KBA).
2. Grantees: Scientific research teams, funded by NSF and other federal
agencies, are led by Principal Investigators (PIs), and made up of
researchers, graduate students, and support personnel from numerous U.S.
institutions and international scientific partners.
3. Department of Defense (DoD): Military personnel have a visible presence on
the ice and are deployed under the command of the Joint Task Force –
Support Forces Antarctica. They include the Air National Guard (ANG), Air
Force (USAF), and the Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC).
4. Smaller populations include NSF leadership and individuals from the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Aviation Services (DOI-OAS),
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), DOI United States Geological Survey (DOI-USGS), who deploy in
smaller numbers and often for less than an entire season, and the New
5
In February 2022, PAE was acquired by Amentum. Because data collection took place prior to this date,
the authors will refer to PAE as an ASC subcontractor, rather than Amentum.
-11-
Needs Assessment
addition, traditional workplace settings have clear distinctions between life inside
and outside the workplace. However, the isolated work settings of the USAP,
combined with living in close quarters far from home, creates a complicated
dynamic that blurs the boundaries between personal and professional life. This
dynamic can make it more difficult to establish clear and appropriate boundaries,
intervene as a bystander, hold peers accountable, and/or report unwanted
behaviors.
Research also shows that key components to addressing and reducing the issues
include both conducting policy enforcement and holding employees who
perpetrate sexual harassment and assault accountable (Davis, 2018; O’leary-Kelly
et al., 2004). Most traditional workplace settings have an organization-specific set
of policies that are created and enforced within the organization. In other words,
the entity that pays, hires, and fires employees is also the entity that enforces
policies. However, while NSF manages the USAP, the USAP represents a complex
multiorganizational operational environment with varied jurisdictions and
authorities over USAP participants, depending on the nature of the relationship
NSF has with those organizations. For instance, NSF funds institutions to support
researchers and their teams (grantees), contracts with a large private employer
for logistical support under ASC (who in turn subcontracts with other private
entities), and partners with the military and other entities, including foreign
governments. The role of personnel management and organizational policy
enforcement currently remains with each respective individual organization and
institution that employs the USAP participant. As these organizations retain
authority over their personnel, NSF has limited ability to conduct comprehensive
policy enforcement. While there is some level of collaborative accountability, the
complex and unique nature of the multi-jurisdictional conduct policy enforcement
across USAP creates gaps that can hinder current response and prevention
efforts.
Finally, research indicates there is greater risk for sexual harassment in
workplaces that are male-dominated and/or have more individuals who identify
as male in high-level positions (Fine, Sojo Monzon, & Lawford-Smith, 2020; Raj,
Johns, & Jose, 2020; Street, Gradus, Stafford, & Kelly, 2007). The USAP work
environment, like many other industries, has a male-dominated culture, defined
by a greater number of male employees, as well as a disproportionate number of
men in high-level positions. For other industries that have male-dominated
environments, a common and effective strategy for increasing the number of
women in the workplace is developing and utilizing intentional recruitment and
hiring practices. This strategy is particularly challenging for the USAP in part
-14-
Needs Assessment
because the extreme and isolated conditions result in a more limited candidate
pool in general. In addition, many of the positions that need to be filled tend to be
pulled from fields that are also male dominated (e.g., construction trades, skilled
machine operators, etc.), thus further narrowing available female candidates.
While NSF has taken initial steps to address sexual assault and harassment in the
USAP, findings in the Needs Assessment Report will help to clarify the current
state and provide insight into realistic approaches to address the challenges
within the unique USAP environments.
Response and Prevention
The SAHPR program objectives (Table 1) highlight elements relevant to both
prevention and response. To create a workplace and community that fosters a
climate free from sexual assault and harassment within such a challenging
environment requires a comprehensive and tailored approach that effectively
responds to and prevents sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Response
Response efforts refer to endeavors to redress sexual misconduct. This may
include individual and organizational responses such as conduct policies,
reporting mechanisms, support and resources for survivors, incident
investigation, adjudication, and disciplinary actions. It may also include a
community response to events that transpire. Response efforts can include multifaceted approaches to policy creation, enforcement, and associated training.
Prevention
Prevention strategies focus on equipping participants to take actions that
contribute to a healthier climate. Prevention-related actions include bystander
interventions and proactive behaviors that set positive, respectful community
norms. Prevention primarily emphasizes solutions that are implemented before
an incident of sexual assault or harassment happens.
A Comprehensive Approach
Though response and prevention are distinct concepts, when they are effectively
integrated into a comprehensive approach, they can increase safety and wellbeing for all USAP participants.
-15-
Needs Assessment
Needs Assessment Report Structure
The Needs Assessment Report will be written in two parts: part one focused on
response and part two focused on prevention. It will include: (1) methodology, (2)
core components of effective response and prevention, and (3) recommendations
to address each identified gap.
-16-
Needs Assessment
Methodology
Data Collection Overview7
Team LDSS launched the needs assessment effort in April 2021. The goal for this
component of the SAHPR project was to perform a needs assessment of USAP
participants related to sexual assault and sexual harassment, analyze data,
document findings, and provide recommendations. The objective was to create
multiple forums through which members of the USAP community could share
information, observations, and their experiences regarding sexual assault and
harassment, and associated trainings and policies, within the USAP. Team LDSS
also solicited input on organizational response to the information received
regarding incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
During the needs assessment, USAP community members were invited to share
their experiences and perspectives with Team LDSS in four primary ways:
1. Key stakeholder interviews (KSIs) with select individuals from NSF, Leidos
(lead for ASC), the U.S. Military, and grantees
2. Focus groups8 with key populations across the USAP
3. Online surveys, open to both civilian and military9 USAP participants who
have deployed in the past three years10
4. Supplemental materials shared by key stakeholders
In addition, the team received 11 emails from current and former members of the
USAP who wished to privately share their experiences and observations. These
emails either supplemented those individuals’ participation in a focus group or
7
Team LDSS would like to recognize NSF leadership’s support for these efforts. Stephanie Short,
Margaret (Maggie) Knuth, and Michael Gencarelli, among others, promoted our access to information;
they worked diligently to provide relevant documents to Team LDSS and ensured that members of the
NSF leadership team were available for multi-hour KSIs.
8 Team LDSS also interviewed five additional individuals with various current and former members of the
USAP. These conversations were initiated by individuals who specifically requested opportunities to
share their experiences but (primarily for privacy reasons) did not find it appropriate or were otherwise
unable to do so within the focus group context.
9 Because the military data collection approval process is separate and extensive, service members were
unable to participate in a focus group and did not receive the survey until much later in the data
collection process, making their responses unable to be included in this report.
10 While Team LDSS prioritized receiving input from USAP participants who deployed between Summer
2018 and Summer 2021, a small percentage of survey respondents deployed prior to Summer 2018
(3%).
-17-
Needs Assessment
were sent in lieu of participation. These responses were integrated with other
qualitative data and analyzed collectively.
Key Stakeholder Interviews
Preliminary key stakeholder interviews (KSIs) were conducted with five high-level
staff members from NSF and Leidos prior to the official start of the needs
assessment. The purpose of these interviews was to help Team LDSS better
understand the unique organizational and environmental contexts for the USAP
and the needs assessment itself, to identify the many entities and jurisdictions
present on the ice, and to engage leadership in conversations that would serve as
the foundation for this effort. These preliminary KSIs provided the necessary
groundwork for the team to determine the most informative individuals and
positions to recruit for the subsequent KSIs, key populations across the USAP to
concentrate on for focus groups, and the framing of questions for all data
collection.
During the needs assessment, Team LDSS completed KSIs with 16 current and
former contractors, subcontractors, grantees, NSF staff members, and two
members of the military. These included individuals then present on the ice as
well as those participating from other locations. On average, each interview was
90-120 minutes long. All interviews were conducted virtually, via the Zoom
meeting platform.
Questions for KSIs concentrated on organizational culture and structure in the
USAP, conduct policies, response mechanisms, and educational trainings relating
to sexual harassment and sexual assault. KSI scripts and questions can be found in
Appendices A and B.
Focus Groups
Focus group sub-populations were selected to reflect the unique experiences of
USAP participants based on: (1) location (e.g., South Pole, Palmer or McMurdo,
research vessel, near or deep field); (2) job role and status (e.g., supervisor,
grantee/principal investigator); and (3) other demographic identifiers (e.g.,
seasonal only, female-identified only). The team structured the focus groups to
reflect and respect that each USAP station has its own unique characteristics and
culture. The team was cognizant that conditions on the ice can vary by
population, location, season, living quarters, and colleagues’ professional status,
as well as access to transportation, distance from a research station, degree of
physical isolation, internet availability, and access to resources. The team wanted
-18-
Needs Assessment
to create a focus group environment that, to the extent possible, felt like a safe
space for participants to disclose their (and their colleagues’) experiences in the
USAP. Where necessary, screening questions allowed the team to designate USAP
participants for specific groups based on organization, deployment type, work
schedule, etc. For example, registrants for certain focus groups were asked if they
had performed any supervisory duties within the last five years. If they answered
“yes,” they would be unable to complete the registration process for the nonsupervisor McMurdo focus group. The team did not conduct a focus group with
members of the military, although they are present at McMurdo, and can have an
impact on events within the USAP.11
Initially, Team LDSS invited members of the USAP community to attend one of 14
single- or mixed-gender focus groups. Due to registration, timing, and to protect
participant privacy, some groups were later combined. Initially, the team worked
with key stakeholders to invite specific individuals to participate in the focus
groups to increase the likelihood of including an appropriate and diverse crosssection of participants. Potential participants were identified from lists of USAP
contractors, subcontractors, and NSF grantees from the past three years. When
registration numbers for the focus groups were initially lower than anticipated,
the team broadened recruitment invitations to more individuals within each
identified focus group audience and NSF supported recruitment.
Ultimately, the team hosted a total of 11 focus groups between November 15,
2021, and December 4, 2021. Focus group participants participated either
individually, in pairs, or in small group settings based on location, satellite timing,
access to equipment, and Covid-19 social distancing requirements. They
participated by phone or by video (via Zoom12), based on location and
satellite/internet access. The final composition of the USAP community focus
groups was as follows: (1) South Pole; (2) Research vessels; (3) Ice Allies13; (4)
Deep field; (5) Near field; (6) McMurdo full-time workers, no supervisors; (7)
McMurdo seasonal workers; (8) McMurdo full-time supervisors (only); (9)
11
Team LDSS had planned to host a focus group specifically for members of the military, but the military
declined to authorize service members to participate in this initial phase of the project. As noted above,
they did ultimately authorize distribution of the OMB-approved survey for service members. Due to the
timing and very few responses received, that data is not included in this Needs Assessment Report.
12 Due to technology limitations, the focus group with South Pole Station was hosted via Free
Conference Line. All other focus groups were hosted via Zoom platform.
13 The Ice Allies is a self-appointed working group comprised of USAP community members whose
mission is to raise awareness about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender bias. While NSF
personnel and many community members refer to them by this moniker, they are not an officially
recognized entity.
-19-
Needs Assessment
McMurdo grantees; (10) McMurdo seasonal women/female-identified only; and
(11) Palmer Station.
Focus group questions were designed to promote understanding of: (1)
relationships within the USAP, including daily routines and interactions between
individuals en route to and while on-ice (e.g., social and workplace norms,
relationships between co-workers, dating, parties, and other activities USAP
community members engage in for relaxation, etc.); (2) organizational cultures;
and (3) USAP participants’ individual and collective experiences and perceptions
of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and the systems in place to address or
prevent those forms of harm. The team sought to capture a diversity of
experiences across gender, sexual orientation, race, professional status, and
location. These include, for example, community members’ experiences by
season (e.g., austral summer, those who winter over), station location, field work
sites, employment status, and relationship to NSF. The team also sought to solicit
participants’ ideas and recommendations regarding how best to improve sexual
harassment and sexual assault awareness training 14, prevention, and response.
The focus group script and questions, approved by the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), can be found in Appendix C.
Online Survey
Shortly after it was approved by OMB, the survey was distributed to all individuals
who were currently, or within the last three (3) years had been part of, the USAP
community. A link to the confidential survey was distributed via email to these
3,846 current or former members of the USAP community; 179 emails bounced or
were otherwise confirmed as undeliverable. The survey was open for two weeks
between October and November 2021. The team received 880 completed surveys
for a 24% response rate (880/3,667 potentially delivered survey links).
Survey questions focused on respondents’ perceptions of sexual harassment and
sexual assault across the USAP, organizational response, trust in leadership, and
prevention-related behaviors. Survey questions can be found in Appendix D.
Team LDSS analyzed these survey responses across a variety of demographic
factors such as gender, sexual orientation, income, age, race, employment status
14
Throughout the Needs Assessment Report, any training about sexual harassment and sexual assault
will be referred to as sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness training. This includes the current
training (entitled USAP Harassment and Assault Awareness and Prevention Training) and trainings that
have been implemented in years passed.
-20-
Needs Assessment
utilized needs assessment participant quotes to illustrate themes and major
topics. Where percentages are used to describe the number of participants who
experienced a certain topic, or agreed to a statement, recordings were scrutinized
to count the number of participants as accurately as possible. However,
percentages are approximate. Both teams had two or more researchers viewing
data and emerging themes to reduce bias.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data in the survey was analyzed using simple statistical and
computational techniques, such as group comparisons and crosstabulations.
Findings are reported in descriptive statistics and numerical values.
Findings and Language: Leadership
Survey Findings: Survey findings that reference leadership include data collected
using the following terms:
• Leaders
• Leadership
• The organization/institution who employs the respondent
Where leadership is referred to in the survey findings, proxies were utilized to
illustrate survey findings based on income level, position, and age. While the
proxies may not represent formal leadership, the analysis is based on the
following assumptions:
• Employees that make more money are in higher-status positions that are
likely to have more seniority and/or authority.
• There is a real or perceived power-differential between full-time employees
and seasonal or part-time direct labor, with the former more likely to be in
a higher-status position.
• There is a real or perceived power-differential between Grantee Principal
Investigators (PIs) and Grantee team members.
• Older employees have worked at the company longer and therefore are
likely to have higher status and real or perceived power differences when
compared to younger employees.
Qualitative Findings: Throughout the report, leadership is denoted by several
terms in qualitative findings, including:
• Higher status
-26-
Needs Assessment
• Organization/institution/company who employs USAP participants
• NSF (as the USAP manager)
• People with more power or influence
Limitations
There are a variety of limitations worth considering in this Needs Assessment
Report. First, the subject matter experts (SMEs) who conducted this needs
assessment have not been to Antarctica; all data collection was conducted via
substantial distance. As such, beyond the typical gap possessed by external
contractors, there is a further deficit in full comprehension of the USAP and life
on the ice. While Team LDSS worked diligently to build a foundational
understanding of the USAP culture and contexts, the team understands that
without setting foot in the unique environment they were assessing, there
remains an inevitable and noteworthy gap in understanding.
Additionally, those who completed the survey, attended a focus group, or wrote
to the team were especially motivated to contribute to this project. For some
participants, this was because they personally experienced sexual harassment and
assault in the USAP, knew about the experiences of friends and colleagues, or
wanted to voice concerns about USAP policies or procedures. Others may not
have been as motivated to respond.
There were several limitations inherent in the survey portion of the datacollection process. While the team strived to incorporate the observations and
experiences of as many USAP community members as possible, the response rate
(24%) was relatively low, although within an appropriate range. A survey response
rate of 50% or higher would be considered good for a project like this one,
however, response rates between 10% and 30% are typical, especially for webbased surveys (Archer, 2008). The 24% response rate may be the result of several
factors. The survey was distributed via e-mail with a SurveyMonkey link in the
body of the email. Research shows that on average, the response rate for web
surveys is 11% lower than other survey modes (e.g., in-person, via telephone,
etc.) (Manfreda, Bosnjak, Berzelak, Haas, & Vehovar, 2008).
-27-
Needs Assessment
The link to complete the (civilian-focused) survey was distributed electronically to
email addresses that Leidos provided the team. Delivery resulted in
approximately 179 (5%) emails returned as undeliverable. 22 23
There were also limitations to the survey itself. NSF was required to secure
approval from the OMB to distribute the survey and – expedited, “emergency”
authorization was granted. Each survey question was OMB-approved. However,
demographic questions needed to comport with those included in the 2020 U.S.
census. For sexual orientation, the only choices were gay or lesbian,
straight/heterosexual, or bisexual. For gender, the options were male, female, or
transgender. The team was unable to distinguish between the experiences of
respondents who identify as male transgender, female transgender, or nonbinary. The questions posed in each of the focus groups likewise required prior
OMB approval.
There are gaps in military USAP community member representation throughout
the data collection process. Two members of military leadership did participate in
KSIs. However, the military did not consent to the distribution of the military
version of the survey until December 2021. Upon that approval, the surveys were
distributed to three military units (two U.S. Air Force units and one U.S. Navy unit)
via email sent by each unit Commander. Approximately 1,000 service members
received the email containing the survey link. No emails were returned
undeliverable. A total of 28 surveys were completed. (In addition, 8 survey
respondents identified as members of the military in the larger USAP Participant
Survey). No members of the military were made available for the focus groups.
Finally, it is important to note that the survey and focus group questions were not
designed to elicit information regarding the prevalence or incidence of sexual
assault within USAP. This remains an effort for the future. Instead, the qualitative
and quantitative data elicited extensive information regarding individuals’
experiences and perceptions. Team LDSS did not independently investigate or
otherwise seek to verify the accuracy of individuals’ reporting. The information as
22
The contractor (Leidos) did not have personal email addresses for several former employees. Because
former employees’ work email addresses were no longer operational, Team LDSS was unable to
distribute the survey to these former employees.
23 While the team does not have an exact count, other emails were not received because they were
labeled as spam. While some USAP community members eventually received the survey email
invitations, many of those individuals told the team that they were received too late for the recipient to.
complete the survey before the survey close date.
-28-
Needs Assessment
relayed during data collection was compiled and analyzed and is reported within
this document.
-29-
Needs Assessment
Introduction to Response
Core Components of Effective Response
Effective response is grounded in trauma-informed, survivor-centered approaches
that create individual and systemic responses to sexual misconduct. Effective
response systems encourage reporting of sexual assault and sexual harassment,
hold those who cause sexual harms accountable, respect victim privacy and
survivor confidentiality, support survivor access to services, ensure informed
decision-making, and promote survivor (and community) healing and recovery.
Context
The needs assessment identified a series of institutional and inter-jurisdictional
challenges that the NSF and USAP community is facing. Throughout the course of
Team LDSS’ investigation, it was evident that community members are fiercely
loyal and committed to the mission and execution of the USAP. Many participants
spoke of their tremendous dedication to living and working in Antarctica.
While USAP participants value the adventure and uniqueness of life on-ice, they
are also deeply invested in the scientific work conducted there. Contractors and
grantees alike are proud of their roles and contributions to that work. From galley
(food service) staff to machine operators, principal investigators, and other
grantees, virtually all interviewees expressed pride in their work in the USAP.
They are also deeply invested in the communal life of the stations.24 Many USAP
community members have been in the program for years (and some for decades).
They have met their partners/spouses on the ice, established and advanced their
careers there, and realized personal goals. Their commitment to life and work in
the USAP is uniquely unparalleled.
It is for this very reason that many of the community members we spoke with feel
deeply betrayed by what they experience as a failure to hold offenders
accountable and anemic efforts to prevent or appropriately respond to sexual
assault and harassment. Most of the focus group interviewees25 and other
24
As one interviewee explained, “[For me,] the culture here is amazing. It’s like home. It is home. For a
lot of us who live somewhere else nomadically, it’s the place you return to. The culture is respect. It’s
family.”
25 Approximately 40% of all focus group participants discussed a personal negative experience with
sexual assault or sexual harassment including personally experiencing sexual assault/sexual harassment,
personally witnessing sexual assault/sexual harassment, personally involved in the reporting process.
RESPONSE
-30-
Needs Assessment
members of the USAP expressed profound dismay, frustration, anger, and hurt
over these perceived shortcomings. They believe NSF fails to hold contractors,
grantees, and members of the military accountable for their sexual misconduct.
As one interviewee opined, “I love this place. There is nowhere else on earth like
it. It's really quite wonderful and extraordinary and if you asked me what the best
thing about this place was, I’d tell you the people. However, if you asked me what
the worst thing about this place was, I’d also say the people. . . . I can’t in good
conscience encourage more women to come down here as it is right now.” 26
Still, community members remain hopeful that change is possible. They want to
contribute to creating an improved environment where sexual assault and
harassment are not tolerated. Many expressed their fervent hope that Team
LDSS’ efforts on this project can lead to positive change. As one interviewee
explained, “We’ve kind of been screaming for change for a long time, and this . . .
felt like a real way that things could actually change because all of us really love
that community, and it kind of feels like a lot of times ‘if you don’t like it just don’t
work here’ but it's our community and it’s our livelihood and it means so much to
us that I would like to see it change.”
Over 80% of all focus group participants discussed someone else they know experiencing sexual assault
or sexual harassment.
26 Throughout the report, Team LDSS ascribes quotations variously to “Community members,”
“Grantees,” “Contractors,” etc. Where the distinctions are important for context, the team identifies
which sector of the community the speaker represents if this did not compromise privacy or otherwise
risk disclosing personally identifying information. Where the individuals were from multiple sectors (or
to protect privacy), the team refers more generally to USAP community members.
RESPONSE
-31-
Needs Assessment
Response Findings – Key Issues
Finding #1: Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Stalking Are Problems in the
USAP Community
Analysis of needs assessment data showed that many USAP community members
believe that sexual assault, sexual harassment, and stalking are problems in the
USAP.
Illustrative Quotes – Problems in the USAP Community
“Every woman I knew down there had an assault or harassment experience
that had occurred on ice,” explained one interviewee. This was a sentiment
or experience echoed by many of the members of the USAP community we
spoke to. Survey responses, focus group comments, KSIs, and email
correspondence with community members evidenced near-universal
agreement that sexual assault and harassment “are important issues to
address in the USAP community,”27 and significant percentages agree that
they are problems.28
In virtually every focus group, participants shared their own and their colleagues’
experiences of sexual harassment or assault within the USAP. They elaborated on
the sexual assault and harassment they personally experienced and recounted
incidents related to them by other community members. Those incidents —
whether ones they experienced, observed, or heard about from colleagues —
continue to inform participants’ feelings regarding safety on the ice as well as
their beliefs and perceptions that NSF’s commitment to eradicating sexual
victimization in the Antarctic is insufficient, inconsistent, and at times insincere.
Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment by Gender
The majority of the focus group participants who presented as women described
experiencing discriminatory, sexually harassing, stalking, and sexually abusive and
27
Ninety percent of all survey respondents agree with the preceding statement.
Nearly three-fourths of female respondents (72%) and almost half of all male respondents (48%)
believe that sexual harassment is a problem within the USAP community. Smaller, but still significant,
percentages of female respondents (47%) and male respondents (33%) identified sexual assault as USAP
problems.
28
RESPONSE
-32-
Needs Assessment
Across genders, project participants described how women are “hunted” and
viewed as “prey” by older men. One female interviewee recalled:
Illustrative Quote: Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment by Gender
“I have been told by many people . . . that I should never go to the South
Pole without a partner because I’ll be repeatedly harassed because everyone
is just looking to hook up with someone for the season. That’s also been my
experience here: as soon as you are single, if you go to the bar . . . even
[when you’re] not at the bar, you’re considered fair game. [You’re] prey.”
Another recalled an occasion out with friends and “a very young woman, (b) (6)
[who] had never been on the ice before. Somehow, she slipped away from us
and went out to the bar . . . and I was like ‘Oh my god, did we forget to tell her
she was prey?’” One survey respondent wrote, “I was told [of] certain guys, by
name, to stay clear of and there were several guys who harassed me. Hell, my
very first day at McMurdo I was told to stay clear of Building [X] unless I wanted
to be raped.”
Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment by Location
While sexual harassment and assault was identified at each station, in the field,
and on the research vessels, the specific culture at each location contributed to
the tone, nature, and sometimes the associated hazards. McMurdo, with the
greatest number of occupants and bars, is the center of support and the launch
area for expeditions to near and deep field. It was described as “the worst” for
such experiences by many participants. One older, male interviewee remarked
how, “in debriefings I did with female participants, their greatest concerns were
what happened at McMurdo. They were targets and were hit on day after day. It
was really discouraging for them.” Others echoed this sentiment, remarking that
“McMurdo is the training ground for bad behavior” and “McMurdo sets the tone.
The most egregious instances have been there.” A survivor of sexual assault and
harassment at McMurdo recounted the following:
Illustrative Quote: Location
“I’ve had so many men make inappropriate comments, try to convince me to
cheat on my then-partner, pick me up or touch me without consent . . . I
RESPONSE
-34-
Needs Assessment
have had so many men make inappropriate comments to me while I was onshift and unable to get away that I now refuse to take [certain] contracts. . . I
have had a drunk Air Force personnel member follow me through a building
while I was [working], trying to get me to go out with him. I have had
another man drunkenly block the only exit to the [room where I was
working] and try to get me to go out with him. Both of these were . . . when I
was working by myself. I’ve had many other incidents where men [said] . . .
inappropriate things to me. I left because [I was] sexually assaulted. I didn’t
report it because, based on everything I’d seen so far, I assumed my
company would fire me if I did. . . When I hit the point I couldn’t deal with it
anymore, I quit... This list is not exhaustive. It’s just exhausting.”
But McMurdo is not the only location to generate such reports. Many of the
contractors and grantees who participated, who work at South Pole, Palmer, in
near and deep field, and on research vessels, also described experiences of
repeated and sometimes terrifying harassment or abuse. As one victim
recounted:
Illustrative Quote: Location
“I met this guy at a party Christmas Eve. He introduced himself and he was
creepy, so I left the party and went to sleep. He went through the phone
book at 2:30 am and called every [woman with my first name] on station.
When I told him off for calling me at that hour, he made physical threats and
used homophobic slurs. The next day he was hanging outside in the hallway
and banging on the door [where I worked] and hanging there so that [we]
couldn’t leave.”
She recounted how she was told by human resources he was then banned from a
certain part of her building, and she was assured that “if he didn’t follow that
instruction he would be terminated. Two weeks later he resumed drinking and
hanging out [there]. He was never sanctioned, and he wasn’t terminated.”30 “My
30
Some female interviewees noted that the current phone system concerns them because, when a
phone is answered, it displays the room number called. This in turn confirms the occupant’s location to
the caller.
RESPONSE
-35-
Needs Assessment
voice is still shaking to talk about it,” one victim explained as she recounted her
experience:
Illustrative Quote: Location
“There was a [contractor responsible for my safety] I was working with oneon-one, and he would ask very personal questions. [He would] ask about my
sex life and my partners and he would tell me all about his. I wanted nothing
to do with it, but he kept going. Here is this person who is responsible for my
safety, and I felt very unsafe around him. (b) (6)
I
felt emotionally and physically unsafe – and he’s responsible for my safety!
That person is still in the community. . . I [warn] the grad students who are
going down there . . . not to be alone with him.
At the South Pole, interviewees recounted incidents involving a male worker who
had been reported to human resources four times in one weekend by four
different women for four separate incidents of sexual misconduct. They were
aghast – and still angry – that, as far as they were aware, no action was ever taken
against that individual. They also described a worker feeling trapped by a job she
could not leave, while a colleague repeatedly asked her out, and various other
incidences involving supervisors who engaged in repeated sexual harassment.
Several interviewees also described an incident involving a male colleague
“hunting down” women who were viewed as too drunk to resist this worker’s
sexual advances. They felt grateful insofar as their male colleagues positioned
themselves in the hallways to monitor this individual’s behavior and to prevent
him from following and sexually assaulting vulnerable women.
Stalking
Victims’ experiences were not limited to sexual assault and harassment alone.
Interviewees cited numerous incidents of stalking, too. These included men
following women back to their dorm after their sexual advances were rejected,
women feeling compelled to hide in other rooms so that the person stalking them
would not know where they lived, and men gaining access to female galley
workers’ shift schedules to track them down at shift change or to follow them
home from work.
RESPONSE
-36-
Needs Assessment
One male interviewee recalled how he felt compelled to organize others to form a
ring around a woman dancing at a bar just to keep men from touching her.
Another described how women at McMurdo sometimes carry tools or other items
to use as weapons because they are not confident anyone else will ensure their
safety. “There was a woman” at McMurdo, one interviewee recounted, “who told
me she carried a hammer around with her. And she is constantly changing rooms
because she is so freaked out. HR told her to walk around with a radio if she felt
uncomfortable . . . but they can’t do anything . . . because it’s still under
investigation.” Another interviewee shared:
Illustrative Quote: Stalking
“We all pass through McMurdo on the way to South Pole. I was thoroughly
warned before ever spending time in McMurdo. I just make sure I never ever
go to a party or bar unless I’m with a group of people I trust.”
Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Across Demographics
Quantitative data confirms the experiences recounted by these interviewees. It
also provides a more nuanced view of how different segments of the population
experience and perceive these problems.
Not surprisingly (considering who, statistically, we know is targeted for sexual
victimization and who commits such harms), the extent to which sexual assault or
harassment are viewed as problems within USAP differs greatly depending on the
respondent’s gender, income, age, and sexual orientation. Respondents who are
most vulnerable (e.g., those who are female, lesbian, gay or bisexual, younger,
and lower income) were all far more likely to view sexual assault as a problem
than their male, heterosexual, older, and higher-income counterparts.
In combination, gender and income is a significant determinant of whether survey
respondents believe that “sexual assault is a problem in the USAP community.”
Among male survey respondents, more than a third of men earning more than
$150,000 reported they “do not know” if sexual assault is a problem; only 20% of
the group believe sexual assault is, in fact, a problem. Those perceptions are
flipped with men who earn less than $50,000, with 50% of them believing sexual
assault is a problem and only 22% saying they do not know. This lack of awareness
or recognition of the problem of sexual assault was reflected among older, male
RESPONSE
-37-
Needs Assessment
counterparts to perceive it as a problem.31 Overall, 47% of female respondents
and 33% of male respondents agree that sexual assault is a problem within the
USAP community.
