Assertion: Weak or inconsistent enforcement of SHARP standards by commanders undermines victim trust, suppresses reporting, and weakens prevention; only by tying real consequences to leadership performance can the SHARP mission succeed.

Thesis Statement: Although the SHARP program has made structural and policy gains, true progress in reducing sexual harassment and assault depends on embedding measurable accountability for commanders, through command climate metrics, personnel evaluation systems, and independent oversight, so that those who fail to enforce SHARP standards are held responsible and the command climate improves.

Body
History/Background
Main Idea: Evolution of SHARP, leadership’s role, and past accountability gaps

· Supporting Idea 1: Origins and development of the SHARP (and SAPR) programs across the U.S. military and Army, including policy mandates (e.g. AR 600-52) (Curtis, 2024).

· Supporting Idea 2: The role of command climate assessments and leader responsibility in past reforms (e.g. DoD directives and reviews) (Department of Defense, 2021).

· Supporting Idea 3: Documented challenges and gaps in accountability (e.g. inconsistent inspections, diffuse authority, policy fragmentation)

Problem: Leadership Attitudes and Accountability Gaps

Main Idea: Commanders’ attitudes and lack of consequences hamper SHARP effectiveness

· Supporting Idea 1: How negative or indifferent leader attitudes suppress reporting and erode climate (victim fear of retaliation, mistrust)

· Supporting Idea 2: Inconsistent application of policy and weak inspection/oversight mechanisms (e.g. manual inspections, lack of visibility) (Government Accountability Office, 2022).

· Supporting Idea 3: Disconnects between SHARP policy and other Army or DoD regulations (conflicting authorities, split responsibilities) (Department of Defense, 2021).

Solution: Embedding Accountability for Commanders

Main Idea: Three pillars to tie leadership performance to SHARP outcomes

· Supporting Idea 1: Make command climate and SHARP compliance part of command metrics and performance evaluation (e.g. flagship “SHARP metrics” in evaluations/promotions)

· Supporting Idea 2: Strengthen oversight via independent review or external auditing of units with repeated violations

· Supporting Idea 3: Mandate regular, validated, and transparent command climate assessments with action-plan triggers and higher-headquarters review

Implementation Considerations & Risks (Optional Additional Section)

Main Idea: Addressing obstacles and ensuring effective deployment

· Supporting Idea 1: Training and support for prevention personnel to use data, interpret metrics, and coach leaders (Hazlett et al., 2024).

· Supporting Idea 2: Ensuring policy alignment and simplifying regulatory structure to reduce confusion (resolving overlaps among AR 600-20, 600-37, SHARP directives) (Government Accountability Office, 2022).

· Supporting Idea 3: Mitigating leadership resistance and political/power pushback (e.g. cultural inertia, command prerogative concerns)

Conclusion
· Restate the central thesis:

True progress in preventing sexual harassment and assault across the Army depends on enforcing consistent leadership accountability, where commanders are evaluated and held responsible for SHARP outcomes.

· Summarize key findings:

· The SHARP program’s evolution shows strong policy frameworks but persistent execution gaps.

· Commanders’ attitudes and inconsistent enforcement have eroded victim confidence and suppressed reporting.

· Lack of measurable accountability allows poor command climates to persist without consequence.

· Highlight the proposed solutions:

· Incorporate SHARP compliance and command climate metrics into leadership evaluations and promotion criteria.

· Implement independent oversight for units with repeated SHARP violations to ensure transparency and impartiality.

· Standardize command climate assessments with measurable indicators and follow-up corrective action plans.

· Emphasize the leadership imperative:

Accountability must become a command expectation, not an option, leaders who fail to uphold SHARP standards should face tangible consequences.

· Address long-term outcomes:

Consistent accountability will foster safer environments, improve reporting rates, and rebuild trust between service members and leadership.

· Call to action:

Senior Army leadership, policymakers, and oversight bodies must commit to institutionalizing SHARP accountability reforms and ensuring that leaders model the respect and professionalism expected of every Soldier.

References
Curtis, C. (2024). SHARP program restructuring enhances victim support. Www.army.mil. https://www.army.mil/article/275875/sharp_program_restructuring_enhances_victim_support

Department of Defense. (2021). Department of defense annual report on sexual assault in the military fiscal year 2021 . In https://www.sapr.mil/Portals/156/FY21_Annual_Report.pdf? (pp. 1–29).

Government Accountability Office. (2022). Sexual harassment and assault: The army should take steps to enhance program oversight, evaluate effectiveness, and identify reporting barriers (p. https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/720772.pdf).

Hazlett, A. D., Benzer, J. K., Montejos, K., Pittman, D. L., Creech, S. K., Claborn, K. R., Acosta, J., & Chinman, M. (2024). Organizational Capacity for Sexual Assault Prevention Within a U.S. Army Installation. Military Medicine, 190(1-2). https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae332

We can handle this paper for you

We Guarantee ZERO Plagiarism ZERO AI

Done by Professional writers from scratch