Assignment Prompt & Instructions
Create a rough draft
– ## WhitePaperoutline.docx
– ## WhitePaperRubricFY25.pdf
**## WhitePaperoutline.docx**
1
## 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
**## WhitePaperRubricFY25.pdf**
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
javascript:associationListToggle( );
**## WhitePaperRubricFY25.pdf**
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
javascript:associationListToggle( );
**## WhitePaperoutline.docx**
1
## 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
**## WhitePaperRubricFY25.pdf**
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
javascript:associationListToggle( );
**## WhitePaperoutline.docx**
1
## 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
**## WhitePaperRubricFY25.pdf**
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
javascript:associationListToggle( );
– 1
– 2