Individuals who hold positions of considerable power or prestige within the USAP
community also appear to be unaware of the victimization experienced by the
younger, less powerful, and lower paid members of their respective teams. For
example, more than 47% of seasonal contractors agree that sexual assault is a
problem within USAP compared to only 26% of grantees who agree with this
statement. This divide was reflected in the focus groups, as well.
Figure 6.
Sexual Assault Is a Problem in the USAP Community:
By Position
% Respondents
50%
47%
34%
40%
26%
30%
20%
25%
19%
10%
0%
Seasonal
Contractors
(n=437)
Full Time
Contractors
(n=143)
Grantee/Research Grantee/Primary Federal Civilian
Team Member Investigator (n=56) Personnel (n=27)
(n=133)
Sexual Assault
Sobered by what he was hearing from his female colleagues regarding abuse and
harassment, a USAP community member with extensive experience on the ice
noted that he was “amazed by these stories, I didn’t know this happened.” An
experienced male researcher in a different focus group echoed that he was
learning things he never knew about the extent and severity of sexual harassment
and assault in Antarctica. “I’m pretty amazed at these stories,” he noted. “I guess
because I’m a male. . .. It strikes me that maybe the females in our group are
aware of this kind of stuff.” Another participant explained, “I feel like I don’t have
anything to bring to the table regarding where I think the community issues are.
I’m a white male in a community dominated by white males. There’s a lot that I
have not seen, I have not heard of.”
More than half (53%) of female survey respondents earning less than $50,000 per year report that
sexual assault is a problem. Fewer than 30% of female respondents earning more than $150,000 also
agree with this statement.
31
RESPONSE
-39-
Needs Assessment
That men within the community do not share the same experiences as women
was underscored by an email the team received from a male contractor unable to
attend a focus group. He wanted to provide his perspective on these issues:
Illustrative Quote: Demographics
“My two seasons at McMurdo was great. I think USAP has done everything
they could to make the people who work there as comfortable as possible. I
think USAP is very successful in providing a positive work environment for
the men and women who work there.
One would think that when there are opposite genders living in an isolated
community for a long period of time, there are going to be issues regarding
the relationship between the two. However, I didn't see or experience
anything worthy of note. I think all in all, everyone behaved respectfully
towards each other. I worked in . . . historically a male dominated work
environment so I wasn't in close contact with women on a daily basis. . ..
Most of the McMurdo work force are in their 20's and 30's so still very
sexually active. I seen [sic] the pattern of how people meet when they get to
the Ice then become mutually exclusive and that's ok. I never seen any overt
sexual overtones displayed by anyone.”
A younger male focus group participant concurred that some older men,
especially, remain unaware of what women in USAP experience. “Even for people
who do have the privilege of being in a position to step in [such as] older men
who [could] see these things happening and who aren’t doing gross things to
women – they don’t notice.” Indeed, some community members feel that certain
people with higher status deliberately choose not to notice, or they see what goes
on and choose to remain silent. As an interviewee explained, some “don’t want to
be the one person who is calling people out.”32
32
One senior researcher explained, “I have approached students informally and told [these] new
students, ‘Hey, this guy gets a girl every year’.” Asked if she had ever considered raising this issue
directly with her male colleague who was preying on these young research students the participant
replied, “It’s just a sex thing, I don’t think it’s our business to stop people from doing what they want to
do.”
RESPONSE
-40-
Needs Assessment
Finding #2: ASC Contractors and Subcontractors Report a Lack of Trust in Their
Human Resources
As detailed above, numerous community members expressed anguish and fear
regarding their, and their friends’ and colleagues’, physical and emotional safety
within the USAP. They gave many examples of community members who were
victimized. Contractors described how, despite repeated efforts to report abuse
and to hold perpetrators accountable there, were rarely serious consequences for
offenders who engaged in sexual harassment and assault, in their experience.
Interviewees frequently shared their perceptions that victims were not only not
encouraged to report but were actively discouraged from doing so. These
individuals reported how they and their colleagues feel undermined and not
supported. They view their respective human resources (HR) departments as
barriers to their pursuit of safety and justice. Perhaps one focus group participant
best captured the sentiment when she stated, “Nine times out of ten the victim is
more punished or is worse off. As a woman, there is no sense of justice when
something happens. Even if there was something in place, the trust is so
broken.”33 Another community member explained the following:
Illustrative Quote: Lack of Trust
“There’s a huge issue on station with the contractors not trusting their
companies to look out for them and not trusting their HR staff to properly do
their jobs. I’ve seen numerous instances where HR has gotten a report and
the person behaving inappropriately has received seemingly no
repercussions, or at least nothing worth changing their behavior over, and
I’ve heard of times where HR just verbally warns the person the report is
about without making a note in their employee file (usually under the
reasoning that actually recording it will be damaging to their future
contracts). This damages the belief that HR will actually do anything, and in
the second case actively works against the companies because it erases any
chance of establishing a behavior pattern in these people that should
prohibit them from getting contracts in the future.”
33
Others report that they find it unlikely that human resource personnel will respond appropriately,
even if they wish to report an incident, because there is no department representative on the ice or
because they have never met their representative. This suggests that community members feel safest in
reporting sexual assault or harassment when there is a preexisting relationship with the human
resources representative.
RESPONSE
-41-
Needs Assessment
Qualitative data confirms what the quantitative data indirectly demonstrates, i.e.,
that female victims do not feel supported, that incidents are not thoroughly
investigated, and that individuals who cause such harms are not held
accountable. One female contractor in the USAP community described how, for
example, when she reported an incident, human resources’ response was to
dismiss or minimize her experience and the seriousness of the complaint:
Illustrative Quote: ASC Human Resources
“When I got into [the HR] office, it felt so unwelcoming to have a heart-toheart conversation about [the sexual harassment I experienced]. The HR lady
was making me feel like I did something wrong. After everything was all said
and done, I felt like she had already made up a decision. What happened to
the sexual harassment policy and the code of conduct [my company] had us
sign . . ..?”
Community members described to the team what is known in the field as
institutional betrayal. As Dr. Jennifer Freyd explained in her extensive research on
the institutions’ post-sexual assault response to victims, “The term institutional
betrayal refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals
dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond
supportively to wrongdoings by individuals (e.g., sexual assault) committed within
the context of the institution” (Freyd, 2018). For example:
Sexual assault occurring in a context where an important institution
acts in a way that betrays its member’s trust will be especially
damaging . . . In fact, betrayals occurring in events leading up to
sexual assault such as creating an environment that is conducive to
sexual assault were more commonly reported than insufficient
responses to assault in this sample. This perception may be more
female contractor with (b) (6)
experience working in male-dominated environments
disclosed, “The only time I’ve felt I’ve been discriminated against because I’m a woman is [here] on the
Ice. I did a winter at McMurdo and felt totally disrespected by the guys I worked with. I went to my
foreman. He totally blew it off.” Another interviewee spoke of a sexual assault survivor who was
unwilling to make a report to the individual responsible for taking action at their station because the
survivor believed that person to be “uninformed, dismissive, inaccessible, and likely to minimize their
experience.” Team LDSS also was informed of a victim being “crushed when told they had to report to
[this person] because [the person] is so unapproachable.”
RESPONSE
-45-
Needs Assessment
damaging to members because it creates a sense that the
institution could have done something to prevent the experience
from occurring (Smith & Freyd, 2013).
In contrast, explains Dr. Freyd, there is also the opportunity for what she
describes as institutional courage. Such courage is defined as:
An institution’s commitment to seek the truth and engage in
moral action, despite unpleasantness, risk, and short-term cost. It
is a pledge to protect and care for those who depend on the
institution. It is a compass oriented to the common good of
individuals, the institution, and the world. It is a force that
transforms institutions into more accountable, equitable, healthy
places for everyone (Freyd, 2018).
NSF OPP stands at the crossroads of institutional betrayal and institutional
courage. It is Team LDSS’ hope that this Needs Assessment Report, and the SAHPR
project, represent a turning fixed toward courage and change.
In addition to incidents recounted to Team LDSS directly, in (b) (6)
2020, Leidos was presented with more than one dozen “testimonials” from
individuals impacted by sexual assault and harassment in the USAP. The
summaries cited numerous examples of victims feeling shamed, minimized,
dismissed, or otherwise not taken seriously by human resources. (While the team
reviewed those summaries, they are not cited here for privacy reasons, as they
were not shared with Team LDSS directly.) To the best of Team LDSS’ knowledge,
that information has remained with Leidos and has not (yet) been shared with
NSF.
Focus group participants (and others) reported that they believe HR does not
respond to complaints in a timely manner. This perceived lack of urgency further
underscores their beliefs and experiences that human resources does not
appropriately protect victims, nor do they value (or act upon) reports of sexual
misconduct. Recounting an incident that occurred on station, a community
member described being part of “a situation where we wanted to cut somebody
off from the bar as we waited for an [investigation] outcome. But our hands were
initially tied because we’re waiting for an HR ok on that. [Meanwhile], the
individual was still causing problems nightly; we were waiting days for a response
from HR.” Another community member — who described numerous incidents of
RESPONSE
-46-
Needs Assessment
sexual assault and harassment in their correspondence with Team LDSS — shared
the following:
Illustrative Quote: ASC Human Resources
“A friend once had a guy choke her while his penis was in his hand,
threatening her to call me to have a threesome with them (I had turned the
guy down several times over the previous weeks) or he wouldn’t stop. She
told me but [she] refused to report it. I reported it anyway, but they just kept
the guy around for a couple months while figuring out what to do. I avoided
public places and took random routes to my dorm so he couldn’t follow
me.”35
ASC Human Resources and Acts of Retaliation
A significant number of community members believe that contractor and
subcontractor human resources departments retaliate against victims and those
who support them. Throughout the data collection process, community members
reported that when they or their colleagues reported sexual misconduct to
human resources, they felt they were punished for doing so. As one survey
respondent wrote:
Illustrative Quote: ASC Human Resources and Acts of Retaliation
“People on station fear, and rightfully so, that if they are harassed or
assaulted and report it, they will be the ones who will be going home. When
things happened on ice, the number one thing I heard was ‘don't report it or
you will go home and be blacklisted from the program’ . . . I saw this happen,
people who stood up and reported that something had occurred and then
they were fired and sent off ice . . .. “
It creates a harmful and enduring ripple effect when a victim or witness reports
an assault or harassment and then experiences what they or others believe are
negative consequences. This perceived retaliation, and the numerous examples
community members cite (which are, in turn, shared through word of mouth and
35
According to the community member, to “remedy” the situation the employer “ended up sending him
to the South Pole for the rest of the season as a solution.”
RESPONSE
-47-
Needs Assessment
correspondence as victims seek support), seriously undermine contract workers’
confidence in human resources. This is true for victims and other community
members alike. Even those workers who have not personally had disappointing
experiences with the department begin to mistrust the human resources
personnel they are expected to rely on for assistance. For example, in three
different focus groups, multiple individuals shared a similar account of a woman
who was sexually assaulted and reported it. As it was related to Team LDSS, (b) (6)
the perpetrator was asked
to resign, and the perpetrator refused to do so. The individuals we spoke with
reported that the victim’s boss began giving the victim poor performance reviews,
which had never happened until the victim reported the assault. Interviewees
relayed that the woman was “fired [by HR] for (b) (6)
two weeks
later.” This example was cited repeatedly as the apocryphal tale of what happens
when women on the ice report a rape or other sexual assault.
Although the details relayed to the team varied across the groups, what is clear is
that the precise details of this incident are less important than the enduring
message. Numerous USAP community members shared their belief that, if you
report that you were raped, you could be fired. The story serves as both a
warning and a confirmation of what many feared to be true: female workers are
viewed as dispensable. In the words of one survey respondent, “Women in easily
replaced service roles . . . they don’t speak up because they are afraid of losing
their position. It is made clear that the community comes first.” And as a survey
respondent cautioned, if changes are not implemented, victims “will continue to
be further hurt by the USAP program treating them as expendable and punishing
those who do speak up.”
Several participants in the supervisors’ focus group shared this concern. They
noted that any person who speaks up as a victim or as supportive of victims will
be labeled a troublemaker by human resources and endanger their contract
renewal. As a survey respondent noted, “Often young women want to grow their
career within the USAP so will not report incidents . . .. And when they do, they
are often retaliated against or won't be invited back.”
Retaliatory experiences and anecdotes were widely discussed. In several different
focus groups, participants cited the termination of an individual who they viewed
as an outspoken supporter of the Ice Allies as an example
of retaliation. Another
(b) (6)
explained that “a lead person for McMurdo station”
she was let go this year and it has not been communicated why.” Another
RESPONSE
-48-
Needs Assessment
interviewee stated that an individual was terminated after she “pushed within her
organization to have an assault reviewed at the Leidos level.” Another contractor
concurred and shared their own concerns regarding being outspoken on these
issues:
Illustrative Quote: Resources and Acts of Retaliation
“I know two women who were told they would never get contracts from PAE
again, despite always having really good end of season evaluations and
multiple departments wanting to hire them. The common denominators are
they are people who speak out, they are people who bother HR, saying ‘why
isn’t this sexual assault/harassment not being taken care of?’ That’s honestly
why I’m ok being really out loud right now, because I am pretty sure I will not
have a contract next year because I am one of those people who’s been
moderately loud.”
Almost all community members the team spoke with who were active in the
effort to raise awareness of sexual assault and harassment within USAP cited a
litany of examples of what they perceive to be retaliation specifically due to their
activism on these issues. One such individual wrote that they were informed they
are on a contractor’s “‘do not re-hire’ blacklist.” “I have not seen the ‘blacklist,”
this individual wrote, “[but another worker has] and . . . 4 of us on the list were
actively involved in anti-harassment initiatives. . ..” The person went on to
explain:
Illustrative Quote: Resources and Acts of Retaliation
“[W]hile all employers have a written non-retaliation policy, they get around
this by simply letting an individual’s short-term contract run out, and then
choose not to re-hire the individual for subsequent seasons. There is
generally no explanation or feedback given to the employee, just silence
following applications for follow-on contracts. . .. Of the 4 of us who have
been blacklisted presumably for employee advocacy activities, all of us had
excellent performance reviews and positive reputations in the community.
And some were specifically requested for rehire by their team’s hiring
managers.”
RESPONSE
-49-
Needs Assessment
Another wrote that, in a meeting with human resources, the HR representative,
“kept insisting that we were being combative against HR and said [they] had no
reason to believe that sexual harassment is an issue in Antarctica.”
There is a widely shared perception among community members interviewed
that, while victims are punished, individuals who commit harassment or assault
are allowed to remain employed on the ice – sometimes, even with receiving
promotions. One interviewee described a circumstance in which a woman “was
literally chased around the station by this man. Not only were there no
consequences, but he was hired as a year-round [employee]. When a bystander
confronted him, he threatened to run him over with a bulldozer. . .. This bad
person was rewarded with a full-time position.” Another observed that, “nothing
happens. People who engage in these behaviors are not only not sanctioned but
they are rewarded!” Yet another community member wrote:
Illustrative Quote: Resources and Acts of Retaliation
“I was reprimanded by both [the harasser’s] supervisor and mine for
‘improperly reporting’ the harassment. I don’t think I should have been
harassed in the first place, but I am more upset that my requests for help
were ignored, that my harasser was rehired after multiple complaints, and
that I was retaliated against by my supervisors for seeking help.”
Perceptions of ASC Human Resources Handling of Reports
Community members believe human resources departments do not handle
reports of misconduct objectively and fairly.
Contractors and researchers, among others, told the team that they believe
human resources does not hold all members of the community equally
accountable. One commonly held perception is that individuals with power,
authority, or social status and individuals in hard-to-fill positions, as well as
members of the military, are not held responsible for acts of sexual assault or
harassment they commit. While there was not a specific line of inquiry in the
focus groups regarding this topic, numerous participants raised this issue. One
survey respondent wrote, “[m]en who occupy essential and hard to replace roles
can rape someone and be hired back. USAP will treat women who have been
assaulted and raped and targeted by these men with suspicion and try to blame
the fact they were assaulted on their own behavior.” Another reported that “the
RESPONSE
-50-
Needs Assessment
Community Members Report They Do Not Trust Their Human Resources
Community members do not trust human resources departments because they
perceive them as withholding information and failing to communicate outcomes
to victims or other community members.
Victims, supervisors, and other complainants reported feeling frustrated and
angry that they are encouraged to report incidents to human resources but, once
the report is received, the victim and other community members are never told
whether an investigation was conducted or the outcome of that inquiry. They felt
even more confused and uncertain when individuals accused of misconduct were
removed from the ice for that season and the explanations proffered for their
departure were “family or medical needs” rather than for disciplinary reasons.
This left victims unsure of the outcome of their complaints and suspicious of
whether they were appropriately handled. As one survivor explained:
Illustrative Quote: No Trust in Their Human Resources
“Even when proceeding forward with a report, HR has a communication
issue. [W]hen I reported someone for being drunk and disorderly . . . HR did
deal with it but other than giving my statement I was left in the dark about
proceedings until [eventually] I found out that person was no longer onbase.”
Some of the contractor supervisors told the team they feel the current human
resources reporting structure leaves them in a no-win situation: If they escalate
the complaint to their companies’ human resources department, they will have
limited insight into how (if at all) the investigation will proceed. It is unlikely
human resources will provide them with helpful information, or with information
they are permitted to share with the complainant. This in turn undermines
workers’ confidence in their supervisors, further eroding the trust the supervisor
worked hard to achieve.
It was evident from the focus groups and interviews that contractors’ human
resources and other personnel must find a way to navigate this dilemma. They are
obliged to protect employees’ privacy and handle personnel matters in
confidence, but because there is so much mistrust that has accumulated over the
years, claims of employee privacy (or just plain silence) are viewed as excuses or a
cover-up. A variety of community members, including supervisors, noted that
RESPONSE
-53-
Needs Assessment
when employees complain of harassment or abuse are left “in the dark” it “leads
to paranoia.” The lack of information combined with employees’ limited
understanding of the complaint process and personnel procedures also create
expectations that cannot be met. As one senior leader opined, “Where things go
awry [is that] we are hamstrung by our inability to talk about what is going on
with folks outside of the investigation. The general population expects things to
happen in a day or less . . .” Moreover, when USAP members believe an
investigation or outcome is poorly handled, the news ricochets throughout the
community, fueled by the “small town rumor mill.” Soon enough, the facts
themselves are not as important as what workers believe to be true and the
corresponding failures. For many community members the team spoke with,
there is no longer sufficient goodwill remaining to have confidence in how these
matters are handled. As one community member explained, “the trust is broken.”
Therefore, when Human Resources does not share personnel-related information
with victims, supervisors, and other community members, it is viewed as a
purposeful silence; the lack of transparency reinforces the perception that human
resources cannot be trusted or relied upon.36
ASC Companies’ Investigations
Community members report that Human Resources fails to investigate reports of
sexual assault or harassment by other contractors’ employees, grantees, or
members of the military.
Interviewees discussed that, in their experience, Human Resources is even more
likely to be ineffective in handling a report if the individual who engaged in the
misconduct is affiliated with a different employer or educational institution than
the victim. Indeed, one of the greatest areas of confusion was how to make a
cross-complaint, i.e., a report against an employee for a different contractor or
someone who is a grantee or member of the military. The siloed nature of the
contractors’ and other institutions’ reporting structures essentially creates a
loophole that many members believe perpetrators can exploit. One contractor
recalled how they were “shocked to find out that the highest level of
management for ASC does not get notified if there is an assault – because it is
some other employers’ problem.” Another contractor observed, “[it’s] hard to
36
In conducting our research for this needs assessment, we gleaned additional insight into how delays
and silence fuel a sense of community mistrust. An interviewee related those workers had submitted a
document to human resources that summarized community members’ experiences of sexual assault and
harassment within USAP. Team LDSS requested the summary multiple times; NSF also instructed the
contractor to provide it. After the third request, documents (with minimal detail) were provided. Team
LDSS continued to pursue the matter and eventually the summary was submitted to the team.
RESPONSE
-54-
Needs Assessment
speak out against [other employers]. We don’t have a venue or channel to speak
through. You could talk to HR but how would that get to the military, and which
HR do you even speak to? [It] gets to be a complicated web.” Grantees echoed
these concerns. As one grantee queried, “What do you do if you have a
harassment case that doesn’t come from your own institution? NSF needs to
develop a mechanism that addresses those situations. NSF is trying to wash their
hands with dealing with that.”
The lack of this type of reporting structure is confusing and, as with other
incidents described above, has an enduring and widespread impact on the
community. As one USAP member recounted: “There was once a guy who
harassed a friend of mine and there were five witnesses (myself included) plus her
who all went to HR. But because he was a skilled worker and worked for ‘a
different company’ nothing even happened, and she had to live on station with
him while experiencing panic attacks to the point she couldn’t go to work some
days.”
Finding #3: Grantees’ Reported They Do Not Have a Reliable Way to Ensure
Their Safety or Accountability
Team LDSS spoke with a limited number of grantees, and they included a crosssection of several graduate students, principal investigators (PIs), and other
researchers. Several graduate students as well as their PI mentors reported that,
in their experience, they do not have a reliable way to ensure their safety or
promote offender accountability while on the ice.
Grantee Experiences with and Perceptions of Reporting Mechanisms
In theory, students and others affiliated with a university have the option to file a
report or formal complaint with their academic institution. Several grantees
shared, however, that the nature of this process necessarily precludes any kind of
timely intervention. The individuals they are supposed to report to at their
respective institutions possess, at best, a limited understanding of the cultural
challenges these younger graduate or post-graduate researchers confront. They
are also so far away that they’re perceived as having limited usefulness in
protecting the students and employees. One victim scoffed at the notion that
their institution could assist them when an incident occurs, noting that the person
they were supposed to report to “was 14,000 miles away” and there was no way
to reach them. (Grantee researchers relayed that they felt there was often no way
to access confidential or timely help when they needed it most. Their access to
satellite phones is limited. Phone calls must be made close to or at base camp,
RESPONSE
-55-
Needs Assessment
where there is little privacy, because of limited phone reception, established
procedures for accessing the phones, and other considerations. Sometimes, the
very person who harmed them is close at hand.) Several interviewees disclosed
that, due to incidents of sexual misconduct they had experienced in the field, they
bought personal satellite phones and now pay for their own In-Reach satellite
communication service so they can summon help directly. Several researchers
mentioned the expense associated with such phones and satellite services was
considerable and an expense that women bore disproportionately for their safety.
Even when they can access help, numerous researchers in the field shared they
routinely have no one on-site to turn to for support. Generally, their principal
investigator (PI) is supposed to be their first point of contact. But not all victims
work alongside their PI. Even if the PI is on site, the PI may not be supportive or
responsive. A PI has considerable discretion whether to elevate or dismiss a
subordinate’s complaint, and on occasion, the PI is also the person committing or
excusing the sexual misconduct. Several community members told the team that
in addition to PIs other senior researchers may also have direct access to an NSF
representative, but these individuals believe that NSF is – or is viewed as - not
accessible to younger, and usually more vulnerable, researchers and grantees.
As with other community members, another obstacle to reporting for grantees is
that “there is a perception that if a report is filed, the harassed will be removed,
rather than the harasser.” That decision can be potentially career- or projectending for grantees, further contributing to their silence. One grantee discussed
how, in their experience, “People let things go more than they ought to because
the consequences are so dire – both for the person involved and for the rest of
the team. If a team of 6 [loses] 1 person, that’s important.” Another explained:
Illustrative Quote: No Trust in Their Human Resources
“Even thinking about reporting can damage your career long term. Most
people keep it inside, complain about it to people they trust. There isn’t a
safe way to report that would be equitable to your career. I don’t know that I
would know who to trust enough to call. . .. Throughout my entire career,
any of the situations I’ve been in . . . Even if I think about the times I might
have considered reporting, I wouldn’t. [As a woman, you’re] already fighting
to get the respect to be out there. Already trying to gain respect from this
community.”
RESPONSE
-56-
Needs Assessment
Most grantees are affiliated with an institution of higher education, and these
individuals also have the option to report incidents of sexual misconduct through
their college or university’s Title IX office. Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs
or activities that receive federal financial assistance.37 Sexual assault and sexual
harassment can constitute a form of sex discrimination. Title IX applies to schools,
local and state educational agencies, and other institutions that receive federal
financial assistance from the Department of Education. As noted above, however,
community members who conduct their research at remote locations discussed
how it does not feel like a viable or effective option to report sexual misconduct
on the ice to someone thousands of miles away who has limited understanding of
the USAP community and environment.
To provide another entry point for receiving complaints, NSF created a portal
where grantees who feel they have been discriminated against can submit a
complaint directly to NSF under Title IX. However, we do not know whether or to
what extent this portal is being used. None of the grantees who responded to the
survey and none of the grantee focus group participants referenced the possibility
of reporting on the NSF Portal; the only options they identified were a direct
report to their PI or human resources at the institution. Additionally, given the
perception that reporting could have career-ending possibilities, even if the
grantees had known of the portal’s existence, it is likely their privacy concerns
and fears of retaliation or other career-related consequences would continue to
limit its effectiveness. This is not necessarily a reason to discontinue its use; it
remains important for survivors to have many different options for how to report
harassment or abuse.
Finding #4: Victims Believe Military Personnel Are Not Held Accountable for
Sexual Misconduct
Members of the military are viewed as engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior
and there is little awareness of how to hold members accountable for their
misconduct.
Community Experiences with and Perceptions of Military Personnel
Numerous community members – especially those in lower-level positions – felt
members of the military commit sexual harassment with impunity at McMurdo
37
Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” See 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.
RESPONSE
-57-
Needs Assessment
and other sites and stations. Numerous interviewees described multiple incidents
of service members engaging in disrespectful inappropriate behavior toward
female workers and supervisors failing repeatedly to address the problem. One
example discussed by several participants in focus groups involves the women
responsible for cleaning the bathrooms in the two buildings where male members
of the military are housed. Victims recounted that male service members
routinely enter the bathrooms and use the urinals while the bathrooms are being
cleaned by female staff. The service members deliberately ignore the “closed for
cleaning” signs, the female contractors reported, and despite repeated requests
refused to wait (or to use the stalls) until the female cleaners had finished.
Another interviewee (in a different focus group) elaborated. She explained:
Illustrative Quote: Perceptions of Military Personnel
“The military live in two buildings. The pilot and captains live in one and the
lower ranking military personnel in the other. The janitors have to clean their
bathrooms. It’s intimidating to go in there; they are all there, and it’s a
common place where harassment occurs. . .. Going in to [clean] the men’s
bathrooms – I have to stand up to people that don’t like to be told what to
do. [They’re] stepping over signs that say ‘do not enter.’ [I’ve] reported this
and have had no response from their captains. I don’t know who to go to
when it comes to the military.”38
One survey respondent observed:
Illustrative Quote: Perceptions of Military Personnel
“Parsons [Corporation] and Air Force had the most outrageous conduct that I
witnessed. Their management was separate from ours . . . I think they felt,
38
Military and other community members’ treatment of female janitors struck a chord with several
individuals. “As a janitor I had to clean the military dorm 210 at night. The military flight crews were
always partying in there and men would come into the closed bathroom while I was cleaning it to hit on
me. Elsewhere on station, it was a daily occurrence for men to come in to closed bathrooms to pee
while I was cleaning. I know that doesn’t sound that aggressive, but I saw SO MANY PENISES that way,
against my will, while doing my job, and it was ONLY MEN who did it, women never came in to closed
bathrooms.”
RESPONSE
-58-
Needs Assessment
and kind of were, untouchable. And that made them do things I thought only
happened in movies. It was kind of insane to witness.”
One employee who identifies as “a queer person” was told, by a service member,
“You haven’t tried the right dick.”
Victims shared that they report this mistreatment, but supervisors and HR
consistently decline to intervene. For example, one contractor employee reported
that, when they complained to their supervisor about the service members’
conduct, the supervisor responded by shrugging it off saying, something to the
effect of, “I can take you off that assignment and put some other woman on it
instead of you. Your choice.”
As one worker explained, “[We’re] conditioned that the guard gets whatever they
want.” Another best summarized what community members described: “nothing
will happen” with any report regarding the military.
Finding #5: NSF Lacks Adequate Reporting and Response Systems
NSF does not have systems in place to ensure that it is appropriately informed of
and responsive to incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment within the
USAP community.
Communication to NSF
For a variety of historical, institutional, legal, and structural reasons, NSF is not
informed as to the frequency, scope, severity, or outcomes of incidences of sexual
assault and harassment that occur within the USAP. Even when it is informed, NSF
does not reliably respond to allegations or redress the situation even when able.
Structural and philosophical challenges appear to be primary impediments to
implementing meaningful change.
NSF is uninformed as to the scope or severity of incidents that occur. In part, NSF
is unaware of incidents of sexual assault and harassment because there is
attrition at every juncture: victim reporting, supervisor response, investigation,
and offender sanctions. However, even when complaints of sexual harassment or
assault manage to wend their way through the formal reporting process, it
appears that NSF does not receive full, accurate, or timely information from its
contractors and grantees. In part this is because NSF does not require contractors
and subcontractors to provide full and accurate reports. As a result, NSF is
RESPONSE
-59-
Needs Assessment
insulated from the information that would enable it to recognize and respond to
what many believe are widespread and urgent problems within the USAP.
NSF is also uninformed because it does not have policies or procedures in place to
address cross-jurisdiction incidents. NSF sits at the apex of the many entities and
jurisdictions (e.g., academic institutions, military, contractors, etc.) that comprise
the USAP. When cross-jurisdictional incidents of sexual harassment or assault
occur (e.g., where the victim and the offender are affiliated with different
contractors, academic institutions, and/or military branches) community
members have nowhere else to look other than NSF for guidance on reporting.
Team LDSS has not seen that this protocol exists. As a result, community
members do not know what procedures govern these circumstances. They do not
know to whom or how a report should be made when a multi-jurisdiction incident
occurs. Victims do not know who, if anyone, is available to support them, which
entity is responsible for the investigation, who may hold the offender
accountable, and whether or how the outcome will be communicated to the
victim.
Among some grantees and contractors, there is a sentiment that NSF does not
know about or address these issues because it passively, and sometimes
proactively, insulates itself from responsibility. There is a perception that NSF
accomplishes this by shifting responsibility to the contractors, the military, and
the academic institutions it funds, and disclaims knowledge or responsibility. In
this multi-jurisdictional environment, NSF has attempted to create systems for
greater oversight (see discussion of the Polar Code of Conduct and Review Board
below), but the systems in place remain inadequate. Some community members
also perceive NSF as primarily interested in maintaining the status quo and
deliberately declining to leverage its funding and contractual authority to
promote a safer, more just workplace. They view NSF’s asserted lack of authority
as an abdication of its leadership responsibility and undermining any meaningful
effort to effect change.
NSF Efforts to Address Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment
As discussed below, NSF has taken actions to provide greater clarity of expected
behavior and oversight of contractor, subcontractor, and grantee responses to
sexual misconduct. However, the systems in place are still perceived as
inadequate.
RESPONSE
-60-
Needs Assessment
The Polar Code of Conduct. Prior to 2017, NSF was, in the words of one employee,
“comfortable that the sexual assault, sexual harassment, physical fights, etc.
would be handled by the relevant agency.” NSF was:
Illustrative Quote: Efforts to Address Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment
“Comfortable with military taking care of military, the university with their
folks, etc. We only jumped in when it was cross-program, such as military
against civilian. It was manageable and the standard was understood by the
contractors. The military had the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
contractors had the contract, etc. It was convenient to think that the
university had an obligation to protect everyone bundled under the grant.”
In 2013 NSF established a Polar Code of Conduct (the “Code” or “Code of
Conduct”)39 which applies to all people working or visiting the USAP, or who are
financially supported by NSF in the Antarctic. The Code applies to all persons
working at or visiting a USAP or an NSF-managed Arctic station, field camp, other
facility, ship, or aircraft, and this includes researchers, students, contractors,
official visitors, federal civilian and military personnel, and others. Further,
persons who are financially supported by NSF, through grant, contract, or
otherwise, are also expected to adhere to the Code of Conduct while deployed to
other field locations in the Arctic and Antarctic. The Code includes “examples of
conduct that violate [its] fundamental principles and objectives,” such as “physical
or verbal abuse of any person, including, but not limited to, harassment, stalking,
bullying, or hazing of any kind, whether the behavior is carried out verbally,
physically, electronically, or in written form” and “[c]onduct that is offensive,
indecent, obscene, or disorderly.” (See Appendix F, National Science Foundation
Office of Polar Programs Polar Code of Conduct, Effective July 2018.) The Code
provides several potential consequences for a violation, including “removal from a
USAP or Arctic station, field camp, other facility, ship, or aircraft; termination of
employment (by the employer), or other administrative, civil, or criminal
enforcement actions, as appropriate.” Given that the employer would determine
termination, and administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement would include law
enforcement or private litigation, the risk of removal from the ice is the only
39
The 2018 Polar Code of Conduct expanded the 2013 USAP Code of Conduct (AIL-POL-1000.03) to the
entire OPP.
RESPONSE
-61-
Needs Assessment
practical sanction within NSF’s authority. This was confirmed in the key informant
interviews.
In January 2017, NSF issued an Affirmation of Non-Harassment Policy Statement,
which is updated annually.40 The Affirmation complements the Code. NSF also
revised its incident review structure. The new policies and the revised structure,
however, remain insufficient to provide adequate oversight.
The revised Code of Conduct Review Board. To identify patterns of sexual
misconduct on-ice and provide some response oversight, NSF bifurcated its Code
of Conduct Review Board. Under the new format, one board reviews safety issues
generally and the newly created second board reviews complaints of sexual
assault and harassment submitted by each contractor and subcontractor. This
new board is responsible for reviewing each incident and evaluating the propriety
of the employer’s response. The board can offer recommendations or directions
to the employer if further action is needed.41 According to the NSF, however, the
Code of Conduct “doesn’t give [NSF] authority to tell a private company to
discipline an employee in a particular way or fire them; that’s something that they
need to deal with.” Further, “the Board does not have enforcement authority. Its
purpose is to see trends, develop strategies, etc.”42
40
The Code does not explicitly address sexual assault or harassment. In July 2020, NSF released an
Affirmation of Non-Harassment Policy Statement which defined Harassment and Sexual Harassment.
The Sexual Harassment definition “includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and
other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when the conduct is made as a condition of
employment and when the conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”
The statement reiterates that all USAP participants are subject to the Polar Code of Conduct and any
employee is subject to their own employer’s policies. Military personnel are specifically subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unlike the Code, members are advised to report issues to “their
supervisor, principal investigator, department chair, commanding officer, or human resources, ethics or
legal representatives.” Complainants are also welcomed to reach out to NSF directly if they “feel
external review is warranted.”
41
According to the 2021 Process for Reporting Code of Conduct Violations, the Code of Conduct Board is
charged with acting “as an information sharing and management tool to ensure that all organizations
are informed about significant participant misconduct.” In February 2021, the NSF updated its “Process
for Reporting Polar Code of Conduct Violations” to provide ASC employers with information about NSF’s
expectations of what “significant incidents” would be reported annually. “What is deemed to be
‘significant’ may be different for each employer according to the risks inherent in their operation and
the impact of the action on the respective Polar Program. There is no tolerance for conduct that results,
or has the potential to result, in injury to self or others, or to loss or damage to government property.
Certainly, whether conduct was intentional should also be considered.”
42 One NSF employee opined that, with respect to the issues of sexual harassment and assault in the
USAP, “NSF cannot become the one-stop solution for these situations.” Not because of authority or
jurisdiction, however, but rather because it does “not have the manpower.”
RESPONSE
-62-
Needs Assessment
NSF Management of the USAP
NSF relies on ASC contractors (e.g., Leidos, PAE, UTMB, GSC, Six Mile, etc.) to
summarize reported violations and present to the Code of Conduct Review Board
any formal complaints of sexual assault and harassment in the USAP. As part of
the data analysis, the review of what appear to be several years of reports to the
Code of Conduct Board confirmed what was shared anecdotally: the reports the
contractors submit to NSF contain scant (if any) references to sexual misconduct.
When reports do manage to make it all the way to the Board, the facts presented
are not reliably sufficient to convey a full and accurate rendition of what
occurred. Further, it is evident that neither the employers nor NSF are necessarily
aware of the outcomes, or even the alleged offender’s employment status. In the
draft report for April 2020 to March 2021, for example, the outcomes were
uncertain for more than 40% of the 22 incidents listed.43 Nevertheless, according
to the draft report, NSF found “[t]he reporting from the supporting contractors is
acceptable and their responses to incidents are reasonable.” Thus, even when
incidents do make it through the repeated winnowing process and are reported
to NSF, the Board’s annual review appears to be superficial and not wellinformed. Further, because the reviews are conducted long after incidents
occurred, any recommendations for improvement or redress are too late to
benefit the victims directly or to ensure they receive the support or response they
deserve. In sum, under the current structure, there are too few checks and
balances to ensure all cases are reported to the NSF Code of Conduct Review
Board, that the information provided is sufficient to conduct an adequate review,
and that those conducting the oversight and review are adequately informed as
to the incidents occurring, the nature of those incidents and the harms that
result.
Even when NSF is aware and informed of incidents, NSF interviewees told us they
had to weigh what accountability options were possible and the impact on other
community members. For example, one NSF interviewee explained his reluctance
to enforce certain grant provisions in response to sexual misconduct because
“students, and other people on this award whose careers are at stake, are going
to suffer because you killed the grant in thinking you’re getting back at the school
43
In the report, the actions taken were described as “none” for 2 incidents. For another 2 incidents they
were listed as “Unclear. No action visible to NSF Station Manager.” For an additional 4 incidents the
report stated that “termination or resignation [was] unclear.” (For a 9th incident, the participants were
required to write letters of apology but, according to the document, the individual submitting the report
“[s]uspect[s] there was no other action taken.”) Regarding investigations undertaken by the responsible
contractors, whether one was conducted or by whom was listed as “unclear” or “unknown” for 3
incidents and “minimal” for a fourth.
RESPONSE
-63-
Needs Assessment
or at him [the principal investigator], or whatever.” We also were told that
“primarily NSF has the authority to remove people from the ice. It doesn’t give us
authority to tell a private company or an institution to discipline or fire anyone. It
doesn’t give us any authority over military personnel.”
Others disagree. They believe there are many steps NSF can take to require
contractors to respond more appropriately and effectively to incidents of sexual
harassment and assault and ensure compliance. As a senior interviewee
recounted tearfully:
Illustrative Quote: Efforts to Address Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment
“[I believe] NSF needs to change its policy. We are setting in motion where
we have predatory behavior being encouraged because NSF cannot say, ‘We
are not going to allow this.’ . . . It is this push-pull between NSF saying we
really want to make sure we have a strong sexual harassment policy because
we manage the Antarctic program and yet they will not take the steps. . .. As
a federal bureaucracy it’s super easy for us to pass the buck. . .”
One community member stated, “NSF is complicit in creating and sustaining an
unhealthy culture when it comes to sexual harassment in the Antarctic
community.” That sentiment was echoed by other community members. From
lower-wage workers to supervisors and grantees, community members view NSF
as intentionally avoiding responsibility for sexual misconduct in the USAP.
Another community member with many years of experience in the program
recounted how a female principal investigator was so troubled by her experience
in the field that she brought her concerns directly to NSF. He described the
outcome as follows: “After she came back from the field [where] she was
harassed, she went to the NSF Program Director, and he blew her off. He told her
it was a problem for her and not anyone else’s problem. She came back in tears.”
In another focus group, a participant shared about a male principal investigator
who was reported to have had a large inflatable female doll in the camp. (It was
understood that the doll was for sexual entertainment.) According to this
interviewee, a complaint was made to NSF regarding the blow-up doll and, as the
story goes, NSF instructed him to remove it but reportedly “apologized” that they
were forced to make this request.
RESPONSE
-64-
Needs Assessment
These types of accounts can take on a life of their own in the USAP community.
They further undermine confidence in NSF’s commitment to promote a safer and
more just environment on the ice. As one senior community member explained,
“I am scared.” Because NSF does not meaningfully track offenders’ behavior, we
“cannot keep people safe on the ice.”
Finding #6: Community Members Do Not Believe Current Training Is Adequate
or Effective
USAP community members believe the current sexual harassment and sexual
assault awareness training is inadequate and ineffective.
Current Training
Many focus group participants reported that the current sexual harassment and
sexual assault awareness training is inadequate given the pervasiveness and
severity of the conduct. They believe that the training is not effective and that
some trainers do not take the issues seriously enough. For example, several
individuals recounted an anecdote about a trainer who quipped during the
training that they were not allowed to express their viewpoint that there is
nothing offensive about asking women to smile more. While some mentioned
they were grateful for the recent revamp of the previous training from years ago,
many interviewees believe there is significant room for improvement in the
current sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness training timing,
relevance, frequency, and content. A former McMurdo contractor wrote:
Illustrative Quote: Current Training
“Unfortunately, I must say that the way USAP, NSF, and PAE (plus other
contractors that I haven't worked for directly) have handled this issue has
been appallingly bad. I have been in the work force for 40 years now and . . .
[l]iterally the worst trainings on sexual harassment that I have ever had the
misfortune to have to sit thru have been there. People at McMurdo were
laughing and ridiculing this training for the rest of the season, for how bad
and inappropriate it was. I believe it's time to bring in outside, specifically
trained moderators and trainers to lead these trainings now as the Program
and contractors have proven unable, or incapable, of doing them properly. I
personally know women who did work there but don't want to return
because of this issue.”
RESPONSE
-65-
Needs Assessment
Multiple interviewees recommended that the sexual harassment and sexual
assault awareness training be held multiple times throughout the season. “Going
through the same training every year is only so helpful, having additional training
is necessary.” One supervisor noted, “We could have 50% returnees one season
and [the other 50%] are starting from scratch.”
Several community members stated they believe the trainings should be provided
before and again (repeatedly) after individuals were on the ice, rather than only
during the onboarding process in Christchurch. Having only one training session a
year, and offering it sandwiched between hours and hours of other trainings
before deployment made it “unmemorable and too distant to try and to figure
out how to use it in daily life,” as one noted. “[The training] needs to be repeated,
often, throughout the season to set the expectation and hold people to it,”
observed another. One community member expressed dismay that, due to
technical difficulties, on occasion the trainings were overlooked entirely.
Community members also related that the trainings need to be specifically
directed to life in the Antarctic. As one participant explained, “[t]here is no
comparison with other contexts – [USAP] is a unique environment.” As a result,
the current corporate-like, formulaic sexual harassment and sexual assault
awareness training is simply inapplicable to life in the Antarctic. In contrast to
most other workplace settings, we heard, the traditional lines between where and
with whom individuals live, work, and socialize often do not exist in the USAP.
“Your whole life is happening there so the lines between your work life and your
personal life are blurred,” an interviewee explained. “It’s where I sleep, work.
Everything that happens is with the people you’re down there with.” Another
interviewee concurred: “Regarding sexual harassment in the workplace it’s blurry
here since you live with the people you work with. This tends to be a part where
the trainings in the past have been lacking. Trainings need application to both
work and personal life.”
We also heard that the training uses examples of sexual harassment that are
inadequate, over-used and out-of-date. There were several references to the fact
that neither the trainers nor the audience took the sexual harassment and sexual
assault awareness training seriously. This “we-are-required-to-do-this” attitude
undermined the effectiveness of any training content. Worse, it messaged to the
USAP community that preventing sexual assault and harassment were not a high
priority.
RESPONSE
-66-
Needs Assessment
Many had concrete suggestions for how to improve these trainings, with more
(and more appropriate) scenarios, real-life examples, small group break-out
sessions, etc. Individuals also observed that role-play exercises helped prepare
supervisors and other community members to be equipped to intervene or
respond appropriately when an incident occurred. Finally, one participant
questioned the practicality and enforceability of the zero-tolerance policy
presented in the sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness training:
Illustrative Quote: Current Training
“We can’t really have a zero-tolerance policy on assault and harassment
because for 8.5 months there are no planes unless there is a really serious
emergency. And I don’t think the program will ever fly planes in to get
people out who have assaulted or harassed people. The issues with it are far
too many. So, since we can’t have a zero-tolerance policy . . . I think we need
some sort of system in place to have an educational or correctional program
when these incidents occur to actually teach people why what they are
doing is wrong . . .. Give them something to relate to so they understand the
effects of what they are doing.”
Survey results echoed what we heard anecdotally regarding the effectiveness and
usefulness of the current awareness training in imparting information regarding
reporting sexual assault and harassment. Overall, just over half of the survey
respondents (52%) stated that they understand the reporting process for sexual
assault because of employer-provided training. Approximately 3 in 5 (61%)
respondents understand the sexual harassment reporting process because of
employer-provided training. Less than half of all respondents (48%) find
employer-provided information about sexual assault and harassment valuable.
Men – who are statistically less likely to be sexually assaulted or harassed - were
more likely than women to understand the processes for reporting sexual assault
and sexual harassment. Less than half of all female respondents understand how
to report sexual assault or sexual harassment. Individuals who identify as
heterosexual were more likely than lesbian, gay, or bisexual respondents to
understand the process. Finally, substantially higher percentages of full-time
contractors understand the reporting processes because of employer-provided
training than did the seasonal contractors. The data makes clear that there is
significant room for improvement in employer training on how to report
RESPONSE
-67-
Needs Assessment
Information About Sexual Assault and Harassment Provided by
Employer Was Valuable: Strongly Agree/Agree by Contractor
Status, Sexuality, and Gender
57%
60%
53%
51%
% Respondents
50%
56%
45%
40%
40%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Seasonal
Contractors
(n=437)
Full-Time
Straight
Contractors [Heterosexual]
(n=143)
(n=647)
Bisexual
(n=48)
Lesbian/Gay Male (n=476)
(n=32)
Female
(n=290)
Finding #7: Sexual Misconduct Is Not Perceived as a Safety Issue; Alcohol Is
Misidentified as the Primary Culprit for Sexual Misconduct
Because of a lack of awareness of the scope of sexual misconduct, and NSF’s and
contractors’ failure to recognize that sexual assault and harassment are safety
issues, alcohol is often misidentified as the primary or sole culprit of problems on
the ice.
Alcohol and Sexual Misconduct
Alcohol contributes to sexual misconduct, but it is not the sole source of the bad
behavior. Alcohol has always been allowed by the USAP program and is deeply
ingrained in the on-ice culture. Many participants relayed stories of earlier
Antarctic expeditions and how alcohol was integrally intertwined with the
experiences of those early teams. Principal investigators and other interviewees
explained that it is common for supply planes to deliver cases of beer or wine to
researchers in the field so that research teams can share drinks each night as a
matter of routine. Cocktail hour every evening continues to be a tradition in the
field for some. Drinking at the bars and “pre-drinking in the rooms” are staples of
community life at McMurdo.
Yet many participants expressed frustration and resentment regarding what they
perceive to be misplaced responsibility for incidents of sexual assault and
harassment. These community members perceive alcohol use or abuse as an easy
mark for those who do not want to fully understand or acknowledge the
RESPONSE
-69-
Needs Assessment
pervasiveness of sexual misconduct. As one participant stated, echoing the
theme, “A lot of people will focus on the alcohol problem. The harassment starts
long before going to the bar. It will start in the work center, dorms, travel to the
ice, Christchurch. It's a systemic problem that is tied to behavior, not alcohol.”
Another interviewee noted that, in their experience, “a lot of people, I think they
would be jerks about [sexual assault or harassment] whether they are drunk or
sober. It has a lot to do with the men-children that work down here.” Yet another
interviewee recalled:
Illustrative Quote: Alcohol and Sexual Misconduct
“I was doing some research on another topic – research for workplace
violence – and I found a study by the Department of Justice. The study listed
a number of workplace environmental factors that facilitate problematic
behavior: understaffing, frustration, downsizing, labor disputes,
management style, inconsistent discipline, frequent grievances, etc. We have
all of that [on-ice]. I see this as . . . when we blame alcohol, we don’t
acknowledge the real problem and it becomes the scapegoat that allows us
to ignore the real contributing factors.”
Senior Administration and Perceptions of Alcohol
Pre- and early key informant interviews made evident that senior administration
felt alcohol was the sole or significantly contributing factor to many safety and
violence issues on-ice. “Every criminal activity – including sexual assault – likely
involves alcohol,” said one participant. As one official opined:
Illustrative Quote: Senior Administration and Perceptions of Alcohol
“When I first came to the program, I was absolutely stunned that we allow
alcohol on the continent. . .. You have a small town, that is cut off from the
rest of the world. It’s a very small insular group with cliques of people and
they are operating under this Code of Conduct. And then you throw in 3
bars, 24 hours a day of light in the austral summer . . . For me, it’s an
incubator of trouble. Almost every issue that we see down there that has to
do with some transgression of behavior had alcohol involved at some level. I
think it would be a real change for the program if they could recognize that .
RESPONSE
-70-
Needs Assessment
. . it’s leading to a lot of the problems going on down there. . . Things people
would not do when they are sober; they lose their inhibition when they are
drunk. In general, I think it’s a problem – at least for McMurdo.”
A colleague echoed this sentiment, describing the drinking culture as follows:
Illustrative Quote: Senior Administration and Perceptions of Alcohol
“From a safety and health industrial standard alcohol is the number one risk.
. .. It is definitely —DEFINITELY — one of the key characteristics of the
culture. It’s like they never left the fraternity . . . [Some of them] work for 8
hours and party and drink for 16.”
Many focus group participants also noted incidents of groping, harassment, and
stalking that occurred at or when leaving the bars at McMurdo.
While alcohol does indeed cause behavioral issues on the ice, it is also an easy
scapegoat. Countless incidents were relayed to the team by various community
members of sexual assaults and sexual harassment committed when no alcohol
was involved. Indeed, community members reported being sexually harassed or
assaulted in their workplace, while performing their duties, and in locations that
range from working the Galley to the machine shop, the field camps to the
transport vans, and immediately following sexual harassment and sexual assault
awareness trainings. None of these many incidents described involved the use of
alcohol. While the connection between alcohol and sexual misconduct should not
be overlooked, it should not be viewed as the sole culprit. “Dry” work locations
are not immune. Sexual misconduct occurs in countless locations, when no one is
consuming alcohol, including on the research vessels (which are dry) and in the
field camps that elect to be alcohol-free.
RESPONSE
-71-
Needs Assessment
workers, and community members. Clearly, safety is not a consideration that
stops at the end of a workday. It is a constant, collective agreement among all
who live on the ice.
Yet in interviews and focus groups, it was clear that sexual assault and
harassment are not viewed as workplace safety issues. There is not an awareness
or understanding of how sexual assaults and harassment undermine the safety (as
well as morale, productivity, and career paths) of women and some men working
in Antarctica. Rather, as one individual with significant responsibility for ensuring
workplace safety explained, they view sexual assault and harassment primarily or
solely as “criminal activities outside of [their] scope” of responsibility. This
contributes to supervisors’ perspective that these are personal matters to be
resolved within the community rather than serious events that undermine onthe-job productivity and safety.
Supervisors we spoke to felt that additional, specialized training specifically for
supervisors would be helpful. They reported they needed help with identifying
unconscious bias, effective communication, how to intervene effectively in sexual
harassment situations, and how to lead difficult discussions. Supervisors
suggested that anti-sexual harassment training should be incorporated into their
weekly meeting rotations, like other safety trainings. One participant noted the
infrequency of anti-harassment trainings relative to the seriousness and
pervasiveness of the problem, in contrast to the high priority placed on other
safety trainings, which are offered repeatedly throughout the year.44 “If we did
only one safety training at onboarding, people would see that as inappropriate,”
one person observed. In so many arenas, safety metrics are consistently
monitored. But when it comes to sexual assault and sexual harassment, ongoing
trainings are not provided, patterns are not identified, and reviews are not
conducted to promote and prioritize safety in the USAP.
44
Community members cited numerous examples of the lack of safety precautions that leave victims
vulnerable to sexual harassment, stalking, and sexual abuse in their dorm rooms. They reported that
some of these could be easily remedied but felt there was no urgency from station management to do
so. Examples of some of the safety issues described included common suite or dormitory rooms that do
not lock or lock from the inside only, perpetrators’ access to master room keys that they then use to
access women’s sleeping quarters uninvited, the phone system showing the name of occupant, and the
lack of “peepholes” so occupants can determine who is at the door before they open it.
RESPONSE
-73-
Needs Assessment
Finding #8: Personnel Screening, Hiring, and Feedback Mechanisms Are
Inadequate
Community members believe that inadequate hiring policies and procedures,
combined with inadequate feedback mechanisms, results in contractors hiring
and retaining personnel who commit sexual assaults or harassment. Additionally,
community members believe that inadequate pre-screening and reference check
policies and procedures, including the lack of inter-contractor infrastructure,
result in contractors hiring or retaining personnel who commit sexual assaults or
harassment.
Hiring Practices
Several community members described what they perceive to be a flawed hiring
system. “Weed them out before they get here” was a sentiment expressed in
several focus groups. One interviewee outlined what he described as a wholly
inadequate employment interview and screening process. This individual
recounted how he seemed to be the only person talking to the recruiter at a job
fair and, at the end of their exchange, he was offered a position on-the-spot. He
was amazed that there seemed to be no formal hiring procedure, no reference
checks conducted, or no other vetting to ensure he was a suitable candidate for
the USAP. Another focus group participant described how, in her view, if human
resources had done a basic internet search it would have learned of issues in the
applicant’s background that made him an inappropriate hire.
These perceptions extended not only to new members of the USAP, but also to
decisions regarding existing community members. Many community members
raised the issue of contractors’ failure to prevent known offenders from returning
to the ice. Across the data collection process, USAP participants related there is
no formal process in place to ensure that other subcontractors do not hire
individuals terminated, disciplined, or otherwise sanctioned for sexually assaulting
or harassing members of the USAP community. Multiple interviewees cited
examples of individuals they thought had been removed from the ice for
behavioral reasons only to have that individual return, working for the same or a
different contractor.
One community member recalled, “I knew that sex assault and harassment hadn’t
been taken seriously in the past, and that made me feel less inclined to report.
[But I did.] Station management informed me at first that [the harasser] was told
to leave me alone. That person [the harasser] was eventually sent to McMurdo. I
RESPONSE
-74-
Needs Assessment
was under the impression they would not return – but they have returned. I was
shocked by that.”
NSF staff and other interviewees also cited a recent example of an individual who
was terminated by one subcontractor and then re-hired this year by a different
one. Fortunately, someone saw the individual’s name when reviewing the
upcoming travel list and raised the issue with the contractor before the individual
could be deployed. Most USAP community members we spoke to believe memory
and luck are the only available protections against individuals who engage in
sexual assault or harassment being terminated by one contractor and then rehired by another.
However, review of NSF’s Code of Conduct Board procedures suggests there is in
fact an established process to inform employers when other contractors’
employees were subject to adverse action. In the Process for Reporting and
Reviewing Polar Code of Conduct Violation (updated in February 2021), there is a
specific reference to the Board’s ability to identify employees who have been
found responsible for Code of Conduct violations. “While it is intended that the
participant’s identity will remain anonymous prior to any NSF determination,
once determinations are made regarding listing and sharing of the violation, the
participant’s identity will, of course, also be shared consistent with the Polar Code
of Conduct provisions related to sharing of information with current and future
USAP and NSF-funded Arctic activity employing organizations.” The Board, which
began hearing sexual assault and harassment incidents in October 2020 and is
discussed in more detail in Finding 5 above, has not provided a 2020-2021 report
regarding their findings.
Personnel Screening
Several interviewees believe that what they experience as an inadequate
screening of applicants reflects the contractors’ payment system. They view the
current system, which they describe as contractors receiving a bonus for
achieving their hiring allotment, leads them to sometimes hire “any warm body”
with limited regard for the prospective employee’s background or suitability.
The effect of these inadequate screening and hiring practices are compounded by
inadequate processes and procedures to elicit employee feedback. Community
members report there is no formal mechanism through which workers can
provide feedback regarding co-workers who harass or assault other community
members. While each contractor uses its own evaluation form, the end-of-season
RESPONSE
-75-
Needs Assessment
evaluation form Team LDSS reviewed does not inquire or assess whether the
employee suffered such experiences, or otherwise provide an opportunity for
relevant input (See Appendix G.) Instead, the closest option for providing
feedback on a co-worker’s conduct is the “Community Conduct” section.45 There
is no conduct listed on the evaluation that would be related to sexually
inappropriate or offensive behavior. As a result, individuals who engage in these
behaviors are hired back for the following season. “Nobody checks all these
creepy dudes that think it's their right to say sexual things to anyone they want,”
a survey respondent wrote. “Department heads continue to hire the same
abusers every season. Good people leave the program because you keep rehiring
bad. Don't hire back the bad, keep the good. It's that simple.”
45
While the form does contain a “Needs Improvement” section that further explains “has negative
attitude, disruptive and/or argumentative” this section is intended for a supervisor to complete, and not
for one employee to share their experiences with another employee.
RESPONSE
-76-
Needs Assessment
Response: Recommendations and
Prioritization of Corrective Actions
The upcoming comprehensive Implementation Plan will provide more robust and
detailed solutions and recommended prioritization of corrective actions. The
following recommendations are intended to provide initial ideas and some
immediate next steps for NSF to consider while the Implementation Plan is being
developed. Approaches to be considered include the following:
Coalition Building to Earn and Restore Community Trust
The USAP community is fiercely loyal to the important mission of the program and
wants to see changes made that will maintain the quality of the work performed
while ensuring safety for community members. In every USAP sector involved in
data collection, from NSF and USAP leadership to Principal Investigators and other
researchers and contract and sub-contract employees, there are individuals who
have deeply invested in this effort. Opportunities should be created to bring
together this network of thoughtful, committed, and informed community
members to provide a foundation for any efforts to transform the response to
sexual misconduct within USAP.
NSF should provide the leadership to ensure there are opportunities for
community members to share their experiences, air their grievances to an
audience that has the authority to effect change, and to offer their ideas for how
to create a better and safer future within USAP. In collaboration with the many
individuals who are committed to this effort, a forum should be established to
begin the process of healing the community.46 The following (non-exhaustive) list
of recommendations highlight the areas where NSF could lead efforts to launch
these conversations and create space for greater transparency moving forward.
Coalition Building Recommendation #1: Conduct Surveys
Develop and execute “climate surveys” to establish and then expand upon a
baseline understanding of the incidence and prevalence of sexual misconduct
46As
the EEOC explained in the Executive Summary of its report by the Select Task Force on the Study of
Harassment in the Workplace, C. Feldblum & V. Lipnic (2016), “We believe effective training can reduce
workplace harassment, and recognize that ineffective training can be unhelpful or even
counterproductive. However, even effective training cannot occur in a vacuum - it must be part of a
holistic culture of non-harassment that starts at the top.”
RESPONSE
-77-
Needs Assessment
within USAP programs. These surveys should be administered at repeated
intervals to evaluate the efficacy of response (and prevention) programs
implemented. The surveys should be distributed across the sectors. (Numerous
colleges and universities have utilized climate surveys to establish a baseline
regarding gender-based violence on campus, and to measure and monitor what
progress they achieve. While frequency varies, the climate surveys are typically
conducted every one to two years. Climate surveys are a sufficiently recent tool,
and there are no long-term reports on their efficacy and whether frequency
impacts outcomes.47)
In addition to gathering information regarding the incidence and prevalence of
sexual harassment and assault, NSF should continue to administer select
questions from the recent (Team LDSS) survey to measure any shifts in
individuals’ perceptions regarding the scope and seriousness of sexual
misconduct, accountability, employer responsiveness, the role of alcohol, and
worker safety.
NSF should also conduct periodic evaluations of its response efforts, and publicize
those findings, outcomes, and recommendations for improvement, to promote
transparency and accountability.
Coalition Building Recommendation #2: Create Opportunities for Community
Engagement
Develop, implement, and sustain community engagement opportunities for
gathering candid input from a broad cross-section of employees, grantees, and
contractors. Because both national and USAP-specific data confirms that
individuals who are most marginalized are at greatest risk of sexual victimization,
it is critical to ensure there are “safe space” opportunities for individuals from
marginalized and vulnerable communities to share their experiences and/or
identify their priority needs. (Efforts should prioritize focus particularly on
marginalized groups and groups with least power and influence within the USAP.
These include, for example, community members who are bisexual, low-wage,
and limited duration contract workers.)
47
For additional information on climate surveys, see Measuring Sexual Violence on Campus: Climate
Surveys and Vulnerable Groups, Journal of School Violence, Volume 16, 2017 - Issue 2: Learning from
Campus Climate Surveys: Patterns of Victimization, Disclosure, and Service Awareness; and Climate
Surveys: An Inventory of Understanding Sexual Assault and Other Crimes of Interpersonal Violence at
Institutions of Higher Education, Leila Wood, PhD, Caitlin Sulley, LMSW, Matt Kammer-Kerwick, PhD,
Diane Follingstad, PhD, Noël Busch-Armendariz, PhD (2016).
RESPONSE
-78-
Needs Assessment
Senior leadership within each sector should participate in any “listening” or
“community healing” sessions and ensure they are engaging this cross-section of
community members.
These community engagement events should be conducted with the support of a
skilled facilitator with deep knowledge of how sexual assault and harassment
impact individual survivors and their respective support communities. Because
there is so much frustration and mistrust of the current HR representatives (see
Findings above) where possible, outside facilitators with sexual misconduct
substance matter expertise should be selected to lead these conversations and to
ensure they are conducted from a trauma-informed approach.
Such community engagement events could include, for example, a series of town
hall or reconciliation hearings with NSF, contractor, subcontractor, grantee,
military, and other decision makers to hear from community members regarding
their experiences and reactions to the research.
Coalition Building Recommendation #3: Establish a Coordinated Community
Response Team (CCRT)
Create an inter-jurisdictional working group attended by representatives from
each sector. The representatives should include individuals with authority to
effect change and community members invested in these efforts who are or will
be present on the ice. This group (like a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART),
which many communities across the U.S. have established) should be charged
with developing more appropriate and effective survivor-centered responses for
grantees, contractors, the military, etc.
The CCRT can help develop, make recommendations for, and ensure the practical
applicability of proposed policies and procedures. The CCRT also provides a forum
for representatives to identify, and problem solve inter-jurisdictional issues,
which is key to ensuring appropriate and equitable responses.
A CCRT can also provide leadership and serve as a resource for developing and
implementing more effective strategies to advance “know your rights” and other
information campaigns throughout USAP. This is especially important as current
efforts to educate and inform the community about how to access services,
possible sanctions and other response mechanisms appear not to be successful.
RESPONSE
-79-
Needs Assessment
Finally, working groups could be created within the CCRT to focus on specific
areas of concern. For example, workgroups could be charged with addressing
topics such as alcohol (use, access, limits, etc.) within USAP; reporting options and
protocols; criminal, civil, and administrative systems, and victims’ rights;
restorative justice approaches within USAP, and other issues that emerge. The
CCRT participants will need to operate in such a manner as to comply with the
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.48
It will also be useful to host information sessions with leadership within NSF,
Leidos, and subcontractors to identify and discuss why current response systems
and approaches are inadequate.
Coalition Building Recommendation #4: Provide Options for Support Services
That Are Not Employer Specific
Because of the breadth and depth of USAP community members’ distrust of the
current reporting systems, perceptions of retaliation, and the inter-jurisdictional
nature of life within USAP, it is critical that NSF help create and support
opportunities to expand victim-centered services on the ice that are not tied to
any particular contractor or award. The current mechanisms do not reflect the
realities of the misconduct that occurs or survivors’ needs. For example, when a
contractor or grantee is assaulted or harassed by an individual who is associated
with a different agency or institution, many USAP participants relayed being
unclear which entity is responsible for redressing the harms that occurred,
whether and how information may be shared, what reporting options and
remedies for redress exist, etc. A more integrated approach that centers victims’
needs is critical. We recognize that it may be necessary to realign current funding
schemes to ensure the financial viability of such an approach, but such a scheme
nevertheless merits close consideration.
These expanded services could include the following:
• Confidential Ombudsperson Position: This position would provide services
for USAP community members. It would be accessible to both current and
former USAP community members. The Ombudsperson would not be
48
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires that the public be informed of and have an
opportunity to participate in meetings between federal agencies and groups that the agency has
established or that it” manages and controls for the purpose of obtaining group advice and
recommendations regarding the agency’s operations or activities.” Like states’ Sunshine Laws, FACA
requirements include, in part, that meetings be announced in advance, they be open to the public, and
that committees’ work product be made available to members of the general public.
RESPONSE
-80-
Needs Assessment
employed by the prime or any other individual contractor, at least for an
initial two- to three-year period, to restore trust and build confidence in the
position. The Ombudsperson’s role would include responding to
community members’ questions, concerns, and complaints of sexual
harassment and assault. Before launching this position, the limits to
confidentiality and reporting obligations, if any, need to be clearly
established and communicated to the field.
• Continue to employ (and, per the recommendation of the counselor
deployed from December through February 2021, increase the availability
of) a counselor for the stations. The counselor’s duties should include but
not be limited to conducting in-person and remote (virtual) support groups
for sexual assault survivors.
• Provide information (through the Ombudsperson and other key
stakeholders) regarding counseling, reporting, and support options for
survivors outside the USAP community.
• Solicit input regarding the effectiveness of the portal available to grantees
to report sexual misconduct, whether to maintain this resource, and
suggestions for how to improve its effectiveness.
Increase Communications
Increase Communications Recommendation #1: Communications Plan
Throughout this report we identify a variety of policies, protocols, and procedures
to review, revise, and/or create regarding how NSF, contractors and
subcontractors, the military, grantees, and other entities respond to sexual
assault and harassment. Once these are in place, there needs to be a thoughtful
and systems-based communications plan, that is updated regularly, to inform and
educate the field about these revisions and continued improvement efforts.
Because efforts to effect change within USAP are multijurisdictional, this
communication strategy should be developed by the relevant entities but
spearheaded by NSF leadership. We do not recommend NSF delegate this for a
variety of reasons which include the current lack of trust or confidence in, and
fear of retaliation by the current contractors and subcontractors, and the value
added that will result from NSF leadership messaging these proposed changes to
the field.
Key communications could include:
RESPONSE
-81-
Needs Assessment
• An annual report highlighting the scope and frequency of services provided,
changes to relevant policies and protocols proposed and implemented,
data regarding USAP members served, Code of Conduct Review Board
outcomes, and anticipated changes or key programming for the next year.
• Communication tools to explain reporting options (and corresponding
confidentiality) and other know-your-rights-focused content.
Communication tools could utilize multiple venues such as video Public
Service Announcements (PSA’s), poster campaigns, flowcharts, and
communications through USAP’s internal email systems. To the extent
possible, the various branches of the military would be recruited to
participate in these efforts.
• Know Your Rights information regarding sexual harassment and assault to
be distributed during the onboarding and orientation processes.
USAP community members are demanding additional and accessible information
about available reporting options, their rights, and potential outcomes. They are
keen to understand how USAP is working more broadly to ensure safety on the
ice. The recommendations outlined below would require greater coordination
efforts between contractors, subcontractors, grantees, military, and NSF to
provide more in-depth understanding of processes, outcomes, and impact on
community members from a trauma-centered approach but can be accomplished.
Improve Community Education Efforts
Improve Community Education Efforts Recommendation #1: Update Existing
Trainings
We recommend revisions to the content and delivery methods for existing sexual
harassment and sexual assault awareness training. Currently conducted by NSF’s
prime contractor, qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests that the current
training is inadequate. Several community members reported that the current
trainings rely on outdated scenarios, are delivered by trainers with limited subject
matter expertise, presenters are known to minimize the impact of sexual
misconduct and victims’ experiences, and/or do not otherwise understand the
scope of these problems within USAP. For some, not only did the trainings not
have their intended outcome but rather undermined participants’ sense of
confidence that the contractors (and by extension NSF) are committed to
remedying existing problems. Appropriate skill-based trauma-informed trainings
that include role plays, realistic scenarios, and opportunities to practice and
RESPONSE
-82-
Needs Assessment
model interventions that reflect life on the ice are necessary to promote a more
equitable and safer environment.49
Improve Community Education Efforts Recommendation #2: Create and Deliver
New Trainings
As new policies and protocols are established, it will be appropriate to train
various sectors (e.g., managers, supervisors) on these new requirements,
expectations, and required practices. Trainings should also be developed to
ensure response policies remain consistent across contractors, site managers, and
other NSF staff, and are consistently enforced. At this juncture, we recommend
NSF or Leidos delegate to external partners the responsibility to create, deliver,
and periodically update sexual assault and harassment trainings with input from
invested community members (in addition to established agencies and other
entities). These trainings should be created and presented in partnership with the
Ombudsperson, if this position is funded and staffed, and the counselor(s) or
other support presence.
Improve Community Education Efforts Recommendation #3: Know Your Rights
Communications
Develop and implement trainings that include improved “know your rights”
educational sessions and companion materials. These should include information
regarding criminal and civil justice responses to sexual assault and sexual
harassment, a range of possible sanctions, consequences imposed to date (annual
reporting), and opportunities for improvement.
Restructure Policies, Protocols, and Oversight Mechanisms
We recommend NSF undertake a full review of policies, protocols, and current
oversight mechanisms and strengthen them to the full extent allowed by
regulation and government mandates. Current policies and practices should be
evaluated to assess their effectiveness, and to determine whether they are
accomplishing the intended outcomes. The review should also consider what
policies do not exist but are needed, as well as a review of those policies where
the results are counter to the desired outcome. There appear to be a myriad of
policies that could or should be established or modified to help NSF accomplish its
49
Research indicates that, in the workplace, “skill-based training is ideal for behavior changes especially
when dealing with issues as sexual harassment. Training that includes role playing as both the harasser
and victim is beneficial. [If not done correctly, however,] training may do more harm than good.” (Quick
& McFadyen, 2017). Sexual harassment training must “be part of a holistic, committed effort to combat
harassment, focused on the specific culture and needs of a particular workplace” to be effective (Lipnic,
2016).
RESPONSE
-83-
Needs Assessment
goals if NSF were to require more prompt and complete information from its
contractors, subcontractors, grantees, and from the branches of the military it
authorizes to be present on the ice.
Restructure Policies, Protocols, and Oversight Mechanisms Recommendation
#1: Contracts and Awards
Evaluate and modify the terms of the contracts that NSF executes with its
contractor and subcontractors, and the solicitation and special conditions of
grantee awards, to require additional safety precautions to be put in place.
• Increase current oversight practices to ensure consistent and appropriate
responses when complaints of sexual misconduct are made; and
• Require grantees to outline in their grant application for NSF funding steps
taken to ensure institutional staff have not been found responsible for
sexual misconduct or are currently being investigated for sexual misconduct
within any institutional conduct process, a summary of the sexual assault
and harassment prevention and response activities that will be conducted
as part of the project, what steps grantees will take to help keep individuals
safe, and what support and resources are available if an incident occurs.
Restructure Policies, Protocols, and Oversight Mechanisms Recommendation
#2: Hiring and Evaluation Practices
Modify the hiring and the evaluation forms and procedures for conducting postseason evaluations of the contractor/subcontractor employees and expand the
mechanisms in place for how, when, and from whom feedback is solicited.
• Review and modify the pre-screening and background check processes
employed in the hiring process.
Restructure Policies, Protocols, and Oversight Mechanisms Recommendation
#3: Clarify the Role and Authority of the Polar Code of Conduct Review Board
The purpose, authority, and actions that may be taken by the Polar Code of
Conduct Review Board should be clarified. (There appear to be differing
perceptions of what sanctions the Board has the authority to impose for
violations of the Code.) Establish new requirements for what information is
provided to the Code of Conduct SAHPR Board (and from whom), assess how best
this Board can conduct its work, and expand the scope of its authority to ensure
accountability.
RESPONSE
-84-
Needs Assessment
Additional Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations discussed above, further changes should be
considered. These include the following:
Additional Recommendation #1: Engage the Military
Create and implement a plan for how best to engage the various branches of the
military present in the Antarctic as partners in this prevention and response
effort, such as securing their participation in focus groups; making military
personnel available for additional key informant and other interviews;
establishing mechanisms for addressing sexual misconduct by service members
reported to the contractors, subcontractors, or NSF; provide an option for victims
to report sexual misconduct by service members directly to the military; assess
whether JAGs or other Special Victims Counsel are available to represent victims
of sexual misconduct; ensure adequate training and compensation for SARCs
(Sexual Assault Response Coordinators) on the ice; and provide a confidential
space for survivors and advocates to meet.
Additional Recommendation #2: Enhance Security On-site
Install peepholes in dormitory room doors, locks on common room doors, and
external locks to the berth rooms where none exist.
• Expand access to communications by making funds available to subsidize
the cost of In-Reach phones and accounts for staff in the field (or require
that funds to cover these expenses be included in grantees’ budgets).
Additional Recommendation #3: Secure External Review, Assessment, and
Support
Finally, while we have conducted an initial assessment of perceptions, beliefs, and
experiences of sexual misconduct within USAP, these efforts are nascent. In
addition, Team LDSS’ understanding of this unique environment is limited by a
lack of on-site, first-hand experience. While the team was able to launch this
initial effort remotely, this effort would be well-served to provide opportunities
for individuals external to the relevant organizations, with experience providing
and evaluating trauma-informed, survivor-centered services to victims of sexual
assault and harassment, to conduct assessments, reviews, in-person interviews,
attend public hearings, and otherwise attain first-hand knowledge regarding the
circumstances on the ice, and how to promote a more fair and just environment.
RESPONSE
-85-
Needs Assessment
Introduction to Prevention
Analysis Framework
Data analysis for the prevention section was completed utilizing the following
three steps:
1. Define the core components necessary to implement an effective
prevention strategy.
2. Select the indicators used to assess the current capacity of each component.
3. Describe current capacity for each component, including gaps to be
addressed and strengths/assets that can be leveraged toward
improvements.
Step One: Define the Core Components Necessary for Effective Prevention
Capacity: Within the Needs Assessment Report, capacity is defined as the USAP’s
ability to leverage existing strengths and resources to address gaps and effect
positive change to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Defining Core Components: Across the field of prevention, there are many
models of prevention that include innumerable components identified as integral
to an effective strategy. The Public Health Model incorporates components
including, but not limited to, risk and protective factors and evaluation (CDC,
2008); the Sexual Assault Prevention Process incorporates research-informed,
comprehensive, and quality implementation as core elements (DoD SAPR, 2019);
and the Principles of Effective Prevention Programs addresses the need for
sufficient dosage, positive relationships, and sociocultural relevance of all
programs (Nation, Crusto, Wandersman, Kumpfer, Seybolt, Morrissey-Kane, &
Davino, 2003). The components selected for the Needs Assessment Report
analysis are research-informed and common across multiple models.
The four components (see Figure 15) provided the framework to: (1) guide the
development of the needs assessment approach and tools, (2) examine and
understand the data and frame current capacity, gaps, strengths, and assets, and
(3) organize recommendations and next steps.
PREVENTION
-86-
Needs Assessment
Step Two: Select Indicators to Determine the Current Capacity of Each
Component
Criteria for Selection: Indicators were selected to assess the current capacity of
each of the four core components based on the following criteria:
• Research or existing models used within the field support a valid link
between the indicator and the capacity of the prevention component
• Data regarding the indicators were readily available with existing data
sources
• Meaningful gains could be made given the expectations and parameters
described in the scope of work
• Achieving a high degree of success within each indicator would reflect
significant strides toward best practice in the corresponding component
Achieving actual decreases in sexual harassment and sexual assault across the
USAP involves optimizing each of the core components. Too often prevention
strategies fail to achieve impact because they are implemented without sufficient
development of and investment in all necessary components. The number of
indicators was limited to help ensure resources were focused on areas that would
provide greatest gains in prevention efforts (see Figure 15).
Step Three: Describe Current Capacity for Each Component, Including Gaps and
Strengths/Assets
Determination of Current Capacity: Based on an assessment of indicators, Team
LDSS determined the USAP’s current capacity within each of the corresponding
prevention components. Gaps and strengths were identified, and current capacity
was noted on a continuum ranging from absent to best practice.
• Absent: All or most indicators for a component are absent.
• Minimum: Some positive indicators are present, but they are insufficient to
make demonstrable progress within the corresponding prevention
component.
• Moderate: The indicators show sufficient strength to comprise a solid
foundation for progress within the corresponding component.
• Best Practice: The component is aligned with best practice and focus will be
on sustainability.
PREVENTION
-87-
Needs Assessment
Current Capacity Continuum
Absent
Minimum
Moderate
Best Practice
The continuum approach to characterizing capacity allows success to be achieved
with each step of progress. As such, the USAP will be better positioned to
establish realistic goals that can happen within a three-year timeframe as capacity
and resources allow. Capitalizing on current strengths and leveraging existing
assets will allow for progress in closing gaps even as additional resources are
being marshalled for greater gains. Recommendations will support incremental
progress along the continuum, focused on areas with the potential for the most
immediate and largest impact.
PREVENTION
-88-
Needs Assessment
Core Components Necessary for Effective Prevention
Figure 15. Prevention Capacity
Component #1: Leadership Support
There is a significant body of research that supports the importance of leadership
in creating and maintaining the climate of a workplace. Leadership support,
across all levels of an organization, contributes significantly to fostering a climate
free from sexual assault and sexual harassment. Indicators used to assess best
practice in leadership support across the USAP include: (1) buy-in, (2) trust, and
(3) a healthy climate.
PREVENTION
-89-
Needs Assessment
Indicator: Buy-In
Leadership buy-in references: (1) an acknowledgement and acceptance of sexual
assault and sexual harassment as significant issues, as well as (2) a willingness to
actively support and participate in prevention efforts. A high level of leadership
buy-in can increase employee buy-in and communicates to employees that
leadership is committed to the issue and their employees’ well-being.
Indicator: Trust
Trust is the “confident and positive prediction of the goodwill and reliability” of
employees (Das & Teng, 1998) and the belief that their organization cares for
their health and safety (Liu & Lu, 2020). It plays a critical role in shaping
individuals’ perception and interpretation of the events that take place around
them. While trust is subjective, studies have consistently found a link between
trust of employees for teammates, supervisors, and top management and their
working attitudes and behaviors (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Mayer & Gavin,
2005).
Indicator: Healthy Climate
Leaders impact organizational climate by their behaviors, what they emphasize,
and what they proactively communicate. Without visible leadership support,
prevention efforts are undermined and are often dismissed by the workforce.
Direct leader engagement in the implementation of a prevention strategy
accelerates progress, increases effectiveness, and is necessary to achieve and
sustain decreases in sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Component #2: Infrastructure
A substantive investment in prevention infrastructure is necessary to achieve
decreases in sexual harassment and sexual assault. To ensure a comprehensive
approach, an organization needs a foundation inclusive of an active network of
key stakeholders working together toward a cohesive approach; a strong
framework of policies that provides guidance and creates accountability;
adequate funding to support each element of the prevention strategy; and
personnel to deliver programs and guide activities. To ensure consistency,
sustainability, and accountability, each of these elements of infrastructure needs
to be institutionalized via policies, dedicated budget lines, job descriptions,
evaluation criteria, and other permanent parts of the organizational framework.
Indicators used to ascertain best practice within prevention infrastructure across
the USAP include: (1) prevention staffing, (2) collaboration, (3) funding, and (4)
policies.
PREVENTION
-90-
Needs Assessment
Indicator: Prevention Staffing
For an organization to implement an effective sexual harassment and sexual
assault prevention strategy requires a resourced prevention staff (Nation et al.,
2003). While prevention staff does not necessarily have to include full-time
positions, it is essential that there are staff with sufficient dedicated time to
coordinate and implement prevention programs. Further, staff requires adequate
prevention-specific expertise, ongoing training, and support and accountability
from leadership.
Indicator: Collaboration
The importance of collaboration in addressing significant issues across an
organization or system is well supported and can take many forms including
sharing information or resources; cross-training; integrating programs, policies, or
practices; or even merging structures (NIH, 2011; Russell, Ingras, Johri, Kuoh,
Pavin, & Wickstrom, 2008). Meaningful collaboration requires all key stakeholders
at the table, mutual trust, and shared goals (McNeish, Rigg, Tran, & Hodges,
2019).
Indicator: Funding
To make meaningful gains toward reducing sexual harassment and sexual assault
requires an organization to designate funds that reflect the organization’s
capacity and commitment to expand and sustain prevention efforts. This includes
funding to support the development of a comprehensive prevention plan, and the
tools, training, programs, and staff necessary to implement.
Indicator: Policies
Historically, policies focus primarily on response. However, prevention-related
policies provide the framework and accountability mechanism to support the
development, implementation, and evaluation of a comprehensive approach.
Prevention policies are a critical part of the prevention infrastructure that can: (1)
codify roles and responsibilities of prevention staff and leadership, (2) establish
standards for implementing research supported programs and strategies, and (3)
identify dedicated funding that ensures the continuity and sustainability of
prevention efforts.
Component #3: Education
The goal of prevention education is to effectively equip participants with the
knowledge, skills, and motivation they need to take an active role in preventing
sexual assault and sexual harassment. Indicators used to ascertain best practice in
PREVENTION
-91-
Needs Assessment
prevention education programs across the USAP are: (1) research-informed, (2)
well-delivered, and (3) evaluated.
Indicator: Research-Informed
Three important areas of research that should inform prevention education are:
(1) content, (2) dosage, and (3) tailoring (Nation et al., 2003).
1. Content: Within the context of a workplace, a primary focus of prevention
content should be skill-building in the areas of bystander intervention and
proactive modeling of healthy behaviors. Specific programs or program
content that are utilized should be supported by data and/or informed by
research.
2. Dosage: A single, mandatory educational program is insufficient to create
and maintain the behavior changes necessary to make a meaningful impact
on workplace climate and rates of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
This is particularly true when unhealthy norms are deeply ingrained in the
culture of the organization. Exposure to multiple messages, programs, and
activities that are cohesive and reinforce the same skills both strengthens
and sustains outcomes (Banyard, Potter, Cares, Williams, Moynihan, &
Stapleton, 2018; Nation et al., 2003).
3. Tailoring: Tailoring program content to meet the distinct needs of
subgroups within the target population is considered an essential part of
prevention program selection and implementation (Wingood & DiClemente,
2008). Content should be tailored to reflect the language, values, and
context of participants.
Indicator: Well-Delivered
The way prevention programs are delivered has a direct effect on impact.
Effective delivery encompasses trainer effectiveness, the timing and context
within which curricula are delivered, fidelity of implementation, and applicability
to the target audience.
Indicator: Evaluated
Evaluation is essential to understanding what programs are working. Findings
should be used by leadership and key stakeholders on an ongoing basis to inform
course corrections of all components of a prevention strategy, and to determine
whether prevention resources (e.g., money, time, personnel) are achieving the
intended outcomes.
PREVENTION
-92-
Needs Assessment
Component #4: Engagement
Successful prevention of sexual assault and sexual harassment and an improved
climate require widespread engagement of the USAP community in prevention
efforts. Engagement is largely predicated on the shared belief that sexual assault
and sexual harassment are problems, a trust in the individual and collective ability
to make a difference, and intrinsic motivation to implement change. Indicators
used to ascertain best practice in engagement across the USAP include: (1)
intrinsic motivation, and (2) participation.
Indicator: Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation to participate requires an individual to be driven by personal
values rather than external forces or mandates. Four core beliefs that contribute
to intrinsic motivation include: (1) they are making progress, (2) their time and
effort will result in meaningful change, (3) the strategy being implemented is
effective, and (4) they have the skills to contribute (Kim & Hunter, 1993; Broad,
1997).
Indicator: Participation
Creating a climate intolerant of sexual assault and sexual harassment requires
sustained participation in prevention efforts by a significant cross-section of
members within a community or workplace. Participation includes: (1) attending
mandatory training, (2) voluntarily participating in additional events and activities,
(3) intervening in situations that constitute or may lead to sexual harassment and
sexual assault, and (4) in daily life, visibly model and endorse behaviors that
contribute to a respectful and safe climate.
PREVENTION
-93-
Needs Assessment
Prevention Findings – Key Issues
Finding #1: Gap - Leadership less likely to identify sexual assault and harassment
as problems.
When using income level, position, and age as proxies for leadership, among
those who are older, earning more, and in higher status positions, acceptance of
sexual assault and sexual harassment as problems within the USAP community is
lower than those in lower-status positions (see Figure 16). As buy-in is predicated
on acknowledgement of the problem, relatively low rates of agreement from
leadership could suggest limited buy-in.
Figure 16.
Finding #2: Asset - Leadership believes addressing sexual assault and
harassment is important.
There is a very high degree of consensus among leaders that sexual assault and
sexual harassment are important issues to address within the USAP community.
Despite lower consensus that sexual assault and sexual harassment are problems,
such strong agreement in the importance of the issues supports a degree of buyin from leadership.
PREVENTION
-94-
Needs Assessment
• When using income level, position, and age as proxies for leadership, the
average percentage of those who agree or strongly agree that sexual
assault and sexual harassment are important issues to address is 88%
across all three groups (ranging between 85% and 92%).
• USAP leadership from NSF, ASC, and DoD that participated in key
stakeholder interviews expressed concern about sexual assault and sexual
harassment and reported a high level of commitment to addressing the
issues.
Illustrative Quotes - Importance of Addressing Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment
“When it became clear to me that we did not have a robust enough
prevention and response program, that was extremely concerning to me.”
– NSF Key Stakeholder
"I would certainly support investing more funding into prevention to address
sexual harassment.” – ASC Key Stakeholder
“It’s a lot of small efforts and we’re making some positive impact and change
in the organization.” – ASC Key Stakeholder
“We want to support the program that is developed down there to address
these issues. We just have to make sure it falls within the lanes that we have.
We are more than happy to help get the best program we can. One big team
effort.” – DoD Key Stakeholder
Finding #3: Gap - Significant minority of participants do not agree or do not
know if the organization they work for wants them to be safe.
While there is relatively high agreement across all survey respondents that the
organization/institution they work for wants them to be safe (74% agree or
strongly agree), more than one in four do not agree or do not know if the
organization for which they work wants them to be safe. As basic safety is an
assumption of workplaces, being unsure of employers’ intentions represents a
noteworthy lack of trust.
PREVENTION
-95-
Needs Assessment
– Ages 65+: 64% strongly agree
• The highest earners are more likely to believe the organization wants them
to be safe compared to those who make less.
– Income level range $30K - $49,999: 62%
– Income level range $50 - $74,999: 75%
– Income level range $75K - $99,999: 76%
– Income level range $100K - $150,000: 88%
– Income level range > $150K: 87%
Finding #5: Gap - Some respondents believe leadership commits sexual
harassment and assault.
A noteworthy minority of respondents specifically report their belief that
leadership is a group that commits sexual assault and sexual harassment more
than others and/or protects others who commit sexual harassment and sexual
assault.
• Of survey respondents who believe there are groups that are more likely to
commit sexual assault, more than 14% (50 of 379) specified leadership,
managers, those in power, supervisors, or those with authority.
Illustrative Quotes - Perceptions of Groups More Likely to Commit Sexual
Assault
“Men, powerful professors, those with power, supervisors.”
“Personnel presenting as male. Staff in management positions, especially
those with influence in contract offers/ extensions/ renewals and
performance evaluations. Military Personnel (USAG, NAVCHAPs, etc.), Fleet
Ops Personnel, Construction Contractors.”
“Contractors working on station especially in positions of power - e.g.,
outdoor training group and guides.”
“Men in positions of power. Like the Head chefs, or FSS.”
“Men are the primary, but not exclusive individuals who cause harm like
sexual assault. People in positions of power or privilege over others tend to
PREVENTION
-98-
Needs Assessment
be the primary perpetrators, because the program's structure makes it more
difficult to hold full-time staff, supervisors, and perpetrators who work for a
different entity than their targets, accountable for their actions.”
“Men in leadership positions.”
“NYANG by far, regular USAF seems ok GSC leadership is known to protect
predators.”
“Males. Especially those in a leadership role or power position (PI,
Supervisor, etc.)”
• Of survey respondents who believe there are groups that are more likely to
commit sexual harassment, more than 15% (68 of 459) specified leadership,
managers, those in power, supervisors or those with authority when asked
who.
Illustrative Quotes – Perceptions of Groups More Likely to Commit Sexual
Harassment
“Older men who have been on-ice many years and feel in a position of
power over younger deployers.”
“NSF staff has a habit of glorifying, promoting, and protecting the members
of the research community, usually senior males, who publish in Nature and
Science. Some of these senior researchers have a strong enough moral
compass not to cause trouble. But others have learned that the support from
NSF staff gives them the power to use and abuse other members of the
research community (and anybody else for that matter that works with
them). I have personally seen a female NSF program director basically
apologize to one of these senior researchers that a complaint concerning
sexual issues was made against him. On another couple of occasions, I have
witnessed NSF program directors engaging in what I can only describe as
victim-blaming when a junior female researcher was complaining about a
senior researcher. Such behavior only teaches the latter that NSF will 'have
their back' when it comes to sexual harassment. NSF is complicit in creating
PREVENTION
-99-
Needs Assessment
and sustaining an unhealthy culture when it comes to sexual harassment in
the Antarctic community.”
“The same answer as the previous question applies- those in positions of
power or privilege (primarily but not exclusively men) tend to be more likely
to cause harm. This may be because they are aware of their power and
privilege, or it may be because the difficulty in removing these people from
the community after their first offense makes it more likely that they will
remain in Antarctica to cause further harm.”
“Those who hold power in a perceived or actual power dynamic. Men are
more likely to be in this position.”
“Men, tradesmen, men in power, even positions of tiny power. Men who
feel entitled to women, regardless of what women want”
“Men with shorter term contracts and men who have power and influence
with the program.”
Finding #6: Gap - Participants have little confidence in the organizational
response to sexual misconduct.
There is a low level of confidence in the response of the organization or
institution respondents are employed by after an act of sexual assault or sexual
harassment has been committed, as detailed in the response portion of the
report. Though these findings reflect response rather than prevention, the
findings further support a general lack of trust regarding these issues.
Finding #7: Asset - Most participants agree they can turn to leaders if they
witness concerning behaviors.
Overall, survey respondents tend to believe they can turn to leaders or other
colleagues if they witness behaviors that lead to or constitute sexual harassment
or sexual assault with 70% agreeing or strongly agreeing and only 14% disagreeing
or strongly disagreeing.
PREVENTION
-100-
Needs Assessment
Finding #8: Gap - Most mid-level leadership are perceived as contributing to
negative work environment.
Despite a notable minority of mid-level leadership being described positively by
focus group participants, the majority were seen as contributing to a negative
work environment.
• Focus group data analysis resulted in 54 coded segments about the tone set
by mid-level leaders (including principal investigators, managers, and
supervisors on the ice); 39 of those were coded as negative. Common
references included: creating a negative environment, not holding
subordinates accountable, and retaliating against participants who
complain about harassment.
Illustrative Quotes – Negative Perceptions of Mid-level Leadership’s Impact
on Climate
“If I go to my supervisor and complain, like supervisor or my HR REP is going
to consider me a whiner, a complainer, a difficult person. And I have now
just blackballed myself, and I am not going to be able to come back next
season.”
“I’ll just be honest here the galley supervisors are horrible and the fact that
any galley person makes it back into a different position second or third
season is remarkable. And the galley is the entry level position for 90% of our
people… Those who do manage to bite their tongue and work their way up;
kudos to them, but they endure abuse. And they keep their mouth shut. And
we all see it.”
“When I first started working at McMurdo station, like a lot of people, I
started in the galley. Gender-based harassment is a daily occurrence for
anyone who is female-presenting and working front of house in that
department, and it was repeatedly presented to me as just the way things
are. Mentioning specific incidents to my supervisory team did not bring
changes and any conversation I had with someone outside the department
revealed that the harassment endured by the stewards was an open secretthe station knows about it but no one’s working to change it.”
PREVENTION
-101-
Needs Assessment
• Of respondents over the age of 45, 87% agree or strongly agree that it is
possible to prevention sexual assault and 83% agree or strongly agree that
it is possible to prevent sexual harassment.
• Full-time contractors, grantee principal investigators, and Federal civilian
personnel averaged 86% agreement that sexual assault and 81% agreement
that sexual harassment can be prevented within the USAP community.
Finding #11: Asset - Most leaders believe they have a role to play in prevention
of sexual misconduct.
More than 90% of those most likely to be in leadership positions or positions of
influence believe that they have a role to play in prevention. Given the
importance of direct leadership engagement in establishing workplace climate,
believing in the importance of their role is an asset to be leveraged.
• Across higher-status respondents, 95% of grantee principal investigators,
92% of full-time contractors, and 96% of Federal civilian employees agree
or strongly agree they have a role to play in preventing sexual harassment
and sexual assault.
• Similarly, of the respondents over the age of 45, 91% believe or strongly
believe they have a role to play.
• Of respondents making more than $50K, 92% agree or strongly agree they
have a role to play in preventing sexual assault and sexual harassment. Of
that group, the highest earners (with salaries over $150K) agree or strongly
agree the most, with 96% consensus.
Finding #12: Gap - A notable minority of mid-level leaders are making positive
contributions to a healthy work environment.
Analysis of focus group data based on a question about who sets the tone in their
workspace, found that just over 25% of related coded segments (15 of 54) about
mid-level leaders (i.e., investigators, managers, and supervisors) were positive. Of
those, eight referenced station managers at Palmer.
Illustrative Quotes – Positive Perceptions of Mid-level Leadership’s Impact on
Climate
“At the beginning in this station (Palmer), they try to set a tone. The
expectation of people treating each other with courtesy and respect.”
“There is a culture of respect that's promoted at this station (Palmer).”
PREVENTION
-103-
Needs Assessment
• A Leidos HR representative provides a 90-minute sexual harassment and
sexual assault awareness training to all USAP participants.
• Though not currently active, two volunteers from the Ice Allies group
delivered one or two prevention trainings to a small group of voluntary
participants.
• Each company, organization, including the US Military, and educational
institution has their own requirements for training that are not specific to
the USAP. While specific information about requirements and staffing is not
included within the current data set, there appears to be some level of
capacity within these organizations to provide training.
Finding #15: Gap - There is not a current collaborative body, across USAP
partner organizations, contractors, and grantees, dedicated to preventionspecific efforts, according to key stakeholders.
Though there is an existing group focused on response, there is little prevention
expertise represented and little time spent addressing prevention-related issues.
Finding #16: Asset - There is a current collaborative body focused on addressing
sexual harassment and sexual assault.
The USAP SAHPR program has an established working group comprised of NSF
staff members from the Antarctic Infrastructure & Logistics (AIL) Section, the
Office of Polar Programs (OPP), the Office of General Council (OGC), and the
Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) dedicated to building capacity and
allocating adequate resources for response and prevention mechanisms that can
be sustained over time.
• As reported by current members of the SAHPR working group, stakeholders
from Leidos and the DoD are regularly engaged to collaborate with the
SAHPR working group.
Finding #17: Asset - There are currently positive collaborative relationships
across the USAP.
There was consensus found within the coded data collected from key stakeholder
interviews that there are positive working relationships among USAP partners
including NSF, ASC, DoD, educational institutions, and other research
organizations.
PREVENTION
-107-
Needs Assessment
Finding #18: Asset - Collaborations between key stakeholders are contributing
to increased capacity to address sexual harassment and sexual assault.
One key stakeholder shared that the sexual harassment and sexual assault
awareness training required as a part of on-boarding for deployment, is the result
of a collaborative effort between Leidos and NSF.
• The Polar Code of Conduct is a collaborative agreement, signed by all USAP
participating partners, that sets “minimum expectations for personal and
professional behavior” for all USAP participants.
Finding #19: Gap - There is not yet permanent, dedicated funding to support the
implementation of a comprehensive prevention strategy.
While there is support for the inclusion of some prevention content in training
provided by Human Resources, a prevention-specific funding stream does not
exist.
Finding #20: Asset - Currently there is potential funding that could be allocated
to support prevention programs.
Key stakeholders report NSF’s Antarctic Infrastructure and Logistics (AIL) section
has funding that can be allocated to prevention efforts across the USAP.
According to key stakeholder interviews, AIL plans to allocate adequate funding to
priorities identified in the Implementation Plan, following the current needs
assessment.
• NSF currently provides funding to deliver the “USAP Harassment and
Assault Awareness and Prevention” to USAP participants in the form of
dedicated staff time, provided by Leidos HR.
Finding #21: Gap - Existing policies do not address prevention-specific initiatives.
Existing policies do not adequately address the creation, implementation,
minimum requirements, funding, or oversight of prevention-specific initiatives.
Finding #22: Asset - There are existing policies that address, directly or
indirectly, the issues of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Since there are policies in place addressing response-specific issues associated
with sexual harassment and sexual assault, these policies could potentially serve
as a vehicle for the inclusion of prevention policies or a model for the creation of
prevention policies.
PREVENTION
-108-
Needs Assessment
• The Polar Code of Conduct, signed by all USAP participating partners, sets
“minimum expectations for personal and professional behavior” for all
USAP participants.
• The USAP Non-Harassment Policy Statement is signed by NSF (Antarctic
Infrastructure & Logistics (AIL); Antarctic Sciences; Polar Environment,
Safety and Health), NIWC, ASC, Air National Guard, and Support Forces
Antarctica.
• Independent companies and organizations that are part of the USAP
community have their own policies applicable to their employees.
Illustrative Excerpts – Prevention-Related Policy Language
The Polar Code of Conduct
“The National Science Foundation seeks to ensure that the following
objectives and guiding principles are complied with and promoted by all
personnel:
• All personnel will treat others with dignity and respect, will exercise the
highest level of professional and ethical behavior, and will work
cooperatively to resolve differences.
• It is everyone's responsibility to provide a safe workplace and to protect
the polar environment.”
“While not exhaustive, the following acts are examples of conduct that
violate the fundamental principles and objectives of this Code:
• Physical or verbal abuse of any person, including, but not limited to,
harassment, stalking, bullying, or hazing of any kind, whether the
behavior is carried out verbally, physically, electronically, or in written
form.
• Conduct that is offensive, indecent, obscene, or disorderly.”
The USAP Non-Harassment Policy Statement
“The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) is committed to providing a safe
and respectful work environment, free of any form of harassment. All USAP
participating organizations take this responsibility very seriously. As
harassment can take many forms, definitions and additional context are
provided below to assist all USAP organizations and participants in preventing
and identifying behavior considered completely unacceptable.”
PREVENTION
-109-
Needs Assessment
is understood by a community population. A possible reason is that this
content is not adequately addressed.
– Sexual assault is a problem: 39%
– Sexual harassment is a problem: 26%
– Some experience sexual assault more than other: 42%
– Some experience sexual harassment more than others: 30%
– I don’t think there is much I can do about sexual harassment or sexual
assault: 17%
Finding #24: Gap - Program content is insufficiently tailored.
A review of current documents and key stakeholder conversations did not reveal
there is an existing process for tailoring education programs to specific subgroups
within the USAP community.
• Analysis of focus group data revealed 17 coded segments indicating that
the sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness training felt too
corporate and was not adequately tailored for the USAP population.
Participants also spoke specifically about the scenarios included in the
training being irrelevant to them.
Illustrative Quotes – Relatability of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault
Awareness Training Content
“There is no comparison with other [settings]… Corporate training doesn't
work for it. Military training doesn't work for it. Campus training doesn't
work for it.”
“Corporate entities that are nervous want to do a training that is created and
blessed by HR, rather than training that is coming from the people on the ice
who have all these lived experiences and can share scenarios that have
happened and coping mechanisms. I think that the knowledge of all of these
people who have been on the ice for so many years really needs to get
folded into the training and for whatever reason, the prime and the subs
have not allowed that to happen.”
“We're living where we're working with the community that we're working
with so that tends to be maybe a part where the harassment trainings that
PREVENTION
-111-
Needs Assessment
we've been offered in the past have been lacking; the application to both
work and personal life.”
“I think it's very inadequate, personally, I mean it's good that they're doing
something, but we have an extremely unique work environment.”
Finding #25: Asset – SAHPR education currently exists for USAP participants.
All USAP participants are currently receiving at least one dose of education during
their deployment onboarding sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness
training.
Finding #26: Asset - There is limited prevention programming already in place.
Current sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness training is the primary or
only training provided to USAP participants; it includes limited prevention-related
content informed by research, including bystander intervention and skill-building
activities.
Illustrative Excerpts – Current Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault
Awareness Training: Prevention Segment
“Steps to Bystander Intervention
1. Notice something going on around you
2. Recognize that action needs to be taken
3. Take responsibility for acting
4. Decide how to respond appropriately and safely: 3 Ds
5. Respond”
“How to Intervene? Three Ds
• Direct (Be bold)
• Distract (Be creative to diffuse situation)
• Delegate (Get someone else to help)”
“Scenario: What Would You Do?
• Situation: Derek is Carmen’s co-worker. He notices she has been
hunched over her computer for a few hours and looks stressed. He
PREVENTION
-112-
Needs Assessment
comes up behind her and rubs her shoulders. Carmen gets up and leaves
without saying anything to Derek. You are sitting near Carmen.
– Option 1: You follow Carmen and ask her if she is ok.
– Option 2: You tell Derek it looked to you like Carmen didn’t want him
giving her a shoulder rub.
– Option 3: You don’t feel comfortable saying anything to Derek or
Carmen, so you tell your supervisor.”
Finding #27: Gap - Program fidelity is not monitored.
With little evaluation or oversight mechanisms identified, program fidelity does
not appear to be monitored.
Finding #28: Gap - Current and past sexual harassment and sexual assault
awareness training is largely perceived negatively.
Less than half (48%) of survey respondents agree or strongly agree that the
information they receive from their employer is valuable to them.
• There is substantial qualitative data (63 negative comments) suggesting HR
personnel are widely distrusted when dealing with reports of sexual
harassment and sexual assault. Though the comments are largely responsefocused, this finding is still relevant for prevention because HR employees
deliver the training, and it is probable that the negative perceptions
generalize.
• There is a different perception of the training between key stakeholders
and focus group participants. Out of 39 coded segments from focus groups
and follow-up emails about perceptions of the current sexual harassment
and sexual assault awareness training or training in recent years, 27 coded
segments were negative, eight were neutral, and only four were positive.
• Out of 21 coded segments from key stakeholder interviews, 18 expressed
neutral or varied perceptions of the training (i.e., some people like it, some
people do not), one expressed a negative perception, and two expressed
positive perceptions.
PREVENTION
-113-
Needs Assessment
Illustrative Quotes – Perceptions of Training
“Additionally, with regards to HR, when they present the current sexual
harassment training to incoming personnel, they’ve consistently presented it
as unimportant or a joke. This has been a theme for multiple seasons.”
“I was horrified at some of the comments made by the presenter at
orientation as I felt she was really minimizing women’s experiences and
feelings towards incidents which didn’t make me feel as if she was taking it
seriously. If the presenter isn’t taking the material seriously how can the
group be expected to?”
“The HR person who was the… HR person, her [virtual] presentation was just
like ‘I gotta do this. I don't like talking about it, I don't want to talk about it.
Bye.’ She would shut down questions.”
“I’ve consistently found the orientation portion dedicated to harassment to
be lacking and frequently glossed over. I’ve heard stories from other
contractors about their HR representatives making dismissive remarks during
the harassment portion, as if the people (usually women) cited in the
examples are choosing to be harassed instead of taking the inappropriate
comments as compliments.”
Finding #29: Gap - Delivery of training is poorly timed.
When asked about the current sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness
training, 15 coded segments of qualitative data from key stakeholders and focus
group participants included concern that the training is poorly timed, reporting
the training is a part of several days of on-boarding trainings.
Illustrative Quotes – Timing of Training
“I don't think [the training] should be in Christ Church because it's death by
PowerPoint. I mean you are inundated with PowerPoints, especially where
you spend like two weeks. And it was at the end of the presentation. I mean
you're sitting there and already your brain is melting.”
PREVENTION
-114-
Needs Assessment
“I know plenty of people and I’m guilty of it, I just muted the [virtual
presentation] just because it required no participation whatsoever, and I
could not listen to somebody talk for four more hours.”
“There are people I sit and watch, observe members as they receive this
training to kind of determine if they're truly internalizing this or if they're
rolling their eyes at it. There’s both.”
“Doing one training right before you're deploying during a week that you're
extraordinarily exhausted, is not sufficient. I think that's an introduction, it
needs to be repeated in various ways.”
Finding #30: Asset - There are opportunities to incorporate prevention activities
within existing meetings, gatherings, and contexts.
When focus group participants and key stakeholders were asked for suggestions
about when and where prevention training could take place, 49 coded segments
included specific options including staff, all-hands, and safety meetings, as well as
virtual points of access during the weeks prior to deployment.
Finding #31: Gap - There is currently no meaningful evaluation being
implemented to monitor program effectiveness and inform development, nor is
there evaluation data guiding prevention efforts.
According to key stakeholders, there is not a strong precedent for program
evaluation in the USAP and no formal, ongoing evaluation of outcomes relating to
the sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness training.
Finding #32: Asset - There is some participant feedback collected from training
participants.
There is limited informal feedback collected from training participants intended to
improve the current sexual harassment and sexual assault awareness training.
• One ASC key stakeholder shared, “I can't say that I’m aware of a formal
feedback session. We always do ask for people, if they have feedback on
the sessions, to reach out to the HR representative of their management. I
frequently get feedback from people that sat through; they'd send me an
email to say, ‘Hey, you know I didn't like this… Have you ever thought about
including XYZ?’ So, I’ll usually get some feedback and I usually just pass it on
directly to the people that are providing it.”
PREVENTION
-115-
Needs Assessment
Finding #33: Asset - There is existing infrastructure for collecting data.
Key stakeholders shared that there are end of season evaluations, though they do
not include questions specifically about harassment or sexual assault.
Finding #34: Asset - There is intention to expand evaluation efforts.
Key stakeholders from NSF indicated a plan for survey data collected for this USAP
SAHPR needs assessment to be used as a baseline for ongoing prevention,
response, and associated evaluation efforts.
• An NSF key stakeholder shared, “We’re working on the process of
approvals to follow-up after this. As a government agency, if somebody
could come in and say, ‘Well, that wasn't a problem, that was just six
women, and you went off and spent all this money to do all this stuff.’ [But
I] t’s like, ‘Oh no, I actually have data.’”
• When prompted to discuss harassment training and tracking incidents,
there were 12 coded segments indicating stakeholders from ASC and NSF
have a desire to build evaluation capacity to assess SAHPR prevention
programming and incidents relating to sexual harassment and assault.
PREVENTION
-116-
Needs Assessment
Illustrative Quotes – Additional Perceptions of the Sexual Harassment and
Sexual Assault Awareness Training
“Literally the worst trainings on sexual harassment that I have ever had the
misfortune to have to sit through have been [at the USAP]. People at
McMurdo were laughing and ridiculing this training for the rest of the
season, for how bad and inappropriate it was.”
“I think it's very inadequate, personally, I mean it's good that they're doing
something, but. We have an extremely unique work environment.”
“It’s too simple. The tone of trainings has been ‘some people are sensitive,
someone might overhear you, so don’t behave that way.’ ‘If you’re sensitive
to rape jokes, just tell them and they’ll stop.’ No talk about the behavior
actually being illegal or relevant ways to do something about it.”
“The training implies some people are just sensitive. It doesn’t get at what
really happens. And what we can do about it.”
Finding #37: Asset - Among survey respondents, there is relatively low
disagreement that sexual harassment and sexual assault are problems.
Of 909 survey respondents, 24% disagree or strongly disagree that sexual assault
is a problem and 18% disagree or strongly disagree that sexual harassment is a
problem.
Finding #38: Asset - Few participants disagree sexual misconduct is a problem.
Despite lower consensus that sexual harassment and sexual assault are problems,
there is a strong belief that these issues are important to address.
• A majority of respondents (62%) strongly agree that sexual harassment and
sexual assault important to address and 90% either agree or strongly agree.
Finding #39: Asset - There is a strong belief that prevention is possible and that
everyone has a role to play.
More than 75% of respondents agree or strongly agree that preventing sexual
assault and sexual harassment is possible and that they have a role to play (see
Figure 21).
PREVENTION
-119-
Needs Assessment
wanted to cultivate that and has for many years as a great tradition with my
department.”
“And it goes along a lot with that buddy system and knowing who you work
with. When I’m out in the bar I keep an eye on the ladies that I know or even
my guy friends. And if I see them doing something that I would feel
uncomfortable with or I know that they shouldn't be doing, I’ll go up to them
and be like, ‘[H]ey like let's head out’ or something like that.”
“I’m not like trying to be a hero or anything but I feel like I just have to say
something and stand up. When I see things going on, that I don't think
should be happening, I can't help myself.”
Finding #40: Gap - There are few opportunities to get involved in prevention.
Based on current available data, there are few opportunities to participate in
voluntary organized prevention activities. In fact, only one event was mentioned
during data collection, and it was open to limited participants.
Finding #41: Gap - There are few opportunities for prevention skill-building.
There are insufficient opportunities for USAP community members to learn the
skills necessary to intervene in high-risk situations and to proactively model and
endorse behaviors that support a safe, healthy climate.
• According to key-stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and document
reviews, content that is currently included in mandatory sexual harassment
and sexual assault awareness training does not sufficiently equip
participants to intervene, and does not include content related to proactive
behaviors that can set more positive community norms.
Finding #42: Asset - Most community members have exposure to prevention
efforts early.
Training required by multiple organizations, including the sexual harassment and
sexual assault awareness training, ensures a high degree of initial participation in
prevention efforts.
PREVENTION
-121-
Needs Assessment
Finding #43 Asset - Many report they would intervene if they saw high risk
behaviors.
When asked about bystander intervention, a substantial number of USAP
participants will intervene or believe their peers will intervene when they see
concerning behaviors like sexual assault or harassment.
• A small majority of survey respondents (51%) believe their peers will
intervene when they see warning signs for sexual harassment or sexual
assault.
• Analysis of focus group and participant emails resulted in 49 coded
segments specifically referencing bystander interventions that participants
had either engaged in or witnessed.
Illustrative Quotes – Bystander Interventions
“We walk away and I’m with another person, and we were walking towards
the galley and these guys ended up following us. I could hear them in the hall
like calling for me. I'm like, ‘Oh God.’ I kind of hid in the corner and then my
advisor ran out of the bathroom like, ‘Are you okay?’ And like looking around
and then he had shared that that wouldn't have been the first time he
needed to punch someone. So, he wasn't surprised that he was in that
situation.”
“My first season, I just stopped like going to bars and parties at night
because it started to get pretty uncomfortable and my second season, I had
enough male friends that would just not let me go anywhere alone because
they also observed these things happening and didn’t want me to be alone.”
“I’ve definitely done the ‘Hey do you want to get out of here?’ to other
women that I don't know in bars in McMurdo because I could see that they
were in a situation that they didn't want to be in and it's kind of hard to get
out of.”
PREVENTION
-122-
Needs Assessment
Prevention: Recommendations and
Prioritization of Corrective Actions
The forthcoming comprehensive Implementation Plan will provide more robust
and detailed solutions and recommended prioritization of corrective actions. The
following recommendations are intended to provide initial ideas and some
immediate next steps for NSF to consider while the Implementation Plan is being
developed.
Recommendations are organized by
prevention components and indicators.
Each recommendation addresses
existing gaps, leverages current assets,
and when achieved, progresses the
associated prevention component
toward best practice.
Priority is placed on providing
recommendations that will allow for
the development of realistic steps that
are specific, measurable, and can be
achieved within three years, including
actions that can be taken
immediately.50 Further,
recommendations are prioritized based on likelihood of achieving the most
significant prevention-related gains given the current capacity of the USAP.
Recommendations are informed by current models, research, and best practice in
the field including the Prevention Plan of Action (DoD SAPRO, 2019) developed by
the Department of Defense to guide the Department’s strategic approach to
sexual assault prevention; the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC,
2018) and World Health Organization’s (Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002)
technical packages supporting prevention development; and promising practices
outlined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (U.S. EEOC,
2017).
50
Per guidance provided within contract requirement 2.4.2.
PREVENTION
-125-
Needs Assessment
While the focus of the Needs Assessment Report and associated Implementation
Plan is short-term, ultimately the implementation and maintenance of a
comprehensive prevention strategy is a long-term undertaking. As such,
recommendations to support long-term sustainability are also included.
Prevention Component: Leadership Support
Indicated by buy-in, trust, and a healthy climate.
The cornerstone of an effective prevention strategy is the consistent,
demonstrated, and visible engagement of organizational leadership. While senior
leadership may play a limited role in the day-to-day implementation of a
prevention strategy, to communicate effectively and provide meaningful,
substantive support and accountability, they must have a foundational
understanding of each component and their role in resourcing, supporting, and
providing oversight. Recommendations below apply to both programmatic NSF
leadership and contractor leadership, as both are instrumental in the successful
implementation of a prevention strategy and in setting the tone within their
spheres of influence.
Leadership Recommendation #1: Develop a Communication Strategy
Develop a communication strategy specific to rolling out new initiatives adopted
from the Implementation Plan.
Communication Strategy: Years 1-3
• Recruit an external facilitator to facilitate initial conversations, debriefing
sessions, and planning meetings.51
• An external facilitator should debrief the Needs Assessment Report findings
with key stakeholders and leadership to ensure an understanding of the
fundamentals of prevention (and response), potential pitfalls, and their role
in next steps.
• Develop a process to solicit input from a cross-section of the general
workforce across the USAP regarding relevant recommendations of the
Implementation Plan before the plan is finalized or rolled out.
Given the significant distrust of leadership, it is strongly recommended that initial conversations,
debriefing sessions, planning meetings, etc. should be led by outside facilitators.
51
PREVENTION
-126-
Needs Assessment
Coordinate opportunities for an external facilitator to host discussions to
process select findings from the Needs Assessment Report with small,
focused groups. Groups may include:
– NSF SAHPR Team.
– Senior leadership across NSF OPP, ASC, and partner organizations or
institutions.
– Representatives from a cross-section of USAP volunteers who
participated in the needs assessment process (e.g., focus group
participants or survey respondents who volunteer).
– Allies who have been outspoken regarding current insufficiencies with
response and prevention efforts.52
• Develop an annual communications plan for leaders at all levels specific to
current prevention efforts.
– Provide training to ensure communication across leaders is consistent,
effectively delivered, responsive to the current climate, and aligned with
goals of the strategic plan (see Leadership Recommendation #4).
Communication Strategy: Long-Term
• Provide regular updates to all USAP participants during Summer and Winter
Seasons, including prevention progress, program and policy updates, and
evaluation findings. Options for regular communication may include:
– Prevention newsletter
– Email blasts
– PSA on-station
– Supervisor talking points for staff meetings
– Station manager talking points during safety briefs
• Engage and equip full-time staff members (e.g., NSF Station Managers,
returning full-time contractors, long-term grantee PIs, etc.) who are
credible and respected by their peers to play a role in the ongoing
communication strategy.
• Develop, implement, and sustain a safe process for gathering candid input
and ensuring open and ongoing communication between senior leadership
and a broad cross-section of USAP participants.
52
This should include, but not be limited to, members of the Ice Allies group.
PREVENTION
-127-
Needs Assessment
– Efforts should focus particularly on marginalized groups and/or groups
with the least power and influence within the USAP (e.g., USAP
participants who identify as LGBTQ+, people of color, and/or
participants in entry-level positions).
– Information gathering may include an anonymous feedback mechanism,
focus groups, an annual climate survey, and/or key informant
interviews.
Leadership Recommendation #2: Develop a Toolkit of Prevention Resources for
Leaders
Develop a toolkit of prevention resources that equips leaders with an
understanding of the core components of prevention, the specific prevention
strategy being implemented, and talking points to effectively communicate about
the prevention strategy with key decision makers, peers, and subordinates.
Leadership Packet: 1-3 Years
• In consultation with a prevention subject matter expert (SME), develop a
toolkit of prevention resources for leaders at each echelon of the USAP
hierarchical structure. For example, develop tailored toolkits for:
– NSF SAHPR Team Members
– NSF Executive Management Board
– USAP Station Managers
– ASC Human Resources
– ASC Full-Time Supervisors
– ASC Shop Leads
– Grantee Principal Investigators
– Military Leaders
• Establish a highly accessible distribution mechanism for the toolkits, for
example, a physical packet, or an online portal, shared folder, or
community forum.
Leadership Packet: Long-Term
• Provide regular updates to toolkits based on new discoveries in the field of
prevention and advances in best practices.
PREVENTION
-128-
Needs Assessment
• Establish an evaluation plan for leaders to communicate feedback regularly,
assess behavioral outcomes, and to ensure continuous quality
improvement.
Leadership Recommendation #3: Institutionalize a Comprehensive Prevention
Strategy
In consultation with prevention SMEs, institutionalize resources necessary to
support a sustainable, comprehensive prevention strategy, including but not
limited to designated staff time, funding to support prevention programs, ongoing
training for prevention staff, and ongoing evaluation. (See Infrastructure and
Education Recommendations.)
Leadership Recommendation #4: Institutionalize Annual Strategic Prevention
Plan
Institutionalize in policy the creation of an annual strategic prevention plan that
clearly delineates roles and responsibilities, including leadership role in oversight
and accountability. Strategic prevention plan should include at a minimum,
training and evaluation requirements, and accountability mechanisms. (See
Infrastructure and Education Recommendations.)
Prevention Component: Infrastructure
Indicated by prevention staffing, collaboration, funding, and policies.
Within the USAP, consistent with nearly all other institutions and organizations,
existing infrastructure, including staffing, policies, and collaborative groups, was
initially created to respond to, rather than prevent, sexual assault and sexual
harassment. Prevention and response are different fields, with different goals,
models, research-support, and staffing requirements. As such, it is necessary to
review response-focused infrastructure to determine if and how it has prevention
applications and then determine what modifications and additions are necessary
to support a comprehensive prevention strategy.
Infrastructure Recommendation #1: Institutionalize Prevention Funding
Determine prevention resourcing needs and institutionalize funding to enable and
assure the implementation of a long-term strategy that is sustained long enough
to realistically achieve measurable reductions in sexual assault and sexual
harassment.
PREVENTION
-129-
Needs Assessment
Prevention Funding: 1-3 Years
• Review current funding sources that can be allocated for prevention.
• Develop a prevention budget for a comprehensive approach to prevention,
based on the Implementation Plan and annual prevention strategic plan
(Leadership Recommendation #3).
• Allocate appropriate funding for the comprehensive approach to
prevention including funding for prevention staffing, program
implementation, and evaluation.
Prevention Funding: Long-Term
• Determine and allocate sustainable funding sources for the comprehensive
approach to prevention.
• Conduct annual evaluation of prevention budget and programmatic
outcomes. Make budget adjustments and program improvements based on
findings.
Infrastructure Recommendation #2: Develop Prevention Policies
In collaboration with prevention SMEs, review, revise, and or develop policies that
codify minimum prevention-focused requirements (e.g., funding, leadership
training, USAP participant (workforce) training, oversight responsibilities,
evaluation requirements, staffing, etc.).
Prevention Policies: 1-3 Years
• Review existing policies related to addressing or preventing sexual
harassment and sexual assault.
• Determine revisions to existing policies to incorporate prevention-related
requirements.
• Develop new prevention-related policies, as necessary, based on findings
from first two steps outlined above.
Prevention Policies: Long-Term
• Institutionalize revised and new prevention-related policies to be sustained
over time.
• Conduct annual evaluation of prevention policy implementation. Make
necessary policy improvements based on findings.
PREVENTION
-130-
Needs Assessment
Infrastructure Recommendation #3: Identify, Resource, and Support Prevention
Staffing
In collaboration with prevention SMEs, identify, resource, and support prevention
staffing with the appropriate prevention experience and expertise. Prevention
staffing will be tasked with prevention program implementation, coordination,
and evaluation efforts. Depending on staffing needs, a prevention position may
be full-time, an additional duty for multiple positions, or another configuration.
Prevention Staffing: 1-3 Years
• Assess staffing needs based on the implementation requirements of the
comprehensive prevention strategy (as outlined in the upcoming
Implementation Plan).
• Develop position description(s) for prevention staffing, including duties,
qualifications, and performance evaluation metrics.
• Increase dedicated prevention-specific staffing capacity accordingly
through hiring, contracting, and/or dedicating time of current qualified
staff.
• Develop a training and oversight plan for prevention staff to ensure to
quality implementation of programs, including effective delivery and
fidelity.
• Equip leadership, supervisors, and others charged with recruiting,
screening, hiring, and overseeing prevention staff, with tools to effectively
identify, hire, train, and supervise prevention staff.
• Develop appropriate training and professional development guidelines for
providing effective oversight.
Prevention Staffing: Long-Term
• Institutionalize prevention staffing position(s) in policy.
• Conduct annual performance evaluation of prevention staffing, in relation
to prevention program outcomes. Make necessary changes to personnel,
assigned duties, and support mechanisms, based on findings.
Infrastructure Recommendation #4: Develop a Prevention Collaborative Body
Create and codify a collaborative body dedicated to prevention, comprised of key
stakeholders including leaders and representatives from the general workforce
(non-managerial, non-HR, non-PI). The purpose of this collaborative body will be
to ensure the comprehensive approach to prevention is well-received and
PREVENTION
-131-
Needs Assessment
reaching similar outcomes across USAP participants from partner organizations,
institutions, and NSF-managed contracts. (This collaborative body may be
determined to be a dedicated sub-committee of the CCRT, outlined in the
Coalition Building Recommendation #3 in Response Recommendations.)
Prevention Collaborative Body: 1-3
Years
• Determine specific number of seats for the collaborative body and
individuals and/or positions across USAP partner organizations and
institutions who should fill those seats. Pay close attention to recruiting and
including representation across a diverse cross-section of the USAP
community.
• Ensure group is adequately trained on prevention and advised by
prevention SMEs.
• In early meetings, collaborate to develop a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) that establishes the groups guiding principles and how they will
work together to successfully increase prevention capacity across the USAP.
Ensure each member of the group signs the MOU.
• In early meetings, collaborate to develop a clear mission and objectives.
• Report progress regularly to senior leadership at NSF, ASC, and other
partner organizations and institutions.
Prevention Collaborative Body: LongTerm
• Institutionalize prevention collaborative body in policy.
• Review prevention strategy evaluation findings annually and provide
guidance and insights to ensure continuous quality improvement.
• Develop a sustainable, ongoing communication plan to update senior
leaders across USAP partner organizations and institutions of prevention
strategy progress, improvements
Prevention Component: Engagement
Indicated by intrinsic motivation and participation.
Effective prevention is predicated on engagement from the target population.
Climate is defined by the aggregate of individual behaviors and cannot be created
PREVENTION
-132-
Needs Assessment
or sustained by leadership absent broad-based and consistent participation of a
significant cross-section of the community.
Engagement Recommendation #1: Develop Plan of Action to Address Negative
Perceptions
Utilizing the Needs Assessment Report findings, and in collaboration with
prevention SMEs, develop a plan of action to address existing negative
perceptions of current sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention efforts.
Plan of Action to Address Negative
Perceptions: 1-3 Years
• Review the Needs Assessment Report and determine sources of USAP
participants’ negative perceptions of leadership responses, current sexual
assault and sexual harassment awareness training, and other key findings.
• Develop a plan of action to address the negative perceptions. Elements of
the plan should be incorporated into program development, education
goals, communication strategies, and leadership training.
• Develop an evaluation plan for measuring related perceptions annually to
assess changes, gaps, and measures of success.
• Implement the plan of action and evaluation plan.
Plan of Action to Address Negative
Perceptions: Long-Term
• Institutionalize ongoing evaluation and feedback mechanisms.
Engagement Recommendation #2: Increase Prevention Opportunities
In consultation with prevention SMEs and as a part of the comprehensive
prevention strategy (Leadership Recommendation #3), increase formal and
informal opportunities for participation in prevention efforts that are practical
and actionable given the roles, responsibilities, and contexts of individuals and
groups across the USAP community.
Prevention Opportunities: 1-3 Years
• As a part of the comprehensive prevention strategy, develop an
engagement plan that incorporates prevention activities in formal and
informal settings. These prevention activities should reinforce and
strengthen prevention-related skills, inspire participation in prevention, and
PREVENTION
-133-
Needs Assessment
remind members of the USAP community of the importance of prevention.
Examples may include:
– Booster activities in regular staff meetings.
– Talking points delivered during safety briefs or all hands meetings.
– Short, one- to three-minute reminders as a part of toolbox talks.
– Community-wide social marketing or other initiatives.
– Develop an evaluation plan to measure prevention engagement.
• Implement engagement and related evaluation plan.
Prevention Opportunities: Long-Term
• Institutionalize ongoing evaluation and feedback mechanisms.
Prevention Component: Education
Indicated by education that is research-informed, well-delivered, and evaluated.
The goal of prevention education is to equip community members with the
knowledge, skills, and motivation they need to intervene in high-risk situations
and to proactively engage in behaviors that contribute to a climate where every
USAP participant works and lives free from the experience or fear of sexual
assault and sexual harassment.
Education Recommendation #1: Develop Prevention Training for Leadership
Develop and implement prevention training that equips leaders with the
knowledge and skills necessary to establish a healthy community and workplace
climate, institutionalized within policy.
Prevention Training for Leadership:
1-3 Years
• In consultation with prevention SMEs, develop and implement a prevention
training for leaders at each echelon of the USAP hierarchical structure (as
referenced in Leadership Recommendation #2).
– Content should be tailored to the specific role leaders play in decisionmaking, oversight, and accountability.
– Topics should include, but are not limited to communication, hiring, the
role of mid-level managers and supervisors, evaluation, and the
leadership role in creating a healthy community and workplace climate.
PREVENTION
-134-
Needs Assessment
• Develop and implement an evaluation plan to track knowledge and
behavioral outcomes associated with the prevention training for leadership.
• Utilize evaluation findings to make program improvements.
Prevention Training for Leadership:
Long-Term
• Incorporate the prevention training for leadership into policy to ensure the
training is sustained overtime.
• Establish an ongoing evaluation plan to assess outcomes over time and
ensure continuous quality improvement.
Education Recommendation #2: Identify or Develop Prevention Programs
In consultation with prevention SMEs, identify and/or develop prevention
education programs that are informed by research and/or supported by evidence,
and tailored to the contexts and subgroups across the USAP. Create and/or select
prevention refreshers, booster activities, and educational campaigns that
reinforce key messages, and align with staffing capacity, access to participants,
and minimum dosage recommendations necessary to support durability of
impact.
Prevention Programs: 1-3 Years
• Review existing prevention programs to determine fit for the USAP.
• Select and tailor or develop prevention programs to be implemented across
the USAP.
• Include a plan for selecting or developing prevention refreshers, as outlined
in Engagement Recommendation #2.
• Implement prevention programs and refreshers across the USAP. (The
Implementation Plan will provide more information about when and where
prevention programs should be delivered, as well as who should be
delivering the programs.)
Prevention Programs: Long-Term
• Institutionalize prevention programming in policy.
• Develop an ongoing evaluation plan to ensure the program is meeting
desired outcomes. Utilize evaluation findings for program improvements
and to ensure continuous quality improvement.
PREVENTION
-135-
Needs Assessment
Education Recommendation #3: Institutionalize an Evaluation Plan
Develop, fund, and institutionalize an evaluation plan that can expand in
increments as capacity allows. Evaluation efforts should initially target education
programs, climate, employee and contractor perceptions, and leadership. The
plan should be incorporated into policy and include a process for oversight,
utilizing findings for prevention strategy improvements, and communicating
results to the USAP community.
Evaluation Plan: 1-3 Years
• Assess current evaluation capacity, existing data collection sources that
may be utilized or adjusted to include prevention, and funding for
evaluation.
• Create or expand capacity for evaluating the comprehensive prevention
strategy including staffing, expertise, and funding. This may include
developing an evaluation position or allocating dedicated time to
evaluation in other positions.
• Develop an evaluation plan to assess the comprehensive prevention
strategy (inclusive of evaluation efforts across all prevention
recommendations).
Evaluation Plan: Long-Term
• Institutionalize evaluation efforts in policy.
• Develop a sustainable and ongoing evaluation communication strategy for
sharing evaluation findings across USAP participants and partner
organizations and institutions.
PREVENTION
-136-
Needs Assessment
Conclusion
The USAP operates in a unique and challenging environment, where multigenerational community members live and work in close quarters, interact
socially and professionally daily, and must collaborate across different disciplines,
organizations, and research institutions.
The NSF and partner organizations have taken necessary steps to build a
foundation for creating a healthier climate in the USAP. However, findings in this
Needs Assessment Report shed an important and urgent light on the current state
of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the USAP. It is clear these issues are
impacting a high number of USAP participants and efforts to address and prevent
related harm have been inadequate and ineffective.
Key findings and recommendations from this Needs Assessment Report will be
utilized to determine the most efficient and effective route to better address and
prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault in the USAP. Detailed action steps
will be outlined in the forthcoming SAHPR Implementation Plan and Training
Materials. Given how the Needs Assessment Report directly informs the SAHPR
Implementation Plan, the two volumes are strongly encouraged to always be
distributed in tandem.
PREVENTION
-137-
Needs Assessment
References
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social
exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(3), 267285.
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. (2002). When does trust matter? Antecedents and
contingent effects of supervisee trust on performance in selling new products in
China and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 61-81.
Banyard, V., Potter, S. J., Cares, A. C., Williams, L. M., Moynihan, M. M., &
Stapleton, J. G. (2018). Multiple sexual violence prevention tools: Doses and
boosters. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research.
Broad, M. L. (1997). Overview of transfer of training: From learning to
performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 7–21.
Burns, B., Grindlay, K., Holt, K., Manski, R., & Grossman, D. (2014). Military sexual
trauma among US servicewomen during deployment: A qualitative study.
American journal of public health, 104(2), 345-349.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). The public health approach to
violence prevention. World Wide Web.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). The social-ecological model: A
framework for prevention. Injury center: Violence prevention.
Centers for Disease Control (2018) Stop SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual
Violence
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence
in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of management review, 23(3), 491512.
Davis, K. R. (2018). Strong Medicine: Fighting the Sexual Harassment Pandemic.
Ohio State Law Journal, 79, 6.
Department of Defense, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (2019)
Prevention Plan of Action 1.0 2019-2023.
PREVENTION
-138-
Needs Assessment
Dills, J., Fowler, D., & Payne, G. (2016). Sexual violence on campus: Strategies for
prevention.
Feldblum, C. R., & Lipnic, V. A. (2016). Select task force on the study of
harassment in the workplace. Washington: US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
Fine, C., Sojo Monzon, V., & Lawford-Smith, H. (2020). Why does workplace
gender diversity matter? Justice, organizational benefits, and policy.
Freyd, J. (2018). Institutional Betrayal and Institutional Courage at
https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/institutionalbetrayal/
Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal
exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of traumatic stress, 26(1), 119-124.
Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral
intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Communication
Research, 20:3, 331–364.
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on
violence and health. The lancet, 360(9339), 1083-1088.
LeardMann, C. A., Pietrucha, A., Magruder, K. M., Smith, B., Murdoch, M.,
Jacobson, I. G., ... & Millennium Cohort Study Team. (2013). Combat deployment
is associated with sexual harassment or sexual assault in a large, female military
cohort. Women's Health Issues, 23(4), e215-e223.
Li, N., & Yan, J. (2009). The effects of trust climate on individual performance.
Frontiers of Business Research in China, 3(1), 27-49.
Lipnic, V. (2016). EEOC: Most harassment training is worthless. HR Specialist:
Employment Law, 46(8), 1-2.
Liu, B., & Lu, Q. (2020). Creating a sustainable workplace environment: influence
of workplace safety climate on Chinese healthcare employees’ presenteeism from
the perspective of affect and cognition. Sustainability, 12(6), 2414.
Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web
surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates.
International journal of market research, 50(1), 79-104.
PREVENTION
-139-
Needs Assessment
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who
minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of management
journal, 48(5), 874-888.
McNeish, R., Rigg, K. K., Tran, Q., & Hodges, S. (2019). Community-based
behavioral health interventions: Developing strong community partnerships.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 73, 111-115.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: a metaanalytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout,
engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 96(1), 71.
Nash, M. (2021). National Antarctic Program responses to fieldwork sexual
harassment. Antarctic Science, 33(5), 560-571.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., MorrisseyKane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective
prevention programs. American psychologist, 58(6-7), 449.
National Institute of Health (2011). CTSA Community Engagement Key Function
Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement (2nd ed) (NIH
Publication No. 11-7782).
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Tiedt, P., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2004). Answering
accountability questions in sexual harassment: Insights regarding harassers,
targets, and observers. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 85-106.
Quick, J. C., & McFadyen, M. (2017). Sexual harassment: Have we made any
progress? Journal of occupational health psychology, 22(3), 286.
Raj, A., Johns, N. E., & Jose, R. (2020). Gender parity at work and its association
with workplace sexual harassment. Workplace health & safety, 68(6), 279-292.
Russell, N., Igras, S., Johri, N. Kuoh, H., Pavin, M. & Wickstrom, J. (2008). The
active community engagement continuum. The ACQQUIRE
Project/EngederHealth: New York.
St. John, K., Riggs, E., & Mogk, D. (2016). Sexual harassment in the sciences: a call
to geoscience faculty and researchers to respond. Journal of Geoscience
Education, 64(4), 255-257.
PREVENTION
-140-
Needs Assessment
Street, A. E., Gradus, J. L., Stafford, J., & Kelly, K. (2007). Gender differences in
experiences of sexual harassment: data from a male-dominated environment.
Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 75(3), 464.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017). Promising Practices for
Preventing Harassment. Title VII, ADEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, 29 CFR Part 1601,
29 CFR Part 1604, 29 CFR Part 1605, 29 CFR Part 1606, 29 CFR Part 1625, 29 CFR
Part 1630, 29 CFR Part 1635.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and
protégé internal locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of
applied psychology, 95(2), 358.
Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2008). The ADAPT-ITT model: a novel
method of adapting evidence-based HIV Interventions. JAIDS Journal of Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 47, S40-S46.
PREVENTION
-141-
Needs Assessment
Appendix A: Preliminary Key Stakeholder
Interview Script and Questions
Introduction
[Brief introductions: Lea Hegge (Alteristic), Lindy Aldrich (VRLC), Key
Stakeholder(s)]
As you know, we are members of a team who is conducting a needs assessment
of OPP and partner organizations to develop a comprehensive approach to
addressing sexual assault and harassment. We are speaking with you today to
learn more about the OPP, partner organizations, and the community on the ice.
We’ll be asking questions about organizational structure, culture, and
relationships between organizations and individuals. Your answers will be used to
inform the Needs Assessment Data Collection Plan, and ultimately the SAHPR
Implementation Plan and SAHPR Training Materials.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
Questions
[Note: Prompts to be used as needed.]
1. First, can you give us a high-level lay of the land? For example, who are the
biggest sub-groups during winter and summer seasons?
• [Prompt] How do those groups interact with each other?
• [Prompt] Please explain the breakdown at McMurdo, South Pole, and
Palmer.
• [Prompt] Are there any other large subpopulations?
• [Prompt] Are there any especially unique subpopulations?
• [Prompt] What is the chain of command? (We have heard the hierarchy is
flatter in person, rather than how it looks on paper).
2. If you wanted to get a diverse cross-section of employees across organizations
who work on the ice for the needs assessment, who would you include in focus
groups or key stakeholder interviews?
• [Prompt] How would you group the different levels of authority or
hierarchy?
-142-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] What are the unique levels of authority? (For example: Executive
leadership, mid-level leaders, supervisors, etc.)
• [Prompt] For McMurdo, who are the most populated grantee groups?
Which grantee groups are most unique?
• [Prompt] How would you breakdown Leidos contractors and employees?
• [Prompt] What is the general demographic breakdown on the ice? Across
different organizations?
• [Prompt] Do you have any suggestions for recruiting participants to ensure
we have a diverse cross-section based on race, gender, sexuality, age, or
other identities?
• [Prompt] Who would you recruit from South Pole? Palmer? Why?
3. How do individuals or organizations intersect with each other?
• [Prompt] Who communicates with whom? Why?
• [Prompt] What is the everyday culture like on the ice?
• [Prompt] What do social interactions look like, both formal and informal?
• [Prompt] How do people communicate within organizations?
• [Prompt] How do grantees communicate with others? Who do they
communicate with most?
• [Prompt] How do individuals communicate outside of their organization?
• [Prompt] How are relationships between organizations? Are they positive,
negative, neutral?
4. Is there a precedence for trainings or programs that address social issues on
the ice? Prevention programs?
• [Prompt] What issues have social programs addressed?
• [Prompt] How were these programs implemented?
• [Prompt] How were these programs received?
5. Is there anything else you think would help us develop the Needs Assessment
Data Collection Plan?
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today. Your answers will
help us as we move forward with the needs assessment.
-143-
Needs Assessment
Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview
Script and Questions
Introduction
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. Let’s do brief introductions.
[Brief introductions: Facilitator and notetaker (Alteristic), facilitator and notetaker
(VRLC), key stakeholder(s)]
As you may know, we are a part of a team conducting a needs assessment for the
National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and for the
United States Antarctic Program (USAP) Sexual Assault Harassment Prevention
Training and Response (SAHPR) program. The purpose of the needs assessment is
to learn more about current conditions relating to sexual assault and harassment
on the ice, and across OPP and partner organizations; and identify feasible
recommendations that will support OPP in developing a successful,
comprehensive approach to address and prevent sexual assault and harassment.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us and discuss your experience. We
are holding several key stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and administering
surveys as a part of this needs assessment with many USAP participants. We are
going to record our conversation today and [INSERT NAMES OF NOTETAKERS] will
be taking notes. We will capture the actual words that are said, to ensure the
needs assessment accurately reflects participants’ experiences and perceptions.
After we complete the data collection process, we will analyze the information
and identify themes to inform the Needs Assessment Report. Please note, we will
not link your name to your words in any way. Recordings and transcripts will be
available only to the needs assessment team. They will not be made available to
members of PPO or Partner Organizations. Themes and data will be summarized
in group form for the Needs Assessment Report but there will be no way to link
your name to anything you say. I do ask that you keep what is spoken here
confidential. I will let you know before I start recording.
You can skip any questions you don’t want to answer, and you may take a break
or quit at any time. If there is something you would like to share with one of us
privately, we will provide our contact information in the chat box, and you can
feel free to contact us directly.
-144-
Needs Assessment
We have two hours to talk. We may or may not use the full time.
I’m going to start the recording now.
Questions
[Note: Prompts to be used as needed.]
1. Can you explain the organizational structure where you work or for the USAP
organization you are most familiar with?
• [Prompt] What are the different roles and how are they distinct from each
other?
• [Prompt] Explain the different levels of authority and/or influence.
2. Who are the most significant subpopulations within your workplace or the
USAP organization you are most familiar with?
• [Prompt] What makes each of these groups unique?
• [Prompt] Are any groups impacted by sexual assault, harassment, or other
concerning behaviors more than others?
3. How do individuals or organizations interact with each other?
• [Prompt] Who communicates with whom? Why?
• [Prompt] What is the everyday culture like on the ice?
• [Prompt] What do social interactions look like, both formal and informal?
• [Prompt] How do people communicate within the USAP organization you
are most familiar with?
• [Prompt] How do individuals communicate outside of their organization?
• [Prompt] How are relationships between organizations? Are they positive,
negative, neutral?
4. What are current programs, policies, or other activities that address or prevent
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Are the programs or activities mandatory?
• Prompt] How often do employees receive training or related information?
• [Prompt] How are these programs, policies, or other activities received by
employees?
• [Prompt] Do you perceive them as helpful? Do they make a difference?
-145-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] What is the perception of employees or contractors? Positive,
negative, neutral?
• [Prompt] How are programs, policies, or other related activities evaluated?
• [Prompt] What is the current capacity of your organization to evaluate
programs, policies, or other related activities?
• [Prompt] Where do training or workshops happen? Where could they
happen? Virtual or in-person?
5. Do you have a position or group of people dedicated to addressing and/or
preventing sexual assault and/or harassment?
• [Prompt] What is their role?
• [Prompt] What kind of training or expertise do they have?
• [Prompt] How much time are they able to dedicate to those efforts?
6. Is there funding dedicated to addressing and/or preventing sexual assault
and/or harassment?
• [Prompt] How much?
• [Prompt] How is that funding currently being used?
• [Prompt] How do you think it should be used?
7. How much access do you, members of leadership, and/or HR have to
implement a prevention program with USAP participants across different
organizations?
• [Prompt] What about as a part of on-boarding before an individual arrives
on the ice?
• [Prompt] How much time could a training, workshop, or other activity be?
8. We know that effective prevention requires multiple doses of key content.
Which types of the following training and activity options would work with the
USAP participants you are most familiar with?
• Two-hour in-person, interactive training?
• Thematic campaigns?
• [If yes:] What do you envision as the methods for this type of campaign?
• Short (5- to 20-minute) booster activities that can be incorporated into
existing meetings and activities?
-146-
Needs Assessment
9. Is there anything that we have asked that you think would help us to inform
the development of an effective approach to addressing and preventing sexual
assault and harassment for USAP participants?
[Depending on role and position, these questions were also asked to some, but not
all key stakeholders.]
Reporting Procedures
10. If there were a sexual assault complaint, can you explain the process of how
you would learn of it? What would the next steps be? Who would have a say in
that decision?
11. The Polar Code of Conduct tells potential complainants to report to a
“supervisor, principal investigator, department chair, commanding officer,
human resources, ethics or legal representatives.” Could you help us
understand what employer each of these positions reports to? How do
employees know who specifically to report it to?
12. Can the other positions listed as potential persons to report be given any
training on best practices for response and providing information on resources
to complainants?
13. What are the criteria for when you contact the US Attorney’s Office (USAO) in
HI (is it for every case or only those where guidance is requested)?
14. Do you have an assigned contact at the USAO?
15. How easy or difficult is it to reach a contact at the USAO??
16. Working with contractors, what is the process for determining whether an
individual who has violated the Code of Conduct can return to a USAP
location?
17. How long has the NSF Portal for individual complaints been operational? Could
you give us a sense of how many complaints you have received?
18. Do you relay that information to the employer? How and when is this done?
Investigations
19. If there were a sexual assault on-ice (including in the field) and it was reported,
would there always be an investigation? What if it were someone other than
the victim who reported it? Who decides?
20. Are you trained/expected to collect evidence following a sexual assault?
-147-
Needs Assessment
21. What trauma-informed investigation techniques have you been trained in?
(E.g.., Have you ever heard of FETI interviews?)
22. What types of training are human resources investigators given re: traumainformed response to sexual harassment, trauma-informed investigation
techniques and/or trainings about specific forms of gender-based violence?
23. Are their assessments of conflict of interest?
24. Are steps taken to prevent retaliation?
Resources Available on the Ice
25. What resources might be available for a victim sexual assault on-ice? SANE,
medical help, evidence collection, rape crisis or mental health counseling?
26. Do you have a list of these resources that you could provide to a victim?
27. Is there anyone on the ice who can conduct a medical forensic examination?
Are you set up to do these via telehealth?
28. If parties needed to be separated, is there a practice for putting individuals at
separate stations on-ice or just restricting within the building? How do you
determine who gets moved versus who stays? Have you ever separated
individuals because of a report of SA or SH? Can you tell us more about that?
29. Is the NSF Portal for individual complaints included in these trainings?
Overall Perceptions
30. Are there policies or procedures you can think of that could/should be
implemented to address the SH/SA that does take place?
31. How serious a problem would you say it is? Sexual harassment? Sexual
assault?
32. Has anyone ever reported SA or SH to you? Did you feel equipped to address
it? Why or why not?
Thank you for your time. Along with others, your responses will be used to inform
a comprehensive approach to address and prevent sexual assault and harassment
for all USAP participants.
-148-
Needs Assessment
Appendix C: Focus Group Script and
Questions
Introduction
Please note that the following script will be read at the beginning of each focus
groups, detailed below.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. Let’s do brief introductions.
[Brief introductions: Facilitator and notetaker (Alteristic), facilitator and notetaker
(VRLC), participants]
As you may know, we are a part of a team conducting a needs assessment for the
National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and for the
United States Antarctic Program (USAP) Sexual Assault Harassment Prevention
Training and Response (SAHPR) program. The purpose of the needs assessment is
to learn more about current conditions related to sexual assault and harassment
on the ice and across OPP and partner organizations and identify feasible
recommendations that will support OPP in developing a successful,
comprehensive approach to address and prevent sexual assault and harassment.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us and discuss your experience. We
are holding several, focus groups and administering surveys as a part of this needs
assessment with many USAP participants. We are going to record our
conversation today and [INSERT NAMES OF NOTETAKERS] will be taking notes.
We will capture the actual words that are said, to ensure the needs assessment
accurately reflects participants’ experiences and perceptions. After we complete
the data collection process, we will analyze the information and identify themes
to inform the Needs Assessment Report. Please note, we will not link your name
to your words. Recordings and transcripts will be available only to the needs
assessment team. When we are done with the data collection process, we will
preserve them to inform the project and then delete them. They will not be made
available to members of OPP or Partner Organizations. Themes and data will be
summarized in group form for the Needs Assessment Report and responses will be
reported as a group and not attributed to a single individual. I do ask that you
keep what is spoken here confidential. I will let you know before I start recording.
-149-
Needs Assessment
You can skip any questions you don’t want to answer, and you may take a break
or quit at any time. If there is something you would like to share with one of us
privately, we will provide our contact information in the chat box, and you can
feel free to contact us directly.
We have two hours to talk. We may or may not use the full time. A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number; the number for this is 3145-0260.
Definitions
Before we start, I want to share some definitions so that we have a shared
understanding of what we’re talking about.
[Share in Chat.]
USAP participants and community members are defined as all persons working
or visiting at a USAP or an NSF managed station, field site, other facility, ship, or
aircraft. This includes, but is not limited to, researchers, students, contractors,
and federal civilian and military personnel. We may refer to USAP participants as
community members on the ice, during this focus group.
Sexual assault is defined as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of
force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or
cannot consent.
Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, and other verbal or other conduct of a sexual nature when the conduct is
made a condition of securing or maintaining employment or when the conduct
creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Are there any questions before we get started?
Will you please verbally agree that you consent to participate in this virtual focus
group?
[Get verbal indication that each participant consents to participate. If anyone
would like to leave at this point, that is fine. Thank them for their time.]
-150-
Needs Assessment
I’d like to start by doing a round robin in which each of you share your first name
and your job/position. We’ll do this before I start the recorder.
I’m going to start recording now.
[Note: You may not have time to get to all the questions. Concentrate on the main
questions, the prompts are optional.]
[INSERT QUESTIONS HERE]
Conclusion
Thank you so much for your time today. As a reminder, your names will not be
used in any report. Your answers will be compiled with many others and themes
from these conversations will be used to tailor and develop an effective
prevention and response strategy to address sexual assault and harassment on
the ice.
Please feel free to contact us if you think of anything else you would like to add.
[PROVIDE CONTACT INFORMATION]
-151-
Needs Assessment
Focus Group Questions by Group
[Note: Prompts to be used as needed.]
USAP Participants at South Pole Station
Demographics: A mix of USAP participants who have worked at the South Pole
station for a minimum stay of two weeks. Includes Antarctic Support Contract
(ASC) (prime and subs), grantees, federal employees (NSF, NOAA, etc.), with a
focus on individuals lower in the organizational hierarchy.
Purpose: This focus group will capture the unique perceptions of nonsupervisors/management employees regarding recent employment conditions at
the South Pole Station.
Prevention-Related Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at the South Pole Station.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompt] Do they socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at South Pole Station?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompts] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
-152-
Needs Assessment
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompts] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at South Pole
Station?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere
at South Pole Station where sexual assault or harassment is more likely to
happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
South Pole Station.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
-153-
Needs Assessment
1. Are you aware of how anyone at South Pole Station would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
2. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at South Pole Station?
3. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at the South Pole station
for victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
4. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at South Pole Station?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
5. If two people needed to be separated at South Pole Station, is that possible or
realistic during the Summer? Winter?
6. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
USAP Participants at Palmer Station
Demographics: A mix of USAP participants who have worked at Palmer Station
(PAL) for a minimum stay of one month. Includes ASC (prime and subs), grantees,
federal employees, etc. with a focus on individuals who are lower in the
organizational hierarchy.
Purpose: This focus group will capture the unique perceptions of nonsupervisors/management employees regarding recent employment conditions at
the Palmer Station.
-154-
Needs Assessment
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at the Palmer Station.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompt] Do they socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at Palmer Station?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompt] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at Palmer
Station?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
-155-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere
at Palmer Station where sexual assault or harassment is more likely to
happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
Palmer Station.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at Palmer Station? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at Palmer Station would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at Palmer Station?
-156-
Needs Assessment
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at Palmer Station for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at Palmer Station?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
6. If two people needed to be separated at Palmer Station, is that possible or
realistic during the Summer? Winter?
7. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
USAP Participants on Research Vessels
Demographics: A mix of USAP participants who voyaged aboard the NBP and LMG
research vessels. Includes ASC (prime and subs including vessel crew), grantees,
federal employees, etc., with a focus on individuals lower in the organizational
hierarchy.
Purpose: This focus group will capture the unique perceptions of nonsupervisors/management employees regarding recent employment conditions on
research vessels.
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the research vessels and your work
environments in general.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture on the research vessels.
• [Prompts] How many people do you interact with daily on the vessel? Who?
Why?
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
-157-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompts] Do they socialize after hours or keep it professional? Are there
social times or activities on the vessels?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions on the vessels?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompts] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening on the research
vessels?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an
environment where sexual assault or harassment is likely to happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen
on the research vessels.
-158-
Needs Assessment
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompts] What would stop yourself or another bystander from
intervening? What are barriers to intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to work on
something else.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen on a research vessel? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how someone would report sexual harassment or sexual
assault on a research vessel?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what the logistics would be of making a report
off the research vessel?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
on a research vessel?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
-159-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available on the research vessels
for victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. If two people needed to be separated on a research vessel, is that possible or
realistic?
6. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
Seasonal Contractors at McMurdo Station
Demographics: A mix of ASC participants contracted to work as a seasonal
employee at McMurdo Station (McM) for a minimum stay of one month over the
austral summer, winter, or both. No full-time-employees: ASC contracted only.
Focus on non-supervisors, galley staff.
Purpose: This focus group will be important to understand the experiences of
USAP participants during both seasons, but especially the summer season, when
McMurdo Station can have over 1,000 employees deployed. It is important to
capture the perceptions of the largest group at McMurdo - contract employees.
This focus group will capture perceptions of non-full-time employees in mid-tolower-level positions regarding recent employment conditions at the McMurdo
Station who have spent some of the summer or winter season as a part-time
employee.
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at McMurdo Station.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
-160-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompt] Do they socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at McMurdo Station?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompts] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at McMurdo
Station?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an
environment on the ice where sexual assault or harassment is more likely
to happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
McMurdo Station.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
-161-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at McMurdo Station? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at McMurdo Station would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at McMurdo Station?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at McMurdo Station for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
-162-
Needs Assessment
5. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at McMurdo Station?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
6. If two people needed to be separated at McMurdo Station, is that possible or
realistic during the Summer? Winter?
7. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
Seasonal Contractors at McMurdo Station: Women-Only
Demographics: ASC women participants contracted to work as a seasonal
employee at McMurdo Station (McM) for a minimum stay of one month over the
austral summer, winter, or both. No full-time-employees: ASC contracted only.
No men. Focus on non-supervisors, galley staff.
Purpose: This focus group will include only part-time, female contract employees
who make up the over 1,000 employees deployed at McMurdo Station in the
summer or winter seasons. A woman-only focus group will allow femaleidentified respondents to feel comfortable and safe discussing the issues with
others who may have similar experiences and perspectives.
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at McMurdo Station.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompt] Do they socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at McMurdo Station?
-163-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompts] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at McMurdo
Station?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an
environment on the ice where sexual assault or harassment is more likely
to happen.
• [Prompt] What groups of individuals tend to experience sexual assault or
harassment more often than others? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What groups of individuals cause harm like sexual assault or
harassment more often than others? Why or why not?
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
McMurdo Station.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] What circumstances make it more difficult to intervene as a
bystander?
-164-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at McMurdo Station? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at McMurdo Station would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at McMurdo Station?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at McMurdo Station for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at McMurdo Station?
-165-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
6. If two people needed to be separated at McMurdo Station, is that possible or
realistic during the Summer? Winter?
7. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
Full-Time Contractors at McMurdo Station
Demographics: A mix of ASC participants employed full time by Leidos ASC or one
of its subcontractors who deployed to McMurdo for a minimum stay of one week.
No Supervisors.
Purpose: Full-time employees may not face the same concerns as a part-time
employee who fears losing their job due a report. This focus group will work to
understand the perceptions of full-time employees who may provide training,
interact with complainants, and see patterns over time of which a seasonal
employee would not be aware.
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at McMurdo Station.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompt] Do they socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at McMurdo Station?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
-166-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompts] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at McMurdo
Station?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an
environment on the ice where sexual assault or harassment is more likely
to happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
McMurdo Station.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
-167-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at McMurdo Station? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at McMurdo Station would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at McMurdo Station?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at McMurdo Station for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at McMurdo Station?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
6. If two people needed to be separated at McMurdo Station, is that possible or
realistic during the Summer? Winter?
7. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
-168-
Needs Assessment
Full-Time Supervisors at McMurdo Station
Demographics: A mix of ASC participants employed full time by Leidos ASC or one
of its subcontractors who deployed to McMurdo for a minimum stay of one week.
Supervisors Only.
Purpose: Full-time supervisors will likely be involved in providing training,
overseeing complaints, and implementing protocols. This focus group will work to
understand the perceptions of full-time supervisors who may see patterns over
time of which a seasonal, or mid-to-lower-level employee would not be aware.
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at McMurdo Station.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompt] Do they socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. What do you do on a regular basis to set the tone for behavioral
expectations of your employees?
• [Prompt] How do your employees know how you expect them to act?
• [Prompt] What do you do to support your employees and ensure they are
operating in a positive work environment?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
-169-
Needs Assessment
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at McMurdo
Station?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an
environment on the ice where sexual assault or harassment is more likely
to happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
McMurdo Station.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompts] What would stop yourself or another bystander from
intervening? What about your entry-level or low-level employees?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you or someone else might intervene
directly? For example, call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell
someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If someone doesn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who
could they delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in
intervening? For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or
group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at McMurdo Station? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
-170-
Needs Assessment
2. Can you describe the process at McMurdo Station to report sexual harassment
or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at McMurdo Station?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at McMurdo Station for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at McMurdo?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
6. If two people needed to be separated at McMurdo Station, is that possible or
realistic during the Summer? Winter?
7. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
Grantees at McMurdo Station
Demographics: A mix of USAP grantees who deployed to McMurdo – minimum
stay of one month. Includes any private citizen deploying under an NSF grant or
any individual deploying as part of a partner agency’s scientific endeavor. Includes
NASA and NOAA and individuals contracted by a grantee or institution. Focus on
graduate and undergraduate students.
Purpose: For those deployed to McMurdo Station as part of a grant from an
institution of higher education, the working relationships and connection to other
groups (i.e., contractor or military) at McMurdo can be different. This focus group
will capture the perceptions of graduate and undergraduate students working on
-171-
Needs Assessment
these grants, including the power dynamics on and off the ice that could influence
behavior.
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at McMurdo Station.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people tend to get to know each other while they’re at work?
• [Prompt] Do they socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work?
How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at McMurdo?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompts] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at McMurdo
Station?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
-172-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an
environment on the ice where sexual assault or harassment is more likely
to happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
McMurdo Station.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, your PI, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of
friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at McMurdo Station? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at McMurdo Station would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Would you anticipate reporting to your institution and staff at
McMurdo?
-173-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at McMurdo Station?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at McMurdo Station for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. Have you been trained by your institution on their policy regarding preventing
sexual harassment and sexual violence?
6. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at McMurdo Station?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
7. If two people needed to be separated at McMurdo Station, is that possible or
realistic during the Summer? Winter?
8. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
USAP Participants at Near Field Sites
Demographics: A mix of USAP participants who work at near field sites such as
the Dry Valleys, LDB, etc. Work within a helo-ride of McMurdo. Includes ASC
(prime and subs), grantees, and federal employees. Includes graduate and
undergraduate students.
Purpose: Like other stations, near field research sites bring their own safety and
employment concerns. Near field research sites within a helo-ride of McMurdo
Station are both logistically and culturally different from any station (i.e., very
small group, inability to physically distance from other employees). It is important
to collect information from the unique environments of near field research sites.
-174-
Needs Assessment
Prevention Questions:
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at the near field sites you have worked on.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work
hours? How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at near field sites?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompt] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at near field
sites?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
-175-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere
at the South Pole where sexual assault or harassment is more likely to
happen.
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
near field sites.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to talk
about another task.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at a near field site? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at a near field site would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what the logistics would be of making a report
off the site?
• [Prompt] Would you anticipate reporting to your institution and staff at
McMurdo?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
-176-
Needs Assessment
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at a near field site?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at the near field site for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. Have you been trained by your institution on their policy regarding preventing
sexual harassment and sexual violence?
6. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at a near field site?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
7. If two people needed to be separated at a near field site, is that possible or
realistic?
8. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
USAP Participants at Deep Field Sites
Demographics: A mix of USAP participants who work at deep field sites such as
Thwaits. Work within a plane-ride or traverse from McMurdo Station or South
Pole Station. Includes ASC (prime and subs), grantees, and federal employees.
Includes graduate and undergraduate students.
Purpose: Like other stations, deep field research sites bring their own safety and
employment concerns. Deep field research sites are both logistically and culturally
different from any station (i.e., inability to get out quickly, inability to physically
distance from other employees). It is important to collect information from the
unique environments of deep field research sites.
Prevention Questions:
-177-
Needs Assessment
Let’s start by talking about the culture on the ice and your work environments.
1. Tell me a little bit about the culture at the deep field sites you have worked on.
• [Prompt] How do people communicate with each other formally or for
work?
• [Prompts] How often do you meet with your team? Who is present? How
long are the meetings? What topics are covered, in general?
• [Prompt] What about informally or socially?
• [Prompt] Do people socialize or keep it professional?
• [Prompts] Do people tend to spend time with each other outside of work
hours? How do they socialize? What do they do?
2. We know that people often behave in certain ways based on the people
around them. Who is most influential in setting informal norms of day-to-day
interactions at deep field sites?
• [Prompt] For example, is it the supervisors, those who have been around
longest, specific personality types, people with certain jobs, etc.?
• [Prompt] Who sets the tone in terms of behavioral expectations? How do
they set the tone?
• [Prompt] How do people express themselves or endorse issues they care
about (e.g., social media, t-shirts, or other swag, etc.)?
Now let’s talk about concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault and
harassment.
3. What kind of training do you receive about sexual assault or harassment?
• [Prompt] When do you receive it?
• [Prompt] Is the training helpful? Why or why not?
4. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening at deep field
sites?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere
at deep field sites where sexual assault or harassment is more likely to
happen.
-178-
Needs Assessment
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen at
deep field sites.
5. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to talk
about another task.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at a deep field site? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at a deep field site would report sexual
harassment or sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what the logistics would be of making a report
off the site?
• [Prompt] Would you anticipate reporting to your institution and staff at
McMurdo?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at a deep field site?
-179-
Needs Assessment
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available at the deep field site for
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. Have you been trained by your institution on their policy regarding preventing
sexual harassment and sexual violence?
6. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at a deep field site?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
7. If two people needed to be separated at a deep field site, is that possible or
realistic?
8. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
-180-
Needs Assessment
Focus Group 13: Ice Allies
Demographics: USAP participants who identify as a member of the Ice Allies
group, who formed to hold leadership accountable to on-ice sexual harassment,
sexual assault, and other sexually discriminatory behaviors.
Purpose: USAP participants have created a grassroots group to address their
concerns regarding sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other sexually
discriminatory behaviors they have witnessed, or been a victim of, while on-ice.
This focus group would capture the perceptions of participants regarding
concerning behaviors on-ice and potential changes to systems and training that
could better address sexual misconduct within this community.
Prevention Questions:
1. Tell my why you decided to join the Ice Allies group.
• [Prompt] What prompted the formation of the group?
• [Prompt] Have you seen any success or changes because of the group? If
yes, describe them.
2. What do you think NSF/ASC Contract companies should be doing differently to
ensure that sexual assault and harassment are prevented and addressed on
the ice?
• [Prompt] What needs to happen to ensure safety of all USAP participants?
• [Prompt] What kind of training would help? When?
• [Prompt] Who would be the best messengers/instructors for that type of
training? Why?
3. What kinds of concerning behaviors relating to sexual assault or harassment
have you witnessed, heard about, or worry about happening on the ice?
• [Prompt] What concerning interactions have you seen between individuals?
• [Prompt] What are subtle behaviors you’ve seen or heard about that make
you uncomfortable, but do not violate a policy?
• [Prompt] Please describe circumstances that you feel create an
environment on the ice where sexual assault or harassment is more likely
to happen.
• [Prompt] What groups of individuals tend to experience sexual assault or
harassment more often than others? Why or why not?
-181-
Needs Assessment
• [Prompt] What groups of individuals cause harm like sexual assault or
harassment more often than others? Why or why not?
Finally, let’s talk about how others respond when concerning behaviors happen
on the ice.
4. How do bystanders respond when they see concerning behaviors relating to
sexual assault and harassment?
• [Prompt] Do bystanders intervene? Why or why not?
• [Prompt] What would stop yourself or another bystander from intervening?
• [Prompt] What circumstances make it more difficult to intervene as a
bystander?
• [Prompt] Describe any bystander interventions that you have done or seen
others do.
• [Prompt] What are ways that you might intervene directly? For example,
call someone out, check in with a friend, or tell someone to stop.
• [Prompt] If you didn’t feel comfortable intervening yourself, who could you
delegate to that might have more authority or confidence in intervening?
For example, your PI, a supervisor, manager, co-worker, friend, or group of
friends.
• [Prompt] What are ways you might distract or de-escalate a situation as a
bystander? For example, you could distract by changing the subject, asking
for help on a task, or by pulling someone away from a situation to grab
coffee.
Response Questions:
1. Are there circumstances that you feel create an atmosphere where sexual
assault does or is likely to happen at McMurdo? (Provide Polar Code of
Conduct definition for sexual assault and sexual harassment.)
2. Are you aware of how anyone at McMurdo would report sexual harassment or
sexual assault?
• [Prompt] Can you describe what you think that process is?
• [Prompt] Are there different reporting procedures for sexual harassment
versus sexual assault?
-182-
Needs Assessment
3. Do you feel there are any challenges or barriers you have seen, heard of, or
expect might occur when someone alleges sexual harassment or sexual assault
at McMurdo?
4. Are you aware of any reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault? As a
reminder, please do not use any names or identifying information.
• [Prompt] If so, based on what you know, what are your feelings about the
response to that report? As a reminder, please do not use any names or
identifying information.
• [Prompt] Are you aware of any resources available on the ice for victims of
sexual assault or sexual harassment?
• [Prompt] Do you believe leadership at your organization takes these reports
seriously?
5. To what extent do you think alcohol plays a role in any sexual harassment or
sexual assault that occurs at McMurdo?
• [Prompt] Do you think alcohol use should be regulated or monitored more
than it is currently?
6. If two people needed to be separated at McMurdo, is that possible or realistic
during the Summer? Winter?
7. Are there steps you feel could be taken to better respond to sexual
harassment and sexual assault?
-183-
Needs Assessment
Appendix D: USAP Participant Survey
Introduction
You are being invited to respond to a survey as a part of a needs assessment for
the National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and for the
United States Antarctic Program (USAP) Sexual Assault Harassment Prevention
Training and Response (SAHPR) program. The purpose of the needs assessment is
to learn more about current conditions relating to sexual assault and harassment
on the ice and identify feasible recommendations that will support OPP in
developing a successful, comprehensive approach to prevent and respond to
sexual assault and harassment.
We are holding several focus groups and administering surveys as a part of this
needs assessment with many USAP participants. We will not be asking you to
provide any identifying information. Your participation in this survey is voluntary.
Please feel free to skip questions you cannot or do not wish to answer. You may
skip any questions and quit at any time. If you wish to participate in this survey,
please click “Next” to proceed. If you do not wish to participate, you can exit the
survey platform now.
The survey will take 10 to 15 minutes to complete. We appreciate your time and
valuable input. This study is authorized by law (42 U.S.C. 1862 Section 3.a.6.). The
OMB control number for this study is 3415-0260.
Definitions
Before you start, we want to share some definitions so that there is a shared
understanding of what we’re talking about.
For this survey, USAP participants and community members are defined as all
persons working or visiting at a USAP or an NSF managed Antarctic station, field
camp, other facility, ship, or aircraft enroute. This includes, but is not limited to,
researchers, students, contractors, federal civilian, and military personnel.
Sexual assault is defined as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of
force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or
cannot consent.
Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
-184-
Needs Assessment
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Summer 2019
Winter 2019
Summer 2018
Winter 2018
Summer 2017
Winter 2017
2016 or before
33. What is your age?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Prefer not to answer
34. Do you currently describe yourself as male, female, or transgender?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Male
Female
Transgender
Prefer not to answer
Other, please specify:
35. Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Lesbian or gay
Straight, that is not lesbian or gay
Bisexual
Prefer not to answer
Other, please specify:
36. What is your race/ethnic background? (Check all that apply.)
Black or African American
White
Hispanic/Latino/a/x
Asian
Pacific Islander
Native American/American Indian/First Nations/Indigenous
-192-
Needs Assessment
Middle Eastern/North African
Prefer not to answer
Other, please specify:
37. Of the following levels of education, please tell us the highest level you have
completed:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Secondary (completed high school)
Some post-secondary/college/trade school
Completed trade school/associate degree
Completed college/Bachelor’s Degree
Some graduate school
Completed graduate school/Master’s Degree/Ph.D. or equivalent
Prefer not to answer
38. Finally, what is your annual income?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Under $15,000
Between $15,000 and $29,999
Between $30,000 and $49,999
Between $50,000 and $74,999
Between $75,000 and $99,999
Between $100,000 and $150,000
Over $150,000
Prefer not to answer
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Along with others, your
responses will be used to inform a comprehensive approach to address and
prevent sexual assault and harassment for all USAP participants.
-193-
Needs Assessment
Appendix F: Polar Code of Conduct
-196-
Needs Assessment
-197-
Needs Assessment
-198-
Needs Assessment
Appendix G:
PAE – Antarctic Support Contract
End of Season Employee Performance
Feedback Form
-199-
Needs Assessment
-200-
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
United States Antarctic Program (USAP)
Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention
and Response (SAHPR)
Volume Two:
Implementation Plan
-201-
Implementation Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................203
Introduction...........................................................................................................223
SAHPR Implementation Plan By Phase ..................................................................226
Phase One: Pre-Implementation Engagement..................................................226
Phase Two: Early Implementation Capacity Building ........................................236
Phase Three: Safety, Victim Support, and Leadership Education .....................243
Phase Four: Comprehensive Training ...............................................................251
Phase Five: Strengthen Policies and Procedures, Data Collection, and
Transparency .....................................................................................................263
Phase Six: Sustainability ....................................................................................273
-202-
Implementation Plan
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the SAHPR Implementation Plan is to provide specific, measurable,
achievable, and realistic steps to develop a Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention
and Response (SAHPR) program for the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). 53
SAHPR Implementation Plan Structure
The SAHPR Implementation Plan is an integrated, comprehensive approach to
building an effective SAHPR Program for the USAP. Response and prevention
goals, objectives, and tasks are integrated throughout the plan. In some cases, the
goal includes both response and prevention objectives and tasks, in other cases
only one. Distinctions are highlighted throughout.
The plan is organized with goals, objectives, and corresponding tasks. It also
includes limited, high-level examples of resources required for each objective,
designees responsible for completing each task, and indicators of success. The
examples are intended to provide enough basic information about capacity
requirements to inform next steps.
Ultimately, the pace of implementation will be determined by the priorities,
resources, and capacity of NSF. As such, it is assumed that the more detailed
elements of execution that include specific due dates and timelines, designees
responsible for each task, a comprehensive list of necessary resources, and
finalized indicators that will be used to measure progress, will be completed after
final decisions of next steps have been made.
Summary of Goals, Objectives, and Tasks
The SAHPR Implementation Plan is organized into six phases sequenced in order
of priority. While the plan is linear, depending on capacity and resources, work in
multiple phases can be happening simultaneously.
• Phase One: Pre-Implementation Engagement
• Phase Two: Early Implementation Capacity Building
• Phase Three: Safety, Victim Support, and Leadership Education
53
Per SAHPR Implementation Plan Requirements 2.4 and 2.5 of the Statement of Work – National
Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs, Federal Consulting Group Interagency Agreement
Number: 12125.
-203-
Implementation Plan
• Phase Four: Comprehensive Training
• Phase Five: Strengthen Policies and Procedures, Data Collection, and
Transparency
• Phase Six: Sustainability
The summary of the SAHPR Implementation Plan below includes all goals,
objectives, and tasks, but does not include expository narrative, resources,
assigned designees to each task, or indicators. Each of those elements are
included in the full narrative. It is recommended that the entirety of the SAHPR
Implementation Plan is overseen by NSF. Recommended collaborations with other
groups and individuals are noted throughout. Any task that requires expertise
specific to prevention or response should be completed in partnership with an
appropriate subject matter expert. Additional expertise may be required for
specific tasks depending on existing capacity with the NSF.
Phase One: Pre-Implementation Engagement
Goal
1. Effectively communicate SAHPR-related information prior to and in the early
stages of rolling out the Implementation Plan.
Objective
1.1. Develop an Interim SAHPR Communication Plan to be used prior to
implementation. The plan will be narrow in scope and will focus on the
window of time prior to formal rollout of the SAHPR Implementation Plan to
avoid early missteps or miscommunication.
Tasks
1.1.1. Engage decision makers and key stakeholders who will provide input into
the development of key messages, goals, etc. for the Interim SAHPR
Communication Plan. The Plan should address, in part, existing negative
perceptions of SAHPR efforts clearly delineated in the Needs Assessment
Report.
1.1.2. Gather input from a small cross-section of employees to inform and shape
the Interim SAHPR Communication Plan. Input should include (but not be
limited to) what they would like to be addressed early on and potential
pitfalls. This will be very limited in scope and is not a replacement for
-204-
Implementation Plan
opportunities to give input into broader efforts outlined elsewhere in the
SAHPR Implementation Plan.
1.1.3. Develop an Interim SAHPR Communication Plan that includes elements
such as talking points, framing, key language, etc.
1.1.4. Create materials to support Interim SAHPR Communication Plan (e.g.,
PowerPoint deck, information sheets, briefing scripts, etc.). Final materials
depend on the plan.
Objective
1.2. Develop a training to educate leadership and others who will serve as
spokespeople for initial SAHPR-related efforts (e.g., sharing Needs
Assessment Report findings, the SAHPR Implementation Plan, next steps,
etc.). The training will be interim and will target the information most
important for leadership/spokespeople to understand prior to the launch of
the Implementation Plan. It will not replace more comprehensive training
described in phases three and four of the Implementation Plan.
Tasks
1.2.1. Solicit input from high-level decision makers regarding desired outcomes
of the launch of the Implementation Plan, key messages to be included,
etc.
1.2.2. Identify those who will be involved in initial SAHPR-related
communication, the roles they will play, and the sequence with which they
should be trained. This information will inform content development,
tailoring, and attendees.
1.2.3. Develop the interim training to include key fundamentals of prevention
and response, findings of the Needs Assessment Report, and their role in
implementing the Interim SAHPR Communication Plan. Length to be
determined based on participant availability.
1.2.4. Develop a brief post-training survey to evaluate the outcomes of the
leadership/spokespeople training.
1.2.5. Schedule the leadership/spokespeople training. Delivery method to be
decided with NSF guidance. An onsite option is highly recommended.
1.2.6. Review post-training surveys to determine if additional steps are necessary
to ensure all spokespeople are sufficiently equipped.
Objective
1.3. Develop and distribute a climate survey to the USAP community.
Disseminating a climate survey early in the implementation process ensures
-205-
Implementation Plan
accurate baseline data that will allow NSF to monitor progress, course
correct efforts, and objectively demonstrate successes.
Tasks
1.3.1. Identify personnel across sectors with relevant expertise pertaining to
climate surveys.
1.3.2. Create a climate survey that includes, but is not limited to, questions
pertaining to incidence and prevalence of sexual misconduct, community
member perceptions, and effectiveness of SAHPR efforts.
1.3.3. Identify and/or develop survey distribution methods to achieve target
response rates across demographics, roles, and locations.
1.3.4. Compile and analyze data and develop recommendations for next steps.
1.3.5. Publicize findings, outcomes, and recommendations for improvement to
promote transparency and accountability within the USAP community.
Goal
2. Engage the USAP community in the planning process for implementation.
Note: The sequence, rollout, and structure of the forums included in Objectives
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 should be determined based on capacity, resources, access to
participants, etc. While each forum is topic-specific, there may be a need to
combine or reconfigure content.
Objective
2.1. Conduct a series of Listening Sessions focused on the SAHPR-related
experiences of USAP deploying participants. The sessions should be
attended by senior leadership and decision makers and will serve as an
opportunity for them to listen, acknowledge, and share their commitment
to continuing efforts to address areas of response and prevention that could
be strengthened.
Tasks
2.1.1. Develop overall structure of sessions (e.g., number to be held, who should
attend, etc.).
2.1.2. Identify the leaders who should attend the Listening Sessions based on
their role, their authority to make change, and the perceived importance
of their attendance by USAP deploying participants.
2.1.3. Engage outside facilitators with sexual misconduct subject matter
expertise to collaborate with NSF in designing and facilitating the sessions.
-206-
Implementation Plan
2.1.4. Develop a detailed outline of the content and structure of the Listening
Sessions.
2.1.5. Develop a brief training for leadership to equip them to effectively cofacilitate the Listening Sessions.
2.1.6. Deliver the training to leadership.
2.1.7. Develop and execute a strategy to engage participants, prioritizing
marginalized groups and those with least power and influence.
2.1.8. Develop a brief post-survey to ascertain both participant and leadership
perceptions of the Listening Sessions.
2.1.9. Identify opportunities to use post-survey input to guide and improve next
steps.
2.1.10. Conduct Listening Sessions both in-person and virtually.
2.1.11. Identify alternative means for the USAP deploying participants to share
experiences with leadership for those who would prefer not to attend a
Listening Session in person.
Objective
2.2. Conduct a series of Informational Sessions focused on sharing findings from
the Needs Assessment Report and next steps. Informational Sessions should
be co-facilitated by an appropriate NSF representative and an external
subject matter expert (ideally a member of the team that conducted the
needs assessment who can be on hand to answer questions about the data,
analysis, findings, etc.).
Tasks
2.2.1. Develop overall structure of sessions (e.g., number to be held, who should
attend, etc.).
2.2.2. Develop and frame the content of the sessions.
2.2.3. Develop corresponding outlines, talking points, PPT slides, and/or
information sheets as necessary.
2.2.4. Develop a brief post-session survey to ascertain participant perceptions of
the Informational Sessions.
2.2.5. Identify and invite specific groups who should be briefed on the findings
based on their role or investment in SAHPR-related efforts (e.g., the NSF
SAHPR Team, employees who participated in the needs assessment, those
who have been vocal with their concerns, those who have been a
significant part of working for change, etc.). Some portions of content
should be added or expanded for specific groups as appropriate.
2.2.6. Develop and execute a strategy to engage participants from the general
population.
-207-
Implementation Plan
2.2.7. Develop and conduct a brief training for NSF representatives who will be
co-facilitating the Informational Sessions.
2.2.8. Conduct Informational Sessions both in-person and virtually.
2.2.9. Identify opportunities to use post-survey input to guide and improve next
steps.
Objective
2.3. Conduct a series of Collaborative Sessions to meaningfully engage the USAP
deploying participants in the planning and development process. NSF may
introduce new SAHPR efforts (e.g., policies, resources, programs) and, if
appropriate, ask for community feedback. While soliciting input is vital to
rebuilding trust and building buy-in, it is important to discern between
components of deliverables that must be developed by subject matter
experts and components that can be shaped by the input, experiences, and
feelings of those who have been or will be impacted by the final SAHPR
Implementation Plan.
Tasks
2.3.1. Develop overall structure of sessions (e.g., number to be held, who should
attend, whether sessions will be topic-specific or general, etc.).
2.3.2. Develop and frame the content and process for the Collaborative Sessions.
2.3.3. Identify deliverables from the Implementation Plan that should be
informed by the USAP deploying participants and included for discussion in
the sessions.
2.3.4. Develop corresponding outlines, talking points, PPT slides, and/or
information sheets as necessary.
2.3.5. Develop a brief post-survey to ascertain participant perceptions of the
Collaborative Sessions.
2.3.6. Develop and execute a strategy to engage any interested participants
and/or specific stakeholders to attend. Some Collaborative Sessions may
be topic-specific and of particular interest to certain individuals or groups.
2.3.7. Facilitate sessions in-person and virtually.
2.3.8. Identify opportunities to use post-survey input to guide and improve next
steps.
2.3.9. Identify alternative means for members of the USAP community to provide
input into the planning and development process.
-208-
Implementation Plan
Phase Two: Early Implementation Capacity Building
Goal
3. Build necessary capacity to begin implementation.
Objective
3.1. Establish a Collaborative Action Team (CAT). The CAT should serve as a
multi-jurisdictional consultive group to help coordinate and support SAHPR
implementation efforts, advise NSF as appropriate, and strengthen
communication between partners.
Tasks
3.1.1. NSF work with USAP partners to develop a framework for the CAT (e.g.,
membership, functions, scope, authority, limitations, etc.).
3.1.2. Create a committee structure for the CAT to incorporate greater numbers
of USAP community members.
3.1.3. Develop a required training for anyone who serves on the CAT.
3.1.4. Develop supporting materials as necessary.
3.1.5. Develop brief post-training survey to evaluate outcomes of the training.
3.1.6. Conduct training.
3.1.7. Review post-training surveys to determine if additional steps are necessary
to ensure training is effective.
Objective
3.2. Finalize the SAHPR Implementation Plan. Though the goals, objectives, and
tasks will have been completed and prioritized, specific timelines and
responsible parties will need to be determined based on NSF capacity and
resources. It is recommended that NSF references input from the
Collaborative Sessions and solicits input from the CAT as the plan is finalized.
Tasks
3.2.1. Specify necessary resources to support each task or deliverable including
personnel time, external subject matter experts, money, and other
infrastructure/capacity needs.
3.2.2. Allocate resources based on priorities identified by subject matter experts,
optimal timing for maximum impact, input from stakeholders, and NSF
leadership priorities.
3.2.3. Identify responsible parties for each task and deliverable, to include
internal personnel and external subject matter experts as appropriate.
-209-
Implementation Plan
3.2.4. Determine specific timeline and due dates.
Objective
3.3. Determine and resource staffing needs for effective implementation. While
internal expertise is being hired and/or developed, immediate staffing needs
will rely heavily on contracted external subject matter experts.
Note: Completing a long-term staffing plan is not necessary to move to Phase
Three of the Implementation Plan. However, if new positions will ultimately be
created, moving forward with hiring and training early in the process will help
ensure adequate staffing exists and is sufficiently trained for timely execution of
the Implementation Plan.
Tasks
3.3.1. Based on existing resources identify: (1) which response and prevention
tasks will be resourced from recommendations included in the
Implementation Plan, and (2) the sequence and timetable within which
they will be implemented.
3.3.2. Determine: (1) total hours necessary to execute tasks recommended by
subject matter experts and prioritized by NSF, (2) existing internal capacity
to implement those tasks, (3) tasks requiring external subject matter
experts, and (4) total hours that need to be funded in the near-term and
ongoing.
3.3.3. Determine internal full-time equivalents (FTEs) NSF will resource. After
completion of time-limited tasks, a minimum of 1 FTE is recommended for
response-related responsibilities, and a minimum of .25 FTE is
recommended for prevention responsibilities.
Note: The creation of an Ombudsperson is highly recommended to execute
response-related functions. Details in Phase Three.
3.3.4. Determine how to best distribute the FTEs to meet the needs of the USAP
community most effectively and complete the ongoing tasks adopted from
the Implementation Plan (e.g., hiring new staff, re-allocating dedicated
time of existing staff, engaging subject matter experts, etc.).
3.3.5. Depending on final staffing decisions: (1) Develop a transition plan to
ensure internal staff are adequately trained by subject matter experts to
effectively execute ongoing tasks, and (2) Develop position description(s)
for staffing, including duties, qualifications, and performance evaluation
metrics.
-210-
Implementation Plan
3.3.6. When staffing decisions are made, begin the hiring and training process as
soon as possible to ensure personnel are in place in sufficient time to
execute the Implementation Plan and sustain SAHPR efforts.
Goal
4. The USAP community will have positive perceptions of SAHPR efforts,
resulting in increased receptivity, buy-in and participation in improving both
response and prevention efforts.
Objective
4.1. Replace negative perceptions of SAHPR efforts with positive ones.
Tasks
4.1.1. Identify existing negative perceptions of SAHPR prevention efforts and
their causes.
4.1.2. Identify opportunities to shift negative perceptions within training,
materials, booster activities, formal and informal interactions, etc.
4.1.3. Develop and implement a plan of action to replace negative perceptions of
SAHPR prevention efforts with positive.
4.1.4. Develop an evaluation plan to assess effectiveness of efforts to create
positive perceptions of SAHPR prevention efforts. Evaluation elements
may be integrated into the existing evaluation tools used for training (e.g.,
adding items to post-training surveys that assess for perceptions, etc.).
4.1.5. Establish a process to analyze and apply outcomes to revisions and next
steps.
Phase Three: Safety, Victim Support, and Leadership Education
Goal
5. Increase safety and victim support.
Objective
5.1. Create resources for victims to access information and support that is
unaffiliated with a specific entity on the ice (e.g., contractor, subcontractor,
grantee, etc.).
Tasks
5.1.1. Establish a confidential Ombudsperson position.
-211-
Implementation Plan
5.1.2. Develop a job description, requirements and credentials, oversight
mechanisms, roles, and responsibilities, etc.
5.1.3. Recruit, hire, and train Ombudsperson.
Objective
5.2. Promote safety of grantees and other field personnel.
Tasks
5.2.1. Solicit input from field personnel regarding what structural changes would
help to meet their reporting and support needs. Where appropriate,
consider input gathered from Collaborative Sessions.
5.2.2. Establish and require a minimum number of NSF-owned, contractor
managed SAT phones (e.g., two or more) be available at each site as part
of the application and funding process.
5.2.3. Require a plan to address victim safety in the field as well as en route to
and from the camps and stations.
5.2.4. Require each field camp, with a to-be-determined minimum number of
occupants, to have at least two individuals designated to receive reports of
sexual harassment or assault.
5.2.5. Provide training and support to principal investigators and others
designated to receive reports of sexual misconduct on trauma-informed
responses, the neurobiology of trauma, and their reporting obligations.
Goal
6. Leadership will provide substantive oversight, support, and accountability for
SAHPR-related efforts.
Objective
6.1. Develop and implement SAHPR training for leadership.
Tasks
6.1.1. Solicit military input to provide military-specific information and context
that should be included in leadership training.
6.1.2. Solicit input from stakeholders as appropriate to inform training
development.
6.1.3. Incorporate input from Collaborative Sessions as appropriate.
6.1.4. Develop foundational SAHPR content to be included in leadership training
(e.g., effective oversight and accountability, hiring, understanding, and
applying evaluation/assessment findings, etc.).
-212-
Implementation Plan
6.1.5. Develop response-focused content to be included in leadership training
(e.g., identifying prohibited behaviors in the workplace, conflict resolution,
trauma-informed responses to disclosures, etc.).
6.1.6. Develop prevention-focused content to be included in leadership training
(e.g., selecting prevention training programs, creating healthy climates,
reinforcing prevention behaviors in employees, etc.).
6.1.7. Tailor the training for different groups of leaders (e.g., senior NSF
leadership, onsite supervisors, etc.), creating multiple versions that align
with each group’s level, role, sector, functions, and responsibilities.
6.1.8. Develop an action plan for providing leadership training to include
minimum training requirements, frequency, modes of delivery, etc.
6.1.9. Implement training.
6.1.10. Ensure training is delivered in a manner that: (1) engages participants, and
(2) effectively builds knowledge and skills. See Phase Four, goal three for
details.
Objective
6.2. Provide resources to support leadership in their role in SAHPR efforts.
Tasks
6.2.1. Develop a Prevention Toolkit to support leadership in effectively executing
their roles within the SAHPR Implementation Plan.
6.2.2. Establish an easily accessible distribution for the Prevention Toolkit.
6.2.3. Develop a mechanism to keep resources within the Prevention Toolkit
current.
Objective
6.3. Ensure effectiveness of leadership training and Prevention Toolkit.
Tasks
6.3.1. Develop a brief post-training survey to ascertain knowledge, skills, and
participant perceptions of the leadership training.
6.3.2. Develop a method to collect feedback from leadership regarding the
usefulness of the Prevention Toolkit.
6.3.3. Identify opportunities to use post-training survey data and leadership
feedback to improve training and tools.
-213-
Implementation Plan
Phase Four: Comprehensive Training
Goal
7. USAP deploying participants are aware of their legal rights, reporting options,
supportive resources available, and policies delineating unacceptable
behavior regarding sexual misconduct.
Note: As changes are made to policies and procedures, training and materials will
need to be updated and the USAP community reeducated.
Objective
7.1. Develop effective response-focused training and materials.
Tasks
7.1.1. Review existing response-focused content currently included in training,
programs, activities, and materials to ascertain alignment with research
and best practice, accuracy, and the inclusion of the most up-to-date
information.
7.1.2. Solicit military input on materials and training content to be delivered to
civilian audiences regarding sexual misconduct committed by service
members, reporting options, victims’ confidentiality rights and options,
and how to access services.
7.1.3. Develop and/or update training content and informational materials to
ensure they are trauma-informed, include contact information, reporting
options and the corresponding levels of confidentiality or lack thereof,
step-by-step guidance and procedural information of what the reporting
and investigation processes entail, and how to seek services. Materials
should also communicate that sexual assault and sexual harassment are
not tolerated.
7.1.4. Develop marketing materials to reinforce key response-focused knowledge
and skills taught in training. Examples could include posters, Public Service
Announcement (PSA) videos, supervisor-specific handouts for dealing with
disclosures, and flowcharts of reporting options or complaint process.
7.1.5. Tailor all response-focused materials, including training content and
supplemental activities, for the USAP context generally, and specific
subgroups as appropriate (e.g., first time employees, grantees, etc.).
7.1.6. Develop a dissemination strategy that ensures every USAP community
member is exposed. Solicit input from USAP community members
including what was gathered from Collaboration Sessions.
-214-
Implementation Plan
7.1.7. Provide training.
Objective
7.2. Create community based “Know Your Rights” resources for USAP.
Tasks
7.2.1. Develop content that informs participants with information about
protections available to varying sectors. Content should include general
rights from Title VII, Title IX, the Polar Code of Conduct, the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) and policies detailed within their employee
handbooks.
7.2.2. Develop companion materials (e.g., pamphlets, flow charts, safety
planning tips) that can be disseminated in print and online to accompany
the trainings.
7.2.3. One to two times per season, offer all community members voluntary, inperson, Know Your Rights educational sessions on the ice.
7.2.4. Develop a live question and answer follow-up session and offer it to those
who attend the trainings remotely.
7.2.5. Resend companion materials periodically as a refresher.
Goal
8. USAP deploying participants are equipped to engage in behaviors that
contribute to a workplace and community climate that is free from sexual
harassment and sexual assault.
Objective
8.1. Develop and implement effective prevention-focused training, programs,
activities, and materials.
Tasks
8.1.1. Review existing prevention training, programs, activities, and materials to
ascertain alignment with best practice.
8.1.2. Develop, revise, and/or select prevention training to be delivered to all
employees and contractors of the USAP community. Where appropriate,
consider input gathered from Collaborative Sessions. Training should be
informed by current research and aligned with best practice.
8.1.3. Develop a series of trainings for USAP participants who are deployed more
than one year, with each training reinforcing and building on the previous
year.
-215-
Implementation Plan
8.1.4. Develop or select supplemental (booster) activities, programs, campaigns,
and events that reinforce key prevention skills taught in annual training
workshops and provide additional opportunities to participate in
prevention efforts in formal and informal contexts.
8.1.5. Tailor all prevention materials, including training content and
supplemental activities, for the USAP context generally, and specific
subgroups as appropriate.
8.1.6. Develop and tailor scenarios that resonate with participants by ensuring
they are relevant, reflect specific on-ice situations, and incorporate the
language, values, and context of each group of participants.
8.1.7. Implement training and supporting activities.
Goal
9. Maximize impact of all SAHPR training.
Objective
9.1. Ensure those designated to provide SAHPR-related training are equipped to
deliver it in a manner that: (1) engages participants, (2) effectively builds
knowledge and skills, and (3) increases positive perceptions of overall SAHPR
efforts.
Tasks
9.1.1. Develop supporting materials necessary to recruit, screen, hire, and train a
qualified person to deliver SAHPR training (e.g., minimum qualifications,
job description, evaluation criteria, experience, etc.).
9.1.2. Solicit input from stakeholders, consider input from Collaborative Sessions,
and reference data included in the Needs Assessment Report regarding
identifying and engaging potential trainers.
9.1.3. Identify and engage trainer or trainers. As indicated in Phase Two, 3.3, this
position may be an external contractor, a newly hired position, or an
existing position with time reallocated for prevention.
9.1.4. Train personnel who will be delivering SAHPR training.
9.1.5. Ensure training evaluations include items that assess participant
perceptions of quality of delivery, facilitation skills of presenter, and level
of engagement.
9.1.6. Develop a plan for oversight, accountability, and monitoring of SAHPR
training, including systematically reviewing evaluations.
9.1.7. Conduct annual performance evaluations of prevention staff member(s), in
relation to prevention program outcomes. Make necessary changes to
personnel, assigned duties, and support mechanisms based on findings.
-216-
Implementation Plan
Objective
9.2. Develop and implement an annual SAHPR Training Plan.
Tasks
9.2.1. Determine the structure of response- and prevention-focused training,
including when training both response and prevention content is
combined and when it is offered independently.
9.2.2. Review response and prevention training content, supplemental materials,
and booster activities to ensure they are mutually reinforcing and
consistent when there is appropriate overlap of concepts and language.
9.2.3. Determine a training sequence that maximizes impact and most efficiently
leads to community-wide changes in work climate (e.g., train leadership
first, followed by highly respected staff, followed by permanent staff, etc.).
9.2.4. Develop booster activities that support behavioral goals and reinforce skills
taught in training.
9.2.5. Determine requirements for training frequency, attendance, and length.
9.2.6. Determine processes for oversight, monitoring, and accountability that
requirements are met annually.
Objective
9.3. Increase the impact of SAHPR training by reviewing and updating to ensure
materials, training, and requirements are current and align with best
practice.
Tasks
9.3.1. Increase the frequency trainings, offering them at both orientations
(summer and winter) and repeating them while on-ice, allowing for
smaller, in-person discussions and interactive exercises.
9.3.2. Clearly define the purpose and intended outcomes for each training (e.g.,
to increase knowledge, develop skills, have opportunities to apply those
skills, etc.).
9.3.3. Ensure training is applied, actionable, skill-based, interactive, and includes
opportunities to practice and model target behaviors.
9.3.4. Require all deployers and service members to attend trainings to be
permitted on the ice.
9.3.5. When appropriate, have designated support people present during and
after trainings are conducted to provide information about accessing
support.
-217-
Implementation Plan
9.3.6. Require personnel who are training and/or developing training content to
stay up to date on research and emerging best practices and update
content accordingly.
9.3.7. Develop a process for systematically updating response-focused training
content and materials to reflect policy changes related to sexual
misconduct, prohibited behaviors, and additional reporting options.
Objective
9.4. Evaluate and improve SAHPR training and materials.
Tasks
9.4.1. Assess current evaluation capacity (e.g., existing data collection sources,
dedicated staff time, access to data-analysis software, staff capabilities,
etc.).
9.4.2. Within the constraints of available capacity, develop an evaluation plan for
prioritized components of the annual SAHPR Training Plan that can be
realistically implemented and utilized.
9.4.3. Ensure the evaluation plan includes a safe process for gathering candid
input from marginalized groups and/or groups with the least power and
influence and sustaining open and ongoing communication.
9.4.4. Implement evaluation plan.
9.4.5. Analyze findings and utilize results to make improvements.
9.4.6. Establish requirements for reporting findings to leadership and other key
stakeholders and communicating findings to the USAP community.
Phase Five: Strengthen Policies and Procedures, Data Collection, and
Transparency
Goal
10. Improve safety of USAP deploying participants leveraging existing vehicles.
Objective
10.1. Within the constraints of federal and regulatory requirements, strengthen
foundational agreements to provide additional safety and accountability on
the ice.
Tasks
10.1.1. Establish and/or strengthen contractual requirements for ASC partners to
provide information, training, and safety modifications to address sexual
-218-
Implementation Plan
misconduct of their employees and to communicate incidence and
outcomes to NSF.
10.1.2. Establish additional special conditions under grantee awards to provide
information, training, and safety modifications to address and report to
NSF sexual misconduct of their employees.
10.1.3. Engage subject matter experts to evaluate recommended contractual
terms and special conditions for compliance with existing requirements
and guidelines.
10.1.4. Submit recommended additions to contractual terms and special
conditions that are consistent with federal and regulatory requirements to
NSF contracting and legal departments for approval.
10.1.5. Develop a process to ensure updates are made to all relevant training and
materials when changes are made to existing policies.
Goal
11. Promote transparency and increase communication between the USAP
community and leadership.
Objective
11.1. Consistently distribute a climate survey to the USAP community.
Tasks
11.1.1. Informed by NSF capacity, access to USAP community members, and best
practice, determine the frequency of conducting climate surveys.
11.1.2. Develop processes and procedures delineating who is responsible,
methods of dissemination, and monitoring and improving processes as
necessary to maximize participation.
11.1.3. Compile and analyze data and develop recommendations for next steps.
11.1.4. Publicize findings, outcomes, and recommendations for improvement to
promote transparency and accountability.
Objective
11.2. Develop and disseminate an Annual Report.
Tasks
11.2.1. Create guidelines for the creation and dissemination of an Annual Report
including who is charged with collecting and compiling required
information, who is responsible for oversight, timeline, etc.
-219-
Implementation Plan
11.2.2. Create an Annual Report template that prompts for annual data regarding
number of formal complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and
stalking received and the non-identifying outcomes of those complaints.
11.2.3. Develop a process for disseminating the report, including creating a link to
the report, distributing an electronic option, and/or printed options for
relevant stakeholders.
11.2.4. Develop and implement a strategy to communicate how to access the
report.
Objective
11.3. Develop and implement a SAHPR Communication Plan that will increase the
understanding of and investment in the SAHPR Prevention strategy by the
USAP community.
Tasks
11.3.1. Develop communication objectives (e.g., target audiences, key messages,
intended outcomes, etc.). The SAHPR Communication Plan should be
utilized, in part, to shift existing negative perceptions of SAHPR efforts.
11.3.2. Determine methods of communication.
11.3.3. Create tools to provide formal leadership, and informal leaders who have
credibility and the respect of their peers, information and support they
need to effectively implement the plan within their sphere of influence.
11.3.4. Provide training to ensure communication coming from leaders is
consistent, effectively delivered, responsive to the current climate, and
aligned with the goals of the SAHPR Communication Plan.
11.3.5. Implement the SAHPR Communication Plan.
11.3.6. Develop processes to determine responsibility, oversight, and
accountability for the effective development and implementation of a
SAHPR Communication Plan.
11.3.7. Develop and implement an evaluation of the SAHPR Communication Plan,
including a mechanism to use findings to inform improvements.
Objective
11.4. Expand existing opportunities for USAP community members to provide
feedback to organizational leadership.
Tasks
11.4.1. Review utilization of existing feedback options, including the intranet
anonymous safety reporting system and comment cards available at
multiple locations.
-220-
Implementation Plan
11.4.2. Solicit input from USAP deploying participants regarding utilization (or lack
thereof) of existing options and possible replacement or supplemental
options. Where appropriate, consider input gathered from the
Collaborative Sessions.
11.4.3. Develop and execute new feedback mechanisms, ideally to include, at
least one physical suggestion box per base and an online portal that allows
for de-identified submissions directly to NSF.
11.4.4. Designate responsible parties to collect, curate and respond to comments
submitted and communicate systematically to NSF.
Objective
11.5. Improve the breadth and quality of information collected regarding
employee performance.
Tasks
11.5.1. Conduct evaluations that include peer and subordinate feedback.
11.5.2. Revise the evaluation forms and processes to facilitate the collection of
relevant feedback and information.
11.5.3. Require regular and periodic “360” evaluations for personnel.
11.5.4. Create a sample evaluation form to be used as a model that includes
questions and criteria specific to sexual harassment.
11.5.5. Include in the evaluation form a question that must be answered by the
supervisor as to whether the individual is eligible for rehire based on
established performance criteria.
Goal:
12. Strengthen the ability of the Polar Code of Conduct Review Board to assess
patterns, gaps, and successes within the USAP regarding sexual misconduct.
Objective
12.1. Consider a multi-jurisdictional approach to Polar Code of Conduct Review
for sexual misconduct reports.
Tasks
12.1.1. Solicit input regarding the Polar Code of Conduct Review Board structure
for sexual misconduct reports. Where appropriate, consider input
gathered from Collaborative Sessions.
12.1.2. Working with a subject matter expert as appropriate, NSF determine,
implement, and/or oversee changes.
-221-
Implementation Plan
Phase Six: Sustainability
Goal
13. Ensure stability and sustainability of SAHPR efforts.
Objective
13.1. Institutionalize key components of the SAHPR Implementation Plan.
Tasks
13.1.1. Incorporate critical responsibilities into job descriptions.
13.1.2. Create permanent positions to support response and prevention
initiatives.
13.1.3. Identify and/or create permanent funding streams for necessary
personnel, materials, evaluation, and other costs.
13.1.4. Develop new policies or revise existing policies to address minimum
training requirements.
13.1.5. Incorporate SAHPR-related requirements into existing vehicles (e.g.,
contracts, grant awards, etc.).
13.1.6. Write into policies, procedures, handbooks, job descriptions, evaluation
forms (and any other documents that inform the roles and responsibilities
of individuals and organizations): (1) Requirements for oversight and
monitoring of SAHPR efforts, (2) Methods of accountability and
remediation should be included, (3) Minimum requirements for evaluation
and reporting of outcomes, (4) Minimum requirements for responserelated infrastructure (e.g., reporting mechanisms, victim resources, etc.),
(5) Minimum elements to be included in an annual strategic plan, and (6)
Requirements for reviewing and updating training, materials, and policies.
-222-
Implementation Plan
Introduction
A Comprehensive Approach
The SAHPR program objectives (Table 1, Volume One) highlight elements relevant
to both prevention and response. To create a workplace and community that
fosters a climate free from sexual assault and harassment within such a
challenging environment requires a comprehensive and tailored approach that
effectively responds to and prevents sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Though response and prevention are distinct concepts, when they are effectively
integrated into a comprehensive approach, they can increase safety and wellbeing for all USAP participants.
Prevention Framework
As outlined in the Volume One: Needs
Assessment Report, prevention
activities and tasks represent researchinformed prevention components:
Infrastructure, Engagement, Education,
and Leadership Support. Each activity
will address existing gaps, leverage
current assets, and progress the USAP
toward best practices in prevention.
Response Framework
It is well-recognized that a trauma-informed approach is critical to providing
appropriate survivor-centered services. As the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) notes in their Concept of Trauma and
Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach (July 2014) (accessed online at:
https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/userfiles/files/SAMHSA Trauma.pdf), “the pervasive
and harmful impact of traumatic events on individuals, families and communities
and the re-traumatizing effect of many of our public institutions and services
-223-
Implementation Plan
systems makes it necessary to rethink doing “business as usual.” SAMSHA further
explains,
In a trauma-informed approach, all people at all levels of the organization
or system have a basic realization about trauma and understand how
trauma can affect families, groups, organizations, and communities as
well as individuals. People’s experience and behavior are understood in
the context of coping strategies designed to survive adversity and
overwhelming circumstances, whether these occurred in the past (i.e., a
client dealing with prior child abuse), whether they are currently
manifesting (i.e., a staff member living with domestic violence in the
home), or whether they are related to the emotional distress that results
in hearing about the firsthand experiences of another (i.e., secondary
traumatic stress experienced by a direct care professional).
***
[T]here is a realization that trauma is not confined to the behavioral health
specialty service sector, but is integral to other systems (e.g., child welfare,
criminal justice, primary health care, peer–run and community
organizations) and is often a barrier to effective outcomes in those systems
as well.
A “trauma-informed” approach is rooted in an understanding of the neurobiology
of trauma, and how trauma impacts memory and behaviors. It recognizes the
physiological and psychological effects of the experience on both the individual
survivor and the larger community. “Trauma-informed responses” are grounded
in and reflect the understanding that, “[i]ndividual trauma results from an event,
series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as
physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse
effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or
spiritual well-being.” Id. at 7.
It is axiomatic that trauma-informed approaches are survivor-centered. They
place the survivor’s needs at the center of the assessment and allow them to
direct the strategies to be employed. They are informed and determined by the
wishes and needs of the individual who experienced the harm, and not by the
community as a whole or the institution’s needs. For example, while a prosecutor
or a community may want to see an assailant prosecuted and incarcerated for
their crimes, a survivor may determine that they are safer if the offending
individual is not criminally charged. Or a survivor may want an assailant to avoid
jail or prison time and instead maintain their employment and be required to
-224-
Implementation Plan
provide support and other financial compensation. Creating opportunities for the
person who caused harm to engage the survivor (and, sometimes, other
community members) in a restorative justice process54 is also an example of a
survivor-led, trauma-informed response.
These values and principles inform and provide the foundation for our
recommendations to responding to sexual assault and harassment within the
USAP. For ease of access, the recommendations set forth below are organized
into three distinct sectors: Engagement, Infrastructure, and Education. These
distinctions are somewhat fluid, however. There is both cross-over and alignment
between response efforts.
54
A restorative justice is a process where parties with a stake resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath
of the offense and its implications for the future. While restorative justice processes are not currently an option
through USAP, there may be opportunities to use restorative justice practices to encourage community
accountability and healing.
-225-
Implementation Plan
Implementation Plan by Phase
Note: It is recommended that the entirety of the SAHPR Implementation Plan is
overseen by NSF. Recommended collaborations with other groups and individuals
are noted throughout. Any task that requires expertise specific to prevention or
response should be completed in partnership with an appropriate subject matter
expert. Additional expertise may be required for specific tasks depending on
existing capacity with the NSF.
Phase One: Pre-Implementation Engagement
Goal
1. Effectively communicate SAHPR-related information prior to and in the early
stages of rolling out the Implementation Plan.
Objective
1.1. Develop an Interim SAHPR Communication Plan to be used prior to
implementation. The plan will be narrow in scope and will focus on the
window of time prior to formal rollout of the SAHPR Implementation Plan to
avoid early missteps or miscommunication.
Tasks
1.1.1. Engage decision makers and key stakeholders who will provide input into
the development of key messages, goals, etc. for the Interim SAHPR
Communication Plan. The Plan should address, in part, existing negative
perceptions of SAHPR efforts clearly delineated in the Needs Assessment
Report.
1.1.2. Gather input from a small cross-section of employees to inform and shape
the Interim SAHPR Communication Plan. Input should include (but not be
limited to) what they would like to be addressed early on and potential
pitfalls. This will be very limited in scope and is not a replacement for
opportunities to give input into broader efforts outlined elsewhere in the
Implementation Plan.
1.1.3. Develop an Interim SAHPR Communication Plan that includes elements
such as talking points, framing, key language, etc.
1.1.4. Create materials to support Interim SAHPR Communication Plan (e.g.,
PowerPoint deck, information sheets, briefing scripts, etc.). Final materials
depend on the plan.
PHASE ONE
-226-
Implementation Plan
Resources: Leadership and stakeholder time, access to cross-section of
employees, funding for subject matter experts and materials
Responsibility: NSF supported by subject matter experts
Indicator(s) of Success:
• Completion of Interim SAHPR Communication Plan and supporting
materials
• Interim Communication Plan effectively and accurately communicates key
messages that resonate with the USAP community
Objective
1.2. Develop a training to educate leadership and others who will serve as
spokespeople for initial SAHPR-related efforts (e.g., sharing Needs
Assessment Report findings, the SAHPR Implementation Plan, next steps,
etc.). The training will be interim and will target the information most
important for leadership/spokespeople to understand prior to the launch of
the Implementation Plan. It will not replace more comprehensive training
described in phases three and four of the Implementation Plan.
Tasks
1.2.1. Solicit input from high-level decision makers regarding desired outcomes
of the launch of the SAHPR Implementation Plan, key messages to be
included, etc.
1.2.2. Identify those who will be involved in initial SAHPR-related
communication, the roles they will play, and the sequence with which they
should be trained. This information will inform content development,
tailoring, and attendees.
1.2.3. Develop the interim training to include key fundamentals of prevention
and response, findings of the Needs Assessment Report, and their role in
implementing the Interim SAHPR Communication Plan. Length to be
determined based on participant availability.
1.2.4. Develop a brief post-training survey to evaluate the outcomes of the
leadership/spokespeople training.
1.2.5. Schedule the leadership/spokespeople training. Delivery method to be
decided with NSF guidance. An onsite option is highly recommended.
1.2.6. Review post-training surveys to determine if additional steps are necessary
to ensure all spokespeople are sufficiently equipped.
PHASE ONE
-227-
Implementation Plan
• A representative cross-section of community members from sectors and
locations participates
• Increase in knowledge among USAP deploying participants regarding the
NAR and next steps
• Increased trust of leadership and HR
• Increase in positive perceptions of SAHPR efforts
Objective
2.3. Conduct a series of Collaborative Sessions to meaningfully engage the USAP
deploying participants in the planning and development process. NSF may
introduce new SAHPR efforts (e.g., policies, resources, programs) and, if
appropriate, ask for community feedback. While soliciting input is vital to
rebuilding trust and building buy-in, it is important to discern between
components of deliverables that must be developed by subject matter
experts and components that can be shaped by the input, experiences, and
feelings of those who have been or will be impacted by the final SAHPR
Implementation Plan.
Tasks
2.3.1. Develop overall structure of sessions (e.g., number to be held, who should
attend, whether sessions will be topic-specific or general, etc.).
2.3.2. Develop and frame the content and process for the Collaborative Sessions.
2.3.3. Identify deliverables from the Implementation Plan that should be
informed by the USAP deploying participants and included for discussion in
the sessions.
2.3.4. Develop corresponding outlines, talking points, PPT slides, and/or
information sheets as necessary.
2.3.5. Develop a brief post-survey to ascertain participant perceptions of the
Collaborative Sessions.
2.3.6. Develop and execute a strategy to engage any interested participants
and/or specific stakeholders to attend. Some Collaborative Sessions may
be topic-specific and of particular interest to certain individuals or groups.
2.3.7. Facilitate sessions in-person and virtually.
2.3.8. Identify opportunities to use post-survey input to guide and improve next
steps.
2.3.9. Identify alternative means for members of the USAP community to provide
input into the planning and development process.
PHASE ONE
-234-
Implementation Plan
Resources: Leadership time, participant time, funding for subject matter
experts, materials, and surveys
Responsibility: NSF with support of subject matter experts
Indicator(s) of Success:
• Target participation rate is achieved (in sessions and evaluation)
• A representative cross-section of community members from sectors and
locations participates
• Meaningful input is collected and documented
• Increased trust of leadership and HR
• Increase in positive perceptions of SAHPR efforts
• Increased engagement in SAHPR activities by the USAP community
members
PHASE ONE
-235-
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2023-11-30 |
| File Created | 2023-11-30 |