Military | reading | American Public University - Charles Town, WV

Military MikeRobb01Create a rough draft

• 3 months ago
• 30

Ensuring Consistent Leadership Accountability in the SHARP Program Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Professor’s Name Course Name Due Date Title: Ensuring Consistent Leadership Accountability in the SHARP Program 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 White Paper Rubric FY24 The White Paper is assessed within the following areas and weighted as shown below: Introduction; Body Content (history, problem, position, and solution); Organization, Structure, and Transition; Evidence Supporting Discussion Point of View; Grammar, Spelling, and Style; Directly Quoted Material; and Conclusion. Your essay must be in Times New Roman, 12pt font, double spaced, using the current APA style STUDENT PAPER, NO RUNNING HEADS, NO ABSTRACT as found at Purdue OWL. Your paper must be 3 to 5 pages in length not including your title and reference page. It must be in MS Word format. IMPORTANT: IAW MLC Standards, any paper with a SafeAssign Text Matching Score exceeding 24% (not including Title and Reference pages) will be required to be rewritten/resubmitted due to lack of original material or deduct 31% from the Grade Total. "All learner work must be original in nature and properly cited IAW APA standard format" (MLC ISAP). Late work subtract 40 points per day. Levels of Achievement Criteria Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard Far Exceeds Standard

Introduction 10.00 %

Does not convey topic. No introduction of main points. Assertion was unclear.

70.00 %

Conveys topic, but not assertion key question(s). Assertion statement clearly tied to the topic.

80.00 %

Meets Standard plus, clearly presents key questions connected to the assertion. Provides sufficient background information on the topic. Assertion clearly supports an answer to the question(s).

100.00 %

Exceeds Standard plus, explains what is known about the problem. Describes previous attempt(s) to solve it. Assertion describes what will happen if nothing is done. Body Content (history, problem, position, solution)

10.00 %

Description does not show relevance. Does not provide examples. Major points do not support assertion. Description showed little to no analysis.

70.00 %

Description makes the relevance clear. Some examples are vague in application. Major points partially support the assertion. Most of the analysis used research appropriate for the issue.

80.00 %

Meets Standard plus, description provides meaningful data supporting the main idea. Examples directly support the main idea. Major points address implications or consequences. Analysis showed sound reasoning.

100.00 %

Exceeds Standard plus, description contains sufficient detail using predictions from the data. Provides examples relevant to the audience. Major points address some of the key questions from the introduction. Analysis connects evidence to clearly support the issue. Organization, Structure, and Transitions

10.00 %

Did not use headings. Material is

70.00 %

Material mostly organized under

80.00 %

Meets Standard plus, headings

100.00 %

Exceeds Standard plus, headings Name Description

Rubric Detail

Weight 10.00% Weight 20.00% 6/12/25, 10:41 AM 400_1-250-C6_0000_000_02_T MLC Master Template https://train.llc.army.mil/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_2836_1&course_id=_7680_1 1/3 Levels of Achievement Criteria Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard Far Exceeds Standard not organized. No transitions. headings. Most material organized by subtopics. Transitions are mostly evident between paragraphs and headings. provide the general topic of subsequent material. Material organization supports the writer’s topic. Transitions are mostly evident and reader can easily follow the paper's flow. contain the key point of subsequent material. Material organization presents a logical flow of ideas. Transitions are clear and smoothly link paragraphs. Evidence Supporting Discussion Point of View

10.00 %

The paper cited less than three sources. Sources do not support writer’s point of view.

70.00 %

This paper cited three relevant sources. Most sources used explain and support writer’s point of view. Material vaguely related to subtopic, main topic.

80.00 %

The paper Meets Standard plus, some sources are scholarly in nature e.g. doctrine. Material clearly supported the subtopic, main topic.

100.00 %

The paper Exceeds Standard plus, some sources are peer- reviewed research based. Cited at least 1 Army professional journal (branch journals accessed through Line of Departure). Material clearly supported the subtopic, main topic by providing pertinent evidence. Grammar, Spelling, and Style

10.00 %

The paper contains more than four grammatical/spelling errors per page that interfere with meaning. Word choice is not appropriate for topic and audience. Does not follow APA formatting guidelines for layout. Sentences are mostly passive voice.

70.00 %

The paper contains no more than four grammatical/spelling errors per page that interfere with meaning. Word choice is mostly appropriate for topic and audience. Follows current APA formatting guidelines for layout. Sentences are mostly active voice.

80.00 %

The paper contains no more than three grammatical/spelling errors per page interfere with meaning. Meets Standard plus, word choice is formal English. Sentences are mostly clear.

100.00 %

The paper contains no more than two grammatical/spelling errors per page that interfere with meaning. Exceeds Standards plus, used concise and appropriate vocabulary. Sentences are mostly concise/to the point. Directly Quoted Material

10.00 %

25% or more directly quoted material or a SafeAssign Text Matching Score of 25% or more.

70.00 %

24-17% directly quoted material or a SafeAssign Text Matching Score of 24-17%.

80.00 %

16-9% directly quoted material or a SafeAssign Text Matching Score of 16-9%.

100.00 %

8% or less directly quoted material or a SafeAssign Text Matching Score of 8% or less. Weight 10.00% Weight 20.00% Weight 5.00% Weight 25.00% 6/12/25, 10:41 AM 400_1-250-C6_0000_000_02_T MLC Master Template https://train.llc.army.mil/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_2836_1&course_id=_7680_1 2/3 Levels of Achievement Criteria Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard Far Exceeds Standard

Conclusion 10.00 %

No conclusion or does not support the assertion. Conclusion is disconnected from the rest of the paper or introduces new ideas.

70.00 %

Restates the assertion. Does not introduce any new ideas.

80.00 %

The section Meets Standard plus, summarizes the main aspects of the paper. Paraphrases the assertion.

100.00 %

The section Exceeds Standard plus, includes relevant details from subtopics. Reinforces the assertion through concise explanation. Weight 10.00% View Associated Items Print Close Window 6/12/25, 10:41 AM 400_1-250-C6_0000_000_02_T MLC Master Template https://train.llc.army.mil/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_2836_1&course_id=_7680_1 3/3

• basic physics
• Project
• advanced pharmacology
• American History, Civil War Paper
• 2 separate course assignments?
• week3
• Research paper Students will complete an issue/research paper on a topic closely related to public personnel administration. You can choose from one of the following options:
• 200-250 words
• (Data Collection and Analysis
• Benefit Packages in a Global Business Environment