By Kyle D. Popelka
On a characteristically comfortable December day in southern Arizona, commanders and senior enlisted advisors from across Fort Huachuca gathered to discuss risk reduction and combating harmful behaviors within the force. Leaders assembled to exchange insight, strategy, and anecdote towards decreasing the risk of suicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, and other traumatic and corrosive occurrences that detract from readiness and unit cohesion. Though well-intentioned, the results of the two-hour forum were unsurprising.
The discussion on these topics was diverse, unique, and personal. Despite that, the output seemed consistent with previous iterations of similar forums: leader presence. Everyone nods their head and agrees that if leaders can just be more present in the lives of their Soldiers, then maybe fewer Soldiers will engage in harmful behaviors and corrosive activities. There are serious flaws with that line of logic.
“Leader presence” is a nebulous concept with hundreds of different implementation methods, and subjective in how Soldiers evaluate its effectiveness. Ask ten different Army leaders what it means to them, and you are likely to receive ten different answers.
Ultimately, being a present leader is not a strategy to combat harmful behavior, but rather a technique that should be combined with objective data collection, analysis, and implementation. Army leaders worldwide are remaining reactive to devastating incidents when the ability to proactively evaluate data-based risk was available the whole time.
What is my data, and how do I get it?
At most major military installations, Risk Reduction Program or Army Substance Abuse Program offices have access to a Unit Risk Inventory (URI). A URI is a 77-question, scantron-style survey, administered by a proctor in person with any requesting unit. The results are entirely anonymous. Leaders receive a percentage-based feedback sheet that shows the percentage of their surveyed population that responded positively or negatively to a given question. Additionally, the URI lists that percentage against the installation average and the service component average (Regular Army, USAR, or ARNG). Questions in the URI survey include topics relating to suicidal ideations and attempts, sexual harassment and assault, child abuse, intent to reenlist, deployment duration, and financial health, among many other contributors to harmful or corrosive behavior.
For an even deeper understanding of a unit and Soldiers’ risk profile, there is also the Commander’s Risk Reduction Toolkit (CRRT) through US Army Vantage. CRRT pulls from hundreds of different databases, including Army medical, financial, and administrative systems. Leaders can use the data to draw their own conclusions regarding their units’ and individual Soldiers’ risk profile.
Data and risk in action
Bravo Company, 305th Military Intelligence Battalion out of Fort Huachuca, and the US Army Intelligence Center of Excellence graduated around 400 new 35F Intelligence Analysts in FY24. Through using the URI, which is administered at the beginning of the course and just before graduation, Bravo Company discovered that new Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Soldiers are 50% more likely to have experienced suicidal ideations within the last 12 months compared to the rest of the Active Army. That number then drops to almost half the Army average by the end of AIT, when the cadre administer a second URI. The drop potentially indicates effective resilience training by drill sergeant and instructor teams.
URI data collected by Bravo Company noted that 7% of all Soldiers surveyed witnessed an incident of sexual harassment in the past 12 months–triple the Army average–dropping to 4% by the end of the course. This drop may indicate, on average, no new observations of sexual harassment during the Soldiers’ time at AIT. This is good news for any leader.
Bravo Company used CRRT to analyze the assignment and deployment, financial, disciplinary, and profile history of every current and inbound cadre member to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the team collectively. In every instance of non-judicial punishment–and in AIT there are many–Bravo Company was able to dive into CRRT and see if a history of disciplinary action or any mitigating factors existed.
Regardless of what conclusions leaders draw based on URI or CRRT data, the point remains: data is available to leaders who want it.
The URI and CRRT are an easy way for leaders to know their data and how they compare against the rest of their component. Risk reduction aims to prevent incidents, not to hone the best battle drill when incidents occur. To do that, leaders must know their unique and specific data-sets first.
Creating actual strategies
Knowing your numbers is just part of the process of a leader who intends to be in the prevention space. However, if a leader knows their data, they can strategically apply time and resources against URI and CRRT-revealed risk factors to form a strategy to address them.
Below is one example of how to do that:
Say a unit consisting of 100 Soldiers conducts a URI and discovers that 14% of their formation, experienced suicidal ideations within the last 12 months, 3% more than the Army average. Hypothetically, the commander or other authorized leader can then conduct their own analysis and observations of potential proactive actions against suicidal behavior:
- The commander knows they have two (2) command referrals to behavioral health services.
- The commander knows they recently conducted open-door appointments with three (3) Soldiers experiencing hardship.
- Behavioral health services report to the commander they are seeing three (3) unnamed, self-referred patients in the unit.
- The unit Chaplain reports they are regularly seeing one (1) unnamed Soldier in the unit for help with suicidal ideations.
- Unit leaders set up a meeting between the Military Family Life Counselor and one (1) unnamed Soldier.
2 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 10
Potentially, ten Soldiers (or 10% of the unit) are utilizing proactive resources compared to 14% that responded in the URI. Potentially being a keyword, as the leader will not know if the same individuals are using multiple resources, and privacy protections will limit specific details available to unit leaders.
Regardless, that leader now knows that there may be at least a 4% gap within the unit in Soldiers who experienced or are experiencing suicidal ideations and those who are seeking or receiving care for it. Armed with that information, that leader now understands the amount of risk they carry. The unit can creatively and intelligently mitigate against it and resurvey as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of their approach.
The above computations are not perfect methods and not without certain necessary assumptions, but they are paths to tangible strategies informed by unit-specific data. Army leaders should know their unit’s risk assessment data and be more than just present in the face of harmful and corrosive behavior.
Keep the good, move forward with the better
Utilizing URI or CRRT resources on the Army’s dime is not a magic wand to make harmful behavior disappear. Leaders are still, and will always be, responsible for analyzing and implementing risk reduction measures and maintaining high readiness levels.
Being a present leader, however it’s defined, is never a negative trait. Leader presence should be a minimum requirement in any Army position of responsibility. Ultimately, a leader’s presence might even contribute the most to reducing harmful behavior. But being a present leader is, on its own, not a measurable strategy towards the prevention of harmful behavior. The Army integrated enough systems and piloted enough programs to create objective, data-based approaches to combine with present leadership to manage personnel risk. These programs, like the URI and CRRT, remain either unknown or underutilized in leadership circles. Leaders should seek to uncover their data, do the analysis, and step forward from reactive and subjective thought processes and into new, proactive, and objective strategies.
CPT Kyle Popelka is a Military Intelligence officer, 12-year veteran of the US Army, and former commander of Bravo Company, 305th MI BN at Fort Huachuca, AZ. CPT Popelka previously served in positions of responsibility as both an NCO and commissioned officer in USSOCOM, USFORSCOM, and US Army TRADOC including deployments/tours in the EUCOM, PACOM, and CENTCOM AORs.
