Executive Summary

Survey Purpose

This Equal Opportunity Survey (EOS) is the first of its kind. No survey of this magnitude and level of detail has ever been undertaken to assess active duty service members’ perceptions of fair treatment and equal opportunity (EO). The survey results will inform and assist leaders of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Armed Forces as they work to ensure equal opportunity for all service members.

Over the past half-century, the Department of Defense has compiled a record of achievement in providing equal opportunity that is among the best in the nation. It is a record that must be improved continuously. This Equal Opportunity Survey is an element of the Department’s continued commitment to equality of treatment and opportunity for all service members. In the future, the task of providing equal opportunity will present new challenges as both American society and its military become increasingly diverse. Instruments such as this survey will help provide the information needed to better understand the state of equal opportunity, as well as assist in policy choices to achieve and maintain equal opportunity, throughout America’s Armed Forces.

The EOS was conducted by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) from September 1996 through February 1997. The 16-page survey form contains 81 questions, many with multiple parts (a copy is provided as Appendix A). The target population comprised enlisted members and officers up to the rank of O-6 (Navy and Coast Guard Captain or Colonel in the other Services) in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard. The questionnaire was mailed to 76,754 members. The mailing resulted in a 53% rate of usable responses, which is typical for large-scale surveys of military personnel.

The target population was selected by a random sampling method that took into account the complexity of a population that not only comprised different racial/ethnic groups, but was also differentiated by rank, Service, gender, and geographic location. Surveys of this type are subject to sampling error. A single estimate of sampling error for the entire questionnaire is not applicable to a survey of this complexity. Thus, except for the executive summary, confidence intervals are offered for individual findings throughout the report.

The racial/ethnic groups surveyed were Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives. Because of the small size of the latter group, survey results for Native Americans/Alaskan Natives are subject to the largest potential sampling error and have the widest confidence intervals.

The survey was developed for the purpose of providing a better understanding of service members’ perceptions and experiences related to fair treatment and equal opportunity. The questionnaire asked service members about their overall racial/ethnic interactions, as well as about specific insensitive, discriminatory, harassing and even violent racial/ethnic interactions that had occurred in the 12-month period prior to filling out the survey. The survey also contained items on members’ perceptions of official EO actions (e.g., satisfaction with the outcome of the complaint, actions taken in response to the complaint).

Overall, the survey found major differences in the perceptions of service members of different racial/ethnic groups regarding equal opportunity. In particular, White members, who comprise the majority population in the military, are more positive than minority members about racial/ethnic issues in the military.

Race Relations. The survey contained a broad range of items that measured members’ perceptions and actions related to race relations. In general, race relations on military installations/ships are perceived to be better than those in local civilian communities. Also, when asked about race relations over the past five years, more service members indicated that race relations in the military were better today than said so about race relations in the nation.

Interpersonal Relationships. Large majorities of members of all races indicated having positive personal and social interactions with members of other racial and ethnic groups. Large majorities reported having "close personal friends" who were members of other racial or ethnic groups, and also reported socializing with other races and ethnic groups in their homes or quarters.

Perceptions of Military-Civilian Conditions and Opportunities. A majority of all racial/ethnic groups said military life was as good or better than civilian life in areas such as fair performance evaluations, freedom from harassment and hate crimes, and freedom from discrimination. A majority of all races/ethnicities said pay and benefits in civilian life were as good or better than in the military.

Members’ Experiences. Large percentages of each racial/ethnic group indicated experiencing Offensive Encounters (e.g., "Made unwelcome attempts to draw you into an offensive discussion of racial/ethnic matters") based on their race/ethnicity. Much smaller percentages experienced an incident in which Threat/Harm (e.g., "Vandalized your property because of your race/ethnicity") to person or property was involved.

Military Personnel Lifecycle. Overall, relatively small percentages of members in each racial/ethnic group said they experienced an incident of harassment and discrimination related to the military personnel lifecycle (e.g., "I was rated lower than I deserved on my last evaluation"). Blacks and Hispanics, however, were much more likely than Whites to experience such incidents.

Reporting Experiences. A majority of members reported receiving training on racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination in the 12 months prior to being surveyed and most indicated they knew how to report racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination. On a section of the survey where service members could describe a "bothersome" situation, however, few indicated they had reported the situation to an individual or office in either the military or local community. Major reasons for not reporting the situation were beliefs that (1) nothing would be done and (2) the situation was not important enough to report.

Chapter 1 provides background on the study and a literature review of previous DoD equal opportunity initiatives and major research efforts. Chapter 2 provides a short description of the survey design, administration, and analytic approaches. Detailed results of the survey are reported and discussed in Chapters 3 through 8. General results for these six chapters follow.

This chapter examines a broad range of perceptions and actions regarding race relations at the installation/ship level and in the communities surrounding installations. Specifically covered are the extent and nature of service members’ racial/ethnic personal interactions, including racial confrontations and extremism activities and perceptions of race relations in the military and nation as a whole.

• On the important question of racial/ethnic relations on military installations and aboard ship, members were asked if relations were good, and could respond not at all, small extent, moderate extent, large extent, very large extent, or don’t know. Only very small percentages of all races indicated that they believed installation/ship race relations were bad by marking not at all. Significant racial differences appeared with Whites most likely and Blacks least likely to say that race relations were good to a large/very large extent.

• Members of all races were less positive about race relations in local communities than on installations/ships. Fewer Black members (28%) than Whites and Hispanics (34% for both) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (42%) responded that community race relations were good to a large/very large extent. Also, 31% of Native Americans/Alaskan Natives responded in this manner.

• Overall, more members said that race relations in the military are better today (46%) than race relations in the nation (30%). Blacks and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives were less likely than other racial/ethnic group members to say that race relations are better today.

• Large majorities of all members indicated they were comfortable with members of other racial/ethnic groups. Also, large majorities indicated they felt no peer pressure to avoid socializing with members of other racial/ethnic groups.

• Large majorities of all racial/ethnic groups reported having "close personal friends" among other groups and similar majorities reported socializing with members of other groups in their homes or quarters. Most members indicated that they had close personal friendships (84%) or socialized (85%) with people of other races, and most felt competent (71%) and at ease (69%) interacting with people of other races. Over half (52%) indicated that they had more friends of another race now than they did before entering the military.

• Almost all members (95%) indicated they did not know anyone who belonged to an extremist organization. Relatively few members indicated large/very large problems with such organizations and their activities either on the installation/ship (2% to 3%) or in the community (6%). Fifteen percent to 18% indicated that these concerns were small/moderate problems on installations/ships, and about 24% to 27% responded likewise about the community.

• Members were asked if they had tried to avoid a military assignment because they thought they might be subjected to racial/ethnic harassment or discrimination in a command or installation/ship. Members could respond yes or no. Responses ranged from 1% of Whites to 7% of Blacks who said they tried to avoid an assignment because they might be subject to racial/ethnic discrimination or harassment in a command or installation/ship. When asked if they had attempted to avoid an assignment for fear of racial discrimination or harassment in the surrounding community, yes responses ranged from 2% for Whites to 11% for Blacks.

This chapter examines members’ views on whether they or their families had experiences ranging from being subjected to insensitive language to physical assault because of their race/ethnicity. About two thirds of members reported an incident of some kind involving a DoD member (either military, civilian, or contractor). There were differences in the type of incident members were likely to have experienced. More members said they had experiences of Offensive Encounters than said they had experiences of Threat/Harm from another member of DoD.

Members Experiencing Offensive Encounters and/or
Threat/Harm Involving Another DoD Member

• Similarly, almost two thirds of members indicated experiencing incidents involving civilians in the local community. Again, there were differences in the type of incident members experienced. More members indicated experiencing Offensive Encounters than Threat/Harm community incidents.

Members Experiencing Offensive Encounters and/or Threat/Harm
Involving a Local Civilian

• On the survey, incidents related to the military personnel lifecycle were assessed in four categories: Assignment/Career, Evaluation, Punishment, and Training/Test Scores. There were racial/ethnic group differences in members’ perceptions that an aspect of their current Assignment/Career had been hampered (e.g., "My current assignment has not made use of my job skills") because of race/ethnicity. Whites were less likely than minority racial/ethnic group members to report this.

Members Experiencing a Military Personnel Lifecycle Incident
Because of Their Race/Ethnicity

• Eight percent of members indicated they believed they experienced an Evaluation incident (e.g., "I was rated lower than I deserved on my last evaluation") because of race/ethnicity. Blacks (19%) were more likely than Whites (4%), Native Americans/Alaskan Natives (8%), and Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders (13%, for both) to indicate experiencing at least one Evaluation incident.
  

• Fewer members (4% or less, overall) said that their race/ethnicity was the basis for some Punishment they received (e.g., "I was taken to nonjudicial punishment or court martial when I should not have been") or for an incident related to Training/Test Scores (e.g., "I was not able to attend a major school needed for my specialty").
  
• Member/Family Incident represents whether members or their families had experienced insensitive behavior, harassment, inadequate support services, fear, or other incidents because of their race/ethnicity. There were racial/ethnic group differences in the percentage of members who said they/their families had a Member/Family Incident. In each group, more members said they experienced a Member/Family Services incident (e.g., "I or my family did not get appropriate medical care") than Member/Family Fears (e.g., "I was afraid for me or my family to go off the installation because of gang activity").

• The likelihood of experiencing some types of incidents varied by paygrade category and Service. For most racial/ethnic groups, the percentage of members experiencing an incident decreased as paygrade increased. Among Black members, however, the percentages for officers tended to be similar to those for enlisted personnel. Using Offensive Encounters with other DoD members as an example, among Blacks, 77% of E1-E-4, 73% of E5-E-9, and 71% of officers indicated having one or more experiences in the last 12 months.
  

Percentage of Paygrade Category and Racial/Ethnic Group
Indicating Offensive Encounters—DoD Incident

• The likelihood of experiencing some types of incidents was also associated with Service. For example, Service was associated with the likelihood that members experienced Offensive Encounters with other DoD members. Service-to-Service comparisons are of interest because they provide relative information in the absence of absolute standards or norms. At the same time, such comparisons are influenced by factors related to the composition of each Service. Two factors that influence the Service-related findings are the Service’s percentage of personnel who are (a) members of minority racial/ethnic groups and (b) enlisted personnel versus officers. Services with proportionately more of its members from minority racial/ethnic groups or with proportionately more enlisted personnel are expected to have higher incidence rates.

• The few gender- and geographic location-related differences that were detected did not appear to be part of a discernible pattern of results.

• Members experiencing any incident of racial/ethnic insensitivity, harassment, or discrimination were asked whether they held DoD or their Service responsible for its prevention. Fifty-two percent of Whites, 67% of Hispanics, 68% of Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives, and 74% of Blacks held DoD or their Service responsible for preventing some or all of the incidents they experienced.

Chapters 5 & 6 – The Most Bothersome Situation-Description, Handling, and Reporting the Experience

In the survey, Service members indicated whether or not they experienced insensitive, harassing, or discriminatory incidents during the preceding 12 months. Members who said they had experienced at least one such incident were then asked to report on the "most bothersome" situation.¹  Subsequent survey questions asked respondents details about that most bothersome situation. Chapter 5 contains findings on the experience (e.g., what happened, where it happened, frequency and duration of the situation, etc.) and Chapter 6 contains results on how the member handled the experience (if it was reported, reasons for not reporting, satisfaction with the complaints process, etc.).

• Relatively small percentages of members of all racial/ethnic groups (7% for Blacks and Hispanics, 10% for Asians/Pacific Islanders, 11% for Whites, and 16% for Native Americans/Alaskan Natives) indicated that their most bothersome situation involved a violent or threatening type of event. Most often, the bothersome situation involved some type of offensive behavior or material such as offensive speech; non-verbal looks, dress, or appearance; or music, pictures, or printed material.

• The situation generally occurred on a U.S. military installation (60%) and during duty hours (48%). In a separate question, 42% said their most bothersome situation occurred mostly in the local community.²
  

• Members were more likely to indicate that they (45%), rather than their families (22%), were the target of the experience.
  

• Forty-seven percent to 57% of racial/ethnic minority group members said the offender was of a higher rank/grade; 37% of Whites said this. Fewer members said the offender was an immediate supervisor: 20%-25% of racial/ethnic minority group members compared to 14% of Whites.
  

• There was a strong propensity not to report the situation to an individual or office in either the military or local community. Among those who responded to this portion of the questionnaire, 79% of Blacks, 85% of Whites and Hispanics, and 86% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, did not report their most bothersome situation.
  
• Two of the major reasons offered for not reporting were that (1) nothing would be done and (2) it was not important enough to report.

• When asked about the organization’s response to their reporting, about half said their complaint was substantiated, nothing was done, and/or that the complaint was discounted.

• There were no significant racial/ethnic differences in the percentage of members who were satisfied/dissatisfied with the complaint process. Overall, among those reporting their most bothersome situation, 18% were satisfied and 52% were dissatisfied with the complaint process. The survey instrument did not contain additional questions asking dissatisfied members to describe further their experiences with the complaint process.

• The survey also asked whether the bothersome situation caused members to lose trust in or have negative feelings about either their co-workers or supervisors. Thirty-four percent of Whites and 45%-56% of racial/ethnic minorities said that the situation caused them to lose trust in or have negative feelings about their co-workers. Thirty-one percent of Whites and 43%-54% of racial/ethnic minorities said they felt this way about their supervisors.

• Thirty-four percent of Whites and 40%-49% of racial/ethnic minority group members indicated that the situation caused them to think about leaving the Service. Over half of members in all racial/ethnic groups said the bothersome situation caused them anger or rage.

• Members who described their most bothersome situation tended to take passive steps to stop or defuse the situation. These steps included ignoring the discriminating or harassing behavior, acting as if the situation was not bothersome, and avoiding the offender.

This chapter examines members’ perceptions of three issues central to a viable EO program: 1) whether proactive leadership was being used for EO, 2) the perceived state of enforcement of EO-related policies and programs, and 3) training programs to combat racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination. Leadership was examined at three levels: immediate supervisor, senior leadership of installation/ship, and senior leadership of the respondent’s Service.

• Majorities of all racial/ethnic groups indicated their immediate supervisor made "honest and reasonable efforts" to stop racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination, although race/ethnicity-based differences were present. Blacks were least likely and Whites were most likely to state that supervisors made such efforts.

• Similar percentages of members in all racial/ethnic groups said that senior leadership at the installation/ship and Service levels made honest and reasonable efforts to reduce racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination. Again, Whites were most likely and Blacks least likely to have indicated that leaders at these levels made honest and reasonable efforts.

• Race/ethnicity-based differences were found when respondents were asked for their perceptions of the thoroughness of investigations into complaints of racial/ethnic discrimination and harassment. Many Service members, however, indicated that they did not know whether investigations were thorough (this information is not generally available to those not involved in the investigation.).

• There were race/ethnicity-based differences in whether members indicated that penalties were enforced against offenders. Large percentages of members indicated that they were not knowledgeable about the enforcement of penalties.

• An effective complaints handling system must ensure that the targets of racial/ethnic harassment or discrimination know the system will protect them if they file a complaint. The perception of members in this area differed across racial/ethnic groups. More Whites (61%) than racial/ethnic minorities (47% to 50%) indicated that to a large/very large extent they could file a report without fear of negative consequences.

• Seventy-seven percent of members indicated they had received EO training during the 12 months prior to the survey. Of those who had received some training, 14% indicated that it was not at all effective in preventing or reducing discriminatory or harassing behaviors. Thirty-three percent indicated that the training was slightly effective; 39% felt it was moderately effective; and 15% believed it was very effective in preventing/reducing these types of behaviors.

• On the question of whether the military had paid the right amount of attention to race relations, Whites were more likely to say that the military had paid too much attention and Blacks were more likely to say the military had paid too little attention.

This chapter presents findings on members’ perceptions of opportunities in the military and their general attitudes toward EO in both the military and the nation overall. It is worth noting that, since this is a first-of-its-kind survey, there are no benchmarks against which to measure EO changes or progress. In place of benchmark data comparisons, members were asked to judge the racial/ethnic environment in the military today against two standards. First, members who had been in the military for at least 5 years were asked to compare opportunities today to those of 5 years ago. Second, all members were asked to compare opportunities/conditions in the military against those available in the civilian sector.

• When asked if opportunities were better today, worse today, or about the same as five years ago, respondents tended to say that opportunities had improved more for others than for members of their own racial/ethnic group. Note that the shaded areas in the tables below highlight members’ responses about opportunities for their own racial/ethnic group.

• Overall, most members said that opportunities/conditions were the same or better in the military than in civilian life. There were three exceptions: most members said that opportunities/conditions were the same or better in civilian life for quality of life, pay and benefits, and chance to show pride in racial/ethnic group.

• Finally, many members viewed their association with their Service positively. Most members (70%) indicated that being in their Service inspired them to do the best job they could; Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders (76% and 75%, respectively) were more likely than Whites and Blacks (69% and 68%, respectively) to respond in this manner. In addition, 81% of Whites, Hispanics, and Asians/Pacific Islanders–compared to 75% of Native Americans/Alaskan Natives and 74% of Blacks–said they were proud to tell others they were members of their Service. Almost two thirds (63%) of members indicated that they were satisfied with their job overall. Over half (52% to 60%) of members in each racial/ethnic group said that if they had to decide, they would choose to remain in the military.

[Top of Page]

¹ Comparing results in Chapter 4 with those in Chapters 5 and 6 is difficult because 25% of those who reported an incident of insensitivity, harassment or discrimination did not respond to the survey questions seeking details about the most bothersome situation.
² Responses to the two questions asking whether the situation occurred mostly on the installation/ship (60%) or mostly in the local community (42%) do not sum to 100% because a respondent could have marked yes (or marked no) to both questions.
³ Question 45 provided respondents with a list of 11 actions and asked respondents to mark all of the actions they took to stop the most bothersome situation.