Technical Report

National Park Service (NPS) 

Work Environment Survey

January-March 2017

September 29, 2017
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

i © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgments

The Federal Consulting Group and the CFI Group are grateful to numerous people for 

their assistance with and collaboration on the 2017 Work Environment Survey (WES). The 

survey was conducted on behalf of the National Park Service under the leadership of Michael T. 

Reynolds, Acting Director, and Lena McDowall, Deputy Director, Management and 

Administration of the National Park Service. 

The National Park Service employees contributing to the development and administration 

of the survey include: Sangita Chari, Program Manager, Office of Relevancy, Diversity, and 

Inclusion; Tammy Duchesne, Sexual Harassment Prevention and Response Coordinator; Bret 

Meldrum, Chief, Social Science Program; Dr. Bruce Peacock, Chief, Environmental Quality 

Division; and Dr. Gary Machlis, former Science Advisor to the Director.

The Federal Consulting Group, specifically Jessica Reed, Director Federal Consulting 

Group; Rafael Williams, Contracting Office Representative; and former Contracting Office 

Representative, Paulette Owens, provided overall guidance throughout all phases of the study.

The 2017 WES was developed and administered by a team of individuals from the CFI 

Group. This includes Dr. Armando X. Estrada, Principal Investigator; Dr. Paul Cook, Subject 

Matter Expert; and Dr. Fawzi al Nassir, Lead Statistician. Heather Reed served as Program Lead; 

Justin Leopold and Stefanie Morrison, Project Managers; Nanci Banks, Senior Qualitative 

Analyst; and Mary Ensman, Contributor. Also, providing invaluable assistance with the results 

analyses and survey development were Denise Polcyn and Jennifer Waugh, Data Analysts; Carly 

Ahrens and Jeremy Frey, Operations Specialists; and Jeff Aldridge, Reporting Specialist.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

ii © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Executive Summary

This Executive Summary presents key findings from the National Park Service (NPS) 

Work Environment Survey (WES), which was fielded from January 9 to March 5, 2017.1 All key 

findings are fully documented within the main body of this Technical Report and its 

accompanying appendices. Detailed statistical results are documented in a companion 

Supplemental Statistical Report that accompanies this Technical Report. The WES survey was

designed to assess employee attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors on a wide range of topics 

related to the character, context, correlates, and consequences of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors2experienced by employees within the NPS work environment. Specifically, we report 

analyses addressing the following research questions:

• What is the character of harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced?

• What contextual factors influence specific behaviors or sets of experiences?

• What demographic, occupational, and organizational factors were correlated with 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced?

• What job-related consequences were associated with harassing and/or assault behaviors 

experienced?

• What additional findings were uncovered with regard to harassment and/or assault 

experiences?

The survey was sent to all NPS personnel employed as of December 10, 2016, (N = 

18,550) during the period of January 9 to March 5, 2017. Data from 9,395 employees were 

obtained by the end of the survey period, yielding a participation rate of 50.6%. Upon initial 

screening, a total of 9,156 completed questionnaires were available for analysis, yielding an 

adjusted survey response rate of 49.4%. Because not all NPS employees responded to the survey, 

employee population characteristics were obtained from NPS Human Resources to derive 

weights to estimate population parameters for the NPS workforce from the survey data. 

Comparison of the known employee population characteristics to the estimated study population 

characteristics indicated that these data were representative of the NPS population, especially 

with regard to age, sex, racial/ethnic background, disability status, appointment type, and work 

schedule. Accordingly, the results of statistical analyses of these data reflect estimated 

population parameters for the NPS workforce.

 

1 This report does not present findings of a separate study of newly hired employees performed in July through 

September of 2017. Those findings will be documented in a separate report.

2 Each measure of harassment included questions asking respondents to indicate if they experienced a harassing and 

assault behavior based on age, race/ethnicity, religion, disability and sexual orientation. Separate questions were also 

included to assess gender harassment and sexual harassment without asking about assault behaviors pertinent to 

those forms of harassment. A separate set of items were used to assess sexual assault related behaviors. Accordingly, 

the phrase “harassing and/or assault behaviors” is used to denote instances where an employee may have 

experienced a particular form of harassment, an assault behavior pertinent to a specific type of harassment, or a 

particular sexual assault related behavior.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

iii © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

WHAT IS THE CHARACTER OF HARASSING AND/OR ASSAULT BEHAVIORS 

EXPERIENCED?

Analyses revealed that an estimated 38.7% of employees experienced some form of 

harassment and/or assault related behaviors in the 12 months preceding the survey. Specifically:

• 22.9% experienced harassing behaviors based on their age

• 9.5% experienced harassing behaviors based on their racial or ethnic background

• 7.2% experienced harassing behaviors based on their religious beliefs

• 6.9% experienced harassing behaviors based on a perceived or actual disability

• 4.5% experienced harassing behaviors based on their sexual orientation

• 19.3% experienced gender harassment

• 10.4% experienced sexual harassment3

• 0.95% experienced sexual assault related behaviors

To further explore these findings, we examined differences in employees’ experiences by 

various demographic and occupational characteristics. Demographic characteristics included 

variables measuring employees’ age, sex, level of education, racial/ethnic background, and 

relationship status. Occupational characteristics included variables measuring employees’ pay 

grade, tenure in the organization, employment classification, and type of work unit. Results of 

analyses comparing experience rates by demographic and occupational characteristics revealed 

that only certain demographic variables were associated with employees’ experiences. 

Specifically:

• Younger (individuals aged 39 and younger) and older (individuals aged 50 and older) 

employees were more likely to experience higher rates of harassment based on their age 

than their middle-aged counterparts (individuals aged 40-49) 

• Ethnic minority employees were more likely to experience higher rates of harassment 

based on their racial or ethnic background than their non-minority counterparts

• Employees with a documented disability were more likely to experience higher rates of 

harassment based on a perceived or actual disability than their non-disabled counterparts 

• Sexual minority employees (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, other) were more likely 

to experience higher rates of harassment based on their sexual orientation than men or 

their heterosexual counterparts 

• Women and sexual minority employees (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, other) were 

more likely to experience higher rates of gender harassment than men or their 

heterosexual counterparts 

 

3 Meta-analytic results suggest that anywhere between 24%-84% of women report having experienced sexual 

harassment in the U.S. workplace; among private sector organizations these rates range from 24%-58%; and within 

governmental organizations their rates range from 31%-43% (Ilies et al., 2003). Direct comparison involving rates 

of harassment and/or assault behaviors to other studies and organizations must be made with due considerations to 

methodological (e.g., assessment approach – direct vs. indirect assessment of harassing and/or assault behaviors; 

sampling strategies, and weighting procedures used to estimate rates), and contextual/organizational factors (e.g., 

academic, private, military, and government organizations).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

iv © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• Women and sexual minority employees (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, other) were 

more likely to experience higher rates of sexual harassment than men or their 

heterosexual counterparts 

• Single, disabled, and women employees, were more likely to experience higher rates of 

sexual assault related behaviors than their counterparts

None of the other demographic and occupational variables we examined were influential 

in our understanding of employees’ harassment and/or assault experiences. In addition, 

regardless of the specific experience involved, the analyses indicate that in a majority of 

situations employees experienced these behaviors more than one time: 61.6% for those 

experiencing any form of harassment.

WHAT CONTEXTUAL FACTORS INFLUENCED SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS OR SETS

OF EXPERIENCES?

Analyses of contextual factors involving specific behaviors or sets of experiences that 

significantly affected employees’ personal and professional lives were performed with data from 

employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors and responded to follow-up 

questions exploring contextual factors about their specific experiences. Contextual factors 

included variables assessing the primary basis for the specific behavior or set of experiences, as 

well as variables assessing the situational characteristics and circumstances involved in the 

specific harassing and/or assault behavior experienced.

• What was the primary basis for the specific behavior or set of experiences? Among 

employees who experienced any behavior, 19.5% indicated the experience was primarily 

based on their age; 8.0% indicated the experience was primarily based on their racial/

ethnic background; 5.5% indicated the experience was primarily based on their religious 

beliefs; 5.7% indicated the experience was primarily based on their disability status or 

condition; 2.5% indicated the experience was primarily based on their sexual orientation; 

31.1% indicated the experience was primarily based on their sex/gender; and 27.7% 

indicated the experience was primarily based on unknown factors.

• When and where did the specific behavior or set of experiences occur? Regardless of the 

particular behavior involved, for the majority of employees these experiences occurred 

during work hours (74.4%) and at a work location or site (88.5%) that was most 

frequently characterized as an indoor location (68.2%). Also, for the minority of these 

employees these experiences occurred while on travel (5.2%).

• How often and for how long did the specific behavior or set of experiences persist?

Regardless of the particular behavior involved, for the majority of employees these 

experiences occurred more than once (63.0%).

• Who was involved in the specific behavior or set of experiences? Regardless of the 

particular behavior involved, for the majority of employees these experiences often 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

v © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

involved one person (57.3%), who was typically older (43.5%), male (62.8%), and most 

often a peer and/or coworker (53.5%).

• Did their work role require them to continue to interact with the person(s) involved?

Regardless of the particular behavior involved, the majority of employees had to continue 

to interact with the person(s) involved (86.2%).

• Did they discuss the specific behavior or set of experiences with anyone at work?

Regardless of the particular behavior involved, most employees talked to someone at 

work about their experience including coworkers (58.3%), another employee (49.0%), a 

supervisor (36.8%), or a manager (20.7%). Additionally, some employees talked with the 

person involved (37.0%).

• Did they make a complaint/grievance/report4in response to the specific behavior or set 

of experiences? Regardless of the particular behavior involved, just 25.3% of employees 

made a complaint/grievance/report about their experience.

• What NPS resources were used to make a complaint/grievance/report? Regardless of the 

particular behavior involved, for employees who made complaints/grievances/reports, the

most frequently used NPS resource was a supervisor or manager (19.6%). All other 

resources were used less frequently (Employee Assistance Program, Ombudsman,5

CADR Office or CORE PLUS, Employee & Labor Relations, Union, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Counselor, Equal Employment Opportunity Office, Office of the Inspector 

General Hotline, Office of the Inspector General, Other Law Enforcement/Civil 

Authority, Department of Interior Ethics/Bureau Ethics Office, or NPS Law 

Enforcement/Park Police).

• What happened as a result of the complaint/grievance/report? Regardless of the 

particular behavior involved, for employees who made complaints/grievances/reports, 

35.3% indicated that some action was taken. Actions focused on the organization 

involved explaining rules to everyone (34.4%), management conducted a review/

investigation or other assessment (17.5%), and an investigation was conducted by a law 

enforcement official (6.9%). Actions involving the person engaging in the harassing 

behavior included someone talking to the person (32.8%), moving or reassigning this 

person to avoid continuing contact (8.0%), or some official career action was taken 

against person(s) involved (4.9%); and in some situations the person stopped the behavior

(22.0%). Actions associated with the employee subjected to the behavior involved 

changing their station location or duties to help them avoid the person engaging in the 

harassing behaviors (9.6%). Additionally, some employees were encouraged to drop the 

issue (39.8%) or were discouraged from making a complaint/grievance/report (33.4%). 

Other employees indicated that the person engaging in the harassing behavior took action 

against them for complaining (33.6%); their coworker(s) treated them worse, avoided, or 

blamed them for the problem (33.4%); and some employees indicated leadership 

 

4

Individuals were presented with various types of organizational resources by which to make a 

complaint/grievance/report that included both formal and informal types of resources (see Appendix C).

5 Ombudsman was only in existence about 1.5 months before the survey opened.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

vi © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

punished them for bringing the experience up (27.3%) or they were threatened with loss 

of employment (13.5%).6

• What were the reasons for not making a complaint/grievance/report? Regardless of the

particular behavior involved, most employees did not make a complaint/grievance/report 

about their experience (74.7%). Employees’ most frequent reasons for not making a 

complaint/grievance/report involved the perceived seriousness of the behavior (69.9% did 

not consider it serious enough to report), desire to move on or forget about the incident 

(51.2%), skepticism about actions that would be taken (45.9% of employees did not think 

anything would be done), or lack of trust that the process would be fair (33.0%).

• What effect did the specific behavior or set of experiences have on employees’

interpersonal relationships, physical or emotional well-being, job performance, or 

willingness to remain a part of the organization? Regardless of the particular behavior 

involved, for some employees these experiences had a negative impact on them, but for 

many employees it did not. For some employees, these experiences had a negative impact 

on their interpersonal relationships with coworkers, supervisors, or managers (34.8%);

resulted in arguments or damaged interpersonal relations at work (33.1%); and/or 

damaged other personal relationships (11.1%). For some employees, these experiences 

had a negative impact on their physical or emotional well-being leading them to call in 

sick or take leave (18.9%), seek counseling (14.7%), or medical attention (7.9%). For 

some employees, these experiences had a negative impact on their job performance, 

making it harder to complete their work (37.4%), negatively affected their performance 

evaluation or promotion potential (20.3%), or negatively affected their performance 

evaluation/renewal/permanent employment (18.5%). For some employees, these 

experiences negatively affected their willingness to remain a part of the organization,

leading them to request a transfer (6.0%), consider leaving NPS (31.5%), or take steps to 

leave the organization (13.2%).

WHAT DEMOGRAPHIC, OCCUPATIONAL, AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS 

WERE CORRELATED WITH HARASSING AND/OR ASSAULT BEHAVIORS 

EXPERIENCED?

Analyses of demographic, occupational, and organizational factors influencing harassing 

and/or assault behaviors were performed with data from employees who indicated they 

experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors and who completed questions assessing 

demographic and occupational background characteristics and organizational factors associated 

with these behaviors. Demographic characteristics included variables measuring employees’ age, 

sex, level of education, racial/ethnic background, and relationship status. Occupational 

characteristics included variables measuring employees’ pay grade, tenure in the organization, 

employment classification, and type of work unit. Organizational characteristics included 

variables measuring employees’ perceptions of supervisor support, trust, political dynamics and 

 

6

It is worth noting that an individual who made a complaint/grievance/report may not actually be informed of the 

outcome of their complaint/grievance/report because personnel policies may prohibit disclosure of such information.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

vii © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

inclusion within the unit, bystander experiences with harassment and/or assault behaviors

(bystander experiences involve situations where an employee witnessed another employee being 

subjected to harassing, discriminating and/or assault behaviors), perceptions of both general and 

leaders’ tolerance of harassing and/or assault behaviors, and gender context.

First, we performed regression analyses to identify those factors that contribute the most 

to the likelihood that one might experience these behaviors. Second, we compared individuals 

who had and those who had not experienced harassing and/or assault behaviors across each of 

these factors. As noted earlier and confirmed in these analyses, with a few exceptions,

demographic and occupational factors had a limited contribution on our understanding of

employees’ harassment and/or assault related behaviors experienced. However, these analyses 

revealed that organizational factors were among the most important variables to understand 

employees’ experiences of harassment and/or assault related behaviors.

Which demographic, occupational, or organizational factors had the strongest influence 

on the likelihood that someone might experience harassing and/or assault behaviors? The most 

important variables involved for each type of experience are described below:

• Age harassment was more common in work environments perceived to be tolerant of 

these behaviors and where employees witnessed harassment against another employee 

based on their age

• Racial/ethnic harassment was more common for racial/ethnic minority employees than 

for non-minority employees, in work environments perceived to be less inclusive, and 

where employees witnessed harassment against another employee based on their 

race/ethnicity

• Religious harassment was more common in work environments where employees 

witnessed harassment against another employee based on their religious beliefs

• Disability harassment was more common for employees with a documented disability 

and more common where employees witnessed harassment against another employee 

based on their disability status or condition

• Sexual orientation harassment was more common where employees witnessed 

harassment against another employee based on their sexual orientation

• Gender harassment was more common for women than men, for employees with a

college education than for those without a college education, in work environments 

perceived as being tolerant of these behaviors, and where employees witnessed 

harassment against another employee based on their sex/gender

• Sexual harassment was more common for women than men, in work environments that 

were perceived as being tolerant of these behaviors, and where employees witnessed 

harassment against another employee based on their sex/gender

• None of the factors informed our understanding of sexual assault related behaviors

Given the importance of organizational factors, were there differences among individuals 

who were and were not harassed on the specific organizational variables? Regardless of the 

particular behavior involved, we observed consistent differences between employees who were 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

viii © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

harassed and those who were not. Specifically, employees who experienced harassment and/or 

assault behaviors were:

• Less likely to report supervisory support than employees who were not harassed

• Less likely to trust the organization than employees who were not harassed

• Less likely to view the organization as more inclusive than employees who were not 

harassed

• More likely to perceive greater pressure to conform to organizational norms (e.g., going 

along to get along) than employees who were not harassed

• More likely to perceive the organizational climate to be more tolerant of harassing 

behaviors than employees who were not harassed

• More likely to rate the leadership climate to be more tolerant of harassing behaviors than 

employees who were not harassed

• More likely to have witnessed harassment against other employees than employees who 

were not harassed

WHAT JOB-RELATED CONSEQUENCES WERE ASSOCIATED WITH HARASSING 

AND/OR ASSAULT BEHAVIORS EXPERIENCED?

Consequences of harassment and/or assault behaviors were examined with data from 

employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors and completed questions 

assessing job-related outcomes including job satisfaction, job engagement, and organizational 

commitment. Regression analyses revealed statistically significant associations of harassment 

and/or assault behaviors and these job-related outcomes. While the magnitude of the effects were 

small, the pattern of associations indicated that employees who experienced harassment and/or 

assault behaviors were less satisfied, less engaged, and less committed to the organization than 

their counterparts.

WHAT ADDITIONAL FINDINGS WERE UNCOVERED WITH REGARD TO 

HARASSMENT AND/OR ASSAULT EXPERIENCES?

• What about individuals who may have witnessed behaviors occurring to someone else?

An estimated 25.4% of employees witnessed a harassing and/or assault behavior against 

another employee in the 12 months preceding the survey. For most of these experiences, 

it is estimated that employees witnessed these behaviors once, and/or once a month or 

less. Among these individuals:

o 14.9% witnessed a harassment situation based on age of the other employee

o 9.3% witnessed a harassment situation based on race/ethnicity of the other 

employee

o 5.6% witnessed a harassment situation based on religious beliefs of the other 

employee

o 7.9% witnessed a harassment situation based on a perceived or actual disability of 

the other employee

o 6.5% witnessed a harassment situation based on sexual orientation of the other 

employee
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

ix © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

o 15.4% witnessed a harassment situation based on sex/gender of the other 

employee

• What actions were taken in response to witnessing harassing and/or assault behaviors? 

Regardless of the particular behavior employees witnessed, the majority of employees 

took some action in response to the behaviors they witnessed (78.6%). Among employees 

who took some action, the most frequent actions included helping the person who was 

subject to the behaviors (33.3%); telling someone in a position of authority about the

situation (22.7%); and pointing out to the person who engaged in the harassing behaviors 

that s/he “crossed the line” (21.8%).

• Did employees experience any harassing and/or assault behaviors before the past 12 

months while they were employed by NPS? An estimated 36.6% of employees 

experienced some form of harassing and/or assault behaviors before the past 12 months 

while being employed at NPS. Specifically:

o 19.7% experienced harassing behaviors based on their age

o 9.8% experienced harassing behaviors based on their racial or ethnic background

o 6.4% experienced harassing behaviors based on their religious beliefs

o 6.6% experienced harassing behaviors based on a perceived or actual disability

o 4.7% experienced harassing behaviors based on their sexual orientation

o 16.9% experienced sexually harassing behaviors7

o 2.83% experienced sexual assault related behaviors

• What about the future use of NPS resources to make a complaint/grievance/report 

involving a harassing and/or assault experience? A majority of employees indicated that 

they would use a supervisor or manager (77.7%) to make a complaint/grievance/report if 

they were to experience harassing behaviors in the future. All other resources were 

endorsed less frequently (Employee Assistance Program, Ombudsman,

8 CADR Office or 

CORE PLUS, Employee & Labor Relations, Union, Equal Employment Opportunity 

Counselor, Equal Employment Opportunity Office, Office of the Inspector General 

Hotline, Office of the Inspector General, Other Law Enforcement/Civil Authority, 

Department of Interior Ethics/Bureau Ethics Office, or NPS Law Enforcement/Park 

Police). Additionally, employees indicated that the majority of these resources would be

moderately helpful.

These findings reveal that employees at all levels of the organization are either directly 

(through their own personal experiences) or indirectly (through the witnessing or hearing about 

other employees’ experiences) affected by harassing and/or assault situations both personally and 

professionally. The findings shed light on the dynamics that underlie these behaviors and affirm 

 

7 Within this section of the survey, responses to questions involving gender and sexual harassment were presented 

together and a single item was used to assess gender and sexual harassment experiences in the period before the past 

12 months to minimize response burden and optimize survey completion. Caution should be exercised in attempting 

to draw inferences about trends between rates of experience in the past 12 months and rates of experience prior to 

the past 12 months as these measures are not comparable (see Appendix C, Section C.5.1 for additional details).

8 Ombudsman was only in existence about 1.5 months before the survey opened.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

x © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

the need for comprehensive responses to these problems. Readers are encouraged to review the 

complete set of findings presented in this Technical Report.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

xi © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ i

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xv

1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Tasks and Objectives........................................................................................................ 5

1.4 Organization of Report..................................................................................................... 7

2 Survey Methodology........................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Development of Survey.................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Data Collection Procedures.............................................................................................. 8

2.4 Description of Survey Instrument and Measures............................................................. 9

3 Results and Findings...................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Overview of Results....................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Population and Employee Characteristics...................................................................... 16

3.3 Character of Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced..................................... 19

3.3.1 Summary of Analyses of Demographic, Occupational, and Harassing and/or 

Assault Experiences ............................................................................................... 45

3.4 Contextual Factors Influencing Specific Behaviors or Experiences.............................. 48

3.4.1 Summary of Contextual Factors Influencing Specific Behaviors or Experiences.. 83

3.5 Demographic, Occupational, and Organizational Factors Correlated with Harassing 

and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced .......................................................................... 84

3.5.1 Summary of Demographic, Occupational, and Organizational Factors Correlated 

with Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced ......................................... 98

3.6 Job-Related Consequences of Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced ....... 100

3.6.1 Summary of Job-Related Consequences of Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors 

Experienced .......................................................................................................... 103
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

xii © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3.7 Additional Findings...................................................................................................... 104

4 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 113

4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 113

4.2 Summary of Main Findings ......................................................................................... 113

4.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 117

References................................................................................................................................... 118

Appendix A Glossary of Terms.................................................................................................. 121

Appendix B Survey Communications ........................................................................................ 128

Appendix C Survey Methodology .............................................................................................. 145

Appendix D Survey Instrument .................................................................................................. 180
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

xiii © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Topics and Constructs Assessed in the Study................................................................. 5

Table 2.1 Description of Survey Constructs with Sample Items.................................................. 10

Table 3.1 Employee and Estimated Study Population Demographic Characteristics.................. 16

Table 3.2 Employee and Estimated Study Population Occupational Characteristics................... 17

Table 3.3 Estimated Experience Rate and Number of Harassment Experiences in Past 12 

Months.......................................................................................................................... 19

Table 3.4 Estimated Number and Frequency Distribution of Harassment Experiences in 

Past 12 Months............................................................................................................. 21

Table 3.5 Estimated Experience Rate and Frequency of Any Form of Harassment in Past 12 

Months.......................................................................................................................... 23

Table 3.6 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Age in Past 12 Months ............. 25

Table 3.7 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic Background in 

Past 12 Months............................................................................................................. 27

Table 3.8 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Religious Beliefs in Past 12 

Months.......................................................................................................................... 30

Table 3.9 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Disability Status in Past 12 

Months.......................................................................................................................... 32

Table 3.10 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation in Past 12 

Months........................................................................................................................ 35

Table 3.11 Estimated Experience Rate of Gender Harassment in Past 12 Months...................... 38

Table 3.12 Estimated Experience Rate and Frequency of Sexual Harassment in Past 12 

Months........................................................................................................................ 40

Table 3.13 Estimated Experience Rate of Sexual Assault Related Behaviors in Past 12 

Months........................................................................................................................ 42

Table 3.14 Associations of Demographic and Occupational Characteristics with Harassment 

Experiences in Past 12 Months................................................................................... 45

Table 3.15 Primary Basis for Experience of Greatest Effect........................................................ 49

Table 3.16 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of When Occurred ........ 50

Table 3.17 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Travel ....................... 50

Table 3.18 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Where Occurred ....... 50

Table 3.19 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Work Location ......... 51

Table 3.20 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Frequency of 

Occurrence .................................................................................................................. 52

Table 3.21 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Persons Involved ...... 54

Table 3.22 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Interactions............... 57

Table 3.23 Discussion of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary .................................. 58

Table 3.24 Resources for Making Complaint of the One Experience of Harassment - Summary60

Table 3.25 Average Ratings of the Helpfulness of NPS Resources Used to Make a 

Complaint/Grievance/Report of the One Experience of Harassment ......................... 63
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

xiv © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.26 Helpfulness of Resources for Making Complaint of the One Experience of 

Harassment – Scale Distributions for Any Form of Harassment................................ 65

Table 3.27 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Actions 

Focused on the Organization ...................................................................................... 66

Table 3.28 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Actions 

Focused on the Person(s) Involved ............................................................................. 67

Table 3.29 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Negative 

Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 69

Table 3.30 Satisfaction with Reporting of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary........ 72

Table 3.31 Satisfaction with Reporting Experience – Scale Distributions for Any Form of 

Harassment.................................................................................................................. 73

Table 3.32 Reasons for Not Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary ............. 74

Table 3.33 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary........................................ 77

Table 3.34 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Age ................. 85

Table 3.35 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic 

Background................................................................................................................. 86

Table 3.36 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Religious 

Beliefs......................................................................................................................... 87

Table 3.37 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Disability 

Status........................................................................................................................... 88

Table 3.38 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Sexual 

Orientation .................................................................................................................. 89

Table 3.39 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Gender Harassment............................ 90

Table 3.40 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Sexual Harassment............................. 91

Table 3.41 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Sexual Assault Related Behaviors ..... 92

Table 3.42 Summary of Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment/Assault....... 93

Table 3.43 Differences in Ratings of Organizational Factors by Harassment Experienced......... 93

Table 3.44 Scale Distributions of Organizational Factors for Any Form of Harassment 

Experienced................................................................................................................. 98

Table 3.45 Linear Regression of Harassment and Job-Related Outcomes................................. 100

Table 3.46 Differences in Ratings of Job-Related Outcomes by Harassment Experienced....... 101

Table 3.47 Scale Distributions of Job-Related Consequences for Any Form of Harassment 

Experienced............................................................................................................... 103

Table 3.48 Number and Percentage of Employees Witnessing Bystander Harassment............. 104

Table 3.49 Estimated Average Frequency and Distribution of Bystander Harassment in 

Past 12 Months.......................................................................................................... 105

Table 3.50 Actions Taken in Response to Bystander Harassment ............................................. 107

Table 3.51 Harassment and/or Assault Experienced Before the Past 12 Months....................... 108

Table 3.52 Pay Plan or Grade at Which Harassment First Occurred.......................................... 110

Table 3.53 Future Use of Resources to Make a Complaint/Grievance/Report........................... 111
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

xv © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 6

Figure 3.1 Estimated Experience Rates for Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors in Past 12 

Months........................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 3.2 Frequency of Occurrence for Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors ............................ 21

Figure 3.3 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Age in Past 12 Months............ 46

Figure 3.4 Estimated Experience Rates for Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic Background, 

Disability Status, and Sexual Orientation in Past 12 Months..................................... 46

Figure 3.5 Estimated Experience Rates of Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic Background in 

Past 12 Months............................................................................................................ 46

Figure 3.6 Estimated Experience Rates of Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation in Past 12 

Months........................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 3.7 Estimated Experience Rates for Gender and Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 

Behaviors in Past 12 Months ...................................................................................... 47

Figure 3.8 Primary Basis for Experience of Greatest Effect ........................................................ 49

Figure 3.9 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Location Trends............................. 52

Figure 3.10 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Frequency of Occurrence............. 53

Figure 3.11 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Persons Involved Trends.............. 56

Figure 3.12 Distribution of the Person(s) Engaging in Harassing Behavior for Any Form of 

Harassment ................................................................................................................ 57

Figure 3.13 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Interaction Trends........................ 58

Figure 3.14 Discussion of the One Experience of Harassment – Trends ..................................... 60

Figure 3.15 Frequency Distribution of Likelihood to Make a Complaint/Grievance/Report and 

Most Frequently Used NPS Resource of the One Experience of Harassment.......... 63

Figure 3.16 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Actions 

Resulting from a Complaint/Grievance/Report for Any Form of Harassment ......... 71

Figure 3.17 Satisfaction with Reporting Experience .................................................................... 73

Figure 3.18 Reasons for Not Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Trends................ 77

Figure 3.19 Effect of the One Experience of Harassment on Relationships at Work .................. 80

Figure 3.20 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Physical or Emotional Well-Being81

Figure 3.21 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Impact on Job Performance .......... 82

Figure 3.22 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Remain Part of Organization ........ 82

Figure 3.23 Estimated Bystander Harassment Witnessing Rates............................................... 104

Figure 3.24 Estimated Frequency of Witnessing Bystander Harassment................................... 105

Figure 3.25 Actions Taken in Response to Bystander Harassment............................................ 108

Figure 3.26 Harassment and/or Assault Experienced Before the Past 12 Months ..................... 109
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

1 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

1 Introduction

In September of 2014, then Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Sally Jewell 

received a letter of complaint from 13 former and current National Park Service (NPS) 

employees who described incidents of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environments 

they experienced or witnessed over their 15 years of collective employment at NPS (U.S.

Department of the Interior, 2016a). These complaints were validated by the DOI Inspector 

General and subsequently triggered investigations and congressional hearings into the nature and 

extent of sexual harassment within the NPS work environment. In response to these situations, 

the leadership of the NPS committed to making substantial and long-term cultural changes 

needed to prevent sexual harassment and to ensure every employee has a safe and respectful 

work environment (Reynolds, 2016). As part of these efforts, the leadership of the NPS 

commissioned a study of the work environment within the NPS.

1.1 Purpose

This report documents the results of the Work Environment Survey (WES). The survey 

was requested by the leadership of the NPS and carried out in 2017. The WES was designed to 

assess employees’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors on a wide range of topics related to the

character, context, correlates, and consequences of harassment and/or assault behaviors 

experienced by employees within the NPS work environment. The main body of this technical 

report presents findings related to employees’ experiences with harassing and/or assault 

behaviors and the situational factors surrounding these experiences. The report also presents 

findings regarding demographic, occupational, and organizational factors linked with harassing

and/or assault behaviors experienced at work; and job-related consequences of harassing and/or 

assault behaviors experienced at work. Findings documented in this report provide empirically 

derived evidence that can serve to inform, influence, and impact strategic and long-term efforts 

to change the NPS culture, to prevent sexual harassment, and to ensure that every employee has a 

safe and respectful work environment.

1.2 Background

In July, 2016, the Federal Consulting Group (FCG) and the NPS engaged with the CFI 

Group to conduct an assessment of the prevalence and climate for sexual harassment within the 

NPS. The assessment was designed to meet four overarching objectives that aimed to achieve the 

following:

1. provide substantive evidence to inform the design of effective responses to harassment 

and justify resource allocation,

2. educate workforce leadership and employees on the extent, severity, and consequences of 

the problem,
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

2 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3. identify the context, character, and causes for harassment to occur and/or be tolerated 

within the organization, and

4. provide a baseline for monitoring progress and effectiveness of specific interventions.

Over the course of several meetings with various organizational members,

9

the CFI 

Group collaborated to identify topics and constructs to inform the development, content, and 

structure of the WES. At the outset of our collaboration, the focus of the assessment was 

broadened to assess not only sexual harassment, but other forms of harassment (specifically, 

harassment based on age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, disability status, sexual 

orientation, and gender) as well as sexual assault related behaviors. In ensuing discussions, we 

established that the WES would use the behavioral experience method10 to assess harassment 

and/or assault experiences of employees; that the WES would include measures of demographic 

and occupational characteristics; measures assessing perceptions of the workplace climate; and

other constructs/variables identified as providing essential information to inform the 

understanding and treatment of the problem. We also clarified that while the WES was to be a 

census-based survey of the NPS workforce, it would be designed to be completed on a voluntary 

basis, allowing employees to provide anonymous and confidential responses. Furthermore, we 

noted that analytical methods would account for non-response bias and use appropriate 

weighting procedures to derive population estimates.

11 We also noted requirements for internal 

review by relevant organizational members and for independent peer-review throughout the 

research process.12

As part of the research process, we reviewed publicly available research, studies, and 

investigative reports dealing with harassment and/or assault within the NPS workforce (e.g., 

Lighthouse Associates, 1999, 2000; U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a, 2016b). We 

examined results from two non-scientific studies13 conducted with women in the U.S. Park 

Police (USPP), and women in law enforcement positions, park superintendents, and chief rangers 

in the NPS (Lighthouse Associates, 1999, 2000). These studies revealed a pattern of responses 

 

9 Government scientists, union and legal representatives, communications and public affairs representatives, human 

resource representatives, and senior leaders.

10 The behavioral experience method presents a series of harassing and/or assault behaviors and asks respondents to 

indicate how often they experienced the behavior within some specified period of time (e.g., past 12 months) using a 

frequency type response scale that can range from never to one or more times a day (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995; 

Gruber, 1990; Ilies, Hauserman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003; Lengnick-Hall, 1995).

11 The process of weighting refers to the calculation of a sampling weight for each survey respondent. Weighting is 

appropriate whenever the sample design is complex and there is nonresponse to the survey. Although in the WES 

the sampling design was census-based, nonresponse still occurred, making weighting an appropriate and necessary 

step. Weights are calculated to allow researchers to make inferences from the data collected from survey 

respondents to all members of the target population. Without the weights, calculated aggregate estimates could be 

biased and therefore inaccurately reflect population parameters for a given construct (e.g., estimated percentage of 

harassment and/or assault behaviors experienced in the population).

12 This report does not present findings from a separate study of newly hired employees performed in July through 

September of 2017. Those findings will be documented in a separate report.

13 The term “non-scientific studies” refers to studies that do not adjust for nonresponse bias or weighting to account 

for the fact that not all individuals in a given population may have responded to a survey.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

3 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

that pointed to personal and bystander experiences with sexual harassment and gender 

discrimination among women in the USPP and the NPS (bystander experiences involve 

situations where an employee witnessed another employee being subjected to harassing, 

discriminating and/or assault behaviors).14 Findings were examined from two investigations from 

the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of the Interior involving personnel 

at the Grand Canyon River District and the Canaveral National Seashore (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 2016a; 2016b). These investigations found patterns of sexually harassing behaviors 

from coworkers and supervisors at the Grand Canyon River District (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 2016a) and patterns of sexually harassing behaviors from supervisors at the Canaveral 

National Seashore (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b).15 Collectively, this evidence pointed 

to the need to assess personal and bystander experiences with harassment and/or assault 

behaviors and to assess situational characteristics surrounding specific harassing and/or assault 

behaviors that employees were likely to experience within the NPS work environment.

Next, we consulted literature on the measurement of harassment and/or assault behaviors 

at work; on job-related attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors pertinent to harassment and/or 

assault behaviors in the workplace. Our review of literature on the measurement of harassment 

and/or assault behaviors in the workplace reaffirmed our decision to use behavioral methodology 

to assess employees’ experiences with these behaviors (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995; Gruber, 

1990; Ilies, Hauserman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003; Lengnick-Hall, 1995; Rotundo, Nguyen, & 

Sackett, 2001) and highlighted the importance of delineating response options that aligned with 

the wording of behavioral items and to give careful consideration to the time period used to 

evaluate the occurrence of particular behaviors being assessed (Gutek, Murphy, & Douma, 

2004).

Our examination of the literature on job-related attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors 

pertinent to harassment and/or assault in the workplace pointed to the importance of examining a 

myriad of demographic, occupational, and organizational variables associated with harassing 

 

14 76% of USPP female officers and 36% of female civilian personnel had “personally experienced sexual 

harassment while an employee of the USPP”; 71% of USPP female officers and 29% of female civilian personnel 

had “personally experienced (gender discrimination) while an employee of the USPP”; and 83% of USPP female 

officers and 62% of female civilian personnel “knew of other people who experienced sexual harassment or gender 

discrimination while employed at USPP” (for details see Lighthouse Associates, 1999). Similar findings were

reported among NPS law enforcement personnel; 52% had “personally experienced sexual harassment while an 

employee of the NPS”; 63% had “personally experienced (gender discrimination) while an employee of the NPS”; 

and 77 % “knew of other people who experienced sexual harassment or gender discrimination while an employee of 

the NPS” (see Lighthouse Associates, 2000).

15 Investigation of the Grand Canyon River District validated complaints made by 13 former and current NPS 

employees and identified 22 other employees experiencing similar behaviors; it also noted that while some incidents 

were reported to supervisors and managers, they were not properly investigated or reported to Human Resources or 

Equal Employment Opportunity (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a). Investigation of the Canaveral National 

Seashore (CANAS) found that a law enforcement supervisor had shown a pattern of sexual harassment involving a 

law enforcement employee and two other female employees within the past five years; it also found that an 

administrative manager had made inappropriate comments to a law enforcement employee and to a member of his 

own staff (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

4 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

and/or assault behaviors (e.g., Bowling & Beehr, 2006; O'Leary-Kelly, Bowes-Sperry, Arens 

Bates, & Lean, 2009; Pina, Gannon, & Saunders 2009; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). However, 

due to practical constraints and guidance from organizational members, we limited our selection 

of variables to specific demographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex and gender identity, sexual 

orientation, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, relationship status) and specific occupational 

characteristics (e.g., pay grade, tenure, employment status and type of work). We also limited our 

selection of organizational factors to include supervisor support (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, 

Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002); inclusion, trