Military

Ensuring Consistent Leadership Accountability in the SHARP Program

SFC Michael W. Robinson

Department of the Army, Fort Bliss

Master Leader Course Class 001-26

MSG Christian Rohde

October 14, 2025

Ensuring Consistent Leadership Accountability Program with SHARP

A major U.S. Army program to promote dignity, respect, and accountability is Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP). Despite decades of policy refinement and structural adjustments, sexual harassment and assault are widespread challenges that damage force confidence. Commander and NCO Corps SHARP enforcement weakens commission confidence, victim reporting, and prevention. Real and quantifiable accountability must be included into SHARP leaders' evaluation processes in order for them to succeed. Without more accountability at every level of leadership, the Army risks quiet and mistrust that affects Soldiers and unit unity. Although the SHARP program has produced meaningful and quantifiable successes, SHARP effectiveness in reducing sexual harassment and assault involves creating NCO accountability. Command climate metrics, staff evaluations, and independent inspection should hold people accountable. Leaders that violate SHARP must face consequences to ensure that all Soldiers, regardless of level, work in a culture that protects victims, creates trust, and increases readiness.

History and Background:

The Department of Defense (DoD) established SHARP to prevent and respond to military sexual harassment and assault. SAPR underpinned Army Regulation (AR) 600-52's SHARP structure (Curtis, 2024). These guidelines emphasized the Army's zero-tolerance policy and comprehensive prevention, response, and reporting. The SHARP mission has always been central to its leaders. A command environment evaluation and leader participation were proposed by the Department of Defense (2021). Assessing previous advances shows leadership accountability issues. The Government Accountability Office (2022) found uneven monitoring, imbalanced inspections, and fragmented authority. Despite SHARP's strong policy, enforcement has been inconsistent, allowing bad circumstances to persist.

Accountability Attitudes and Leadership Problem Gaps

One of the main challenges facing the SHARP program is the variability of leaders' attitudes on sexual harassment and assault prevention. Leaders show commitment in certain directives, but indifference or contemptuousness silences reporting and per se promotes a culture of quiet. Because victims fear retaliation or marginalization, underreporting is common. Military soldiers think leaders who ignore SHARP enforcement may negotiate standards. The oversight is unequal. Blind spots established by manual inspections and inconsistent evaluations allow dangerous climate units to operate unnoticed (Government Accountability Office, 2022). Reporting authority and enforcement are confused by AR 600-20, AR 600-37, and SHARP directives (Department of Defense, 2021). Ambiguous or unenforced regulations allow leaders to evade consequences.

Commanders should not be fully responsible. The “backbone of the Army,” the NCO Corps, enforces SHARP on the ground. Since they work daily with Soldiers, NCOs set the tone for professionalism, intervene early in misconduct, and respect victims. NCOs who do nothing or act unethically aggravate the leadership-induced trust problem. Commanders and NCOs must share SHARP compliance and command environment. Army institutions stagnate without shared responsibility. Military people will lose faith in SHARP, fewer victims will report, and harassment and assault will continue unabated without meaningful consequences for leaders.

Solution: Embedding Accountability for NCO and Commanders

Accountability is required for SHARP change and must be quantifiable, visible, and implemented. First, include SHARP compliance in command and NCO evaluations. Command climate surveys, SHARP case outcomes, and response rates should be quantifiable in performance reviews, promotion boards, and command selection. Leaders with climate concerns or SHARP violations should halt development until corrective actions are implemented.

Second, the Army should independently audit recurrent SHARP violators. Independent review bodies would promote transparency and reduce the pervasiveness of bias or partiality in internal inquiry. Publicly monitoring compliance data may ensure ongoing scrutiny and consequences for leaders. Streamline, verify, and report command climate assessments. Each evaluation should result in an action plan reviewed by higher headquarters to resolve issues, not administrative checklists. Survey data, subordinate advice, and corrective action should be learned by NCOs. All leaders are responsible for SHARP because to shared ownership.

Implementation Considerations and Risks

Implementing these changes requires overcoming practical challenges. First, leaders and prevention must learn to examine data, manage KPIs, and train subordinates per self. Without proper education, well-intentioned changes may become bureaucratic.

Second, policy alignment counts. The Army should combine AR 600-20, AR 600-37, and SHARP standards to avoid overlapping tasks that hinder enforcement (Government Accountability Office, 2022). Top leaders may resist. Supervision may be command loss. Reform should emphasize that accountability builds leadership credibility and unit readiness to prevent this.

Conclusion

Beyond policy, the Army must demonstrate consistent leadership to prevent sexual harassment and assault. Stronger structural frameworks, execution issues, and cultural hostility have impeded SHARP. Commanders and NCOs decide whether Soldiers trust the system or fear reprisal. Real accountability will be encouraged by integrating SHARP compliance and command climate measurements into leaders' evaluations, needing independent inspection, and standardizing assessments. Lack of SHARP compliance by leaders should have significant consequences, demonstrating accountability. By not responding, the Army risks quiet, mistrust, and misconduct that erodes readiness and integrity. Consistent enforcement and shared accountability between commanders and NCOs will improve reporting rates, safer environments, and SHARP mission confidence. Leaders who uphold the values of respect, integrity, and trust inherent in the military must demonstrate their commitment to ending sexual harassment and assault.

 

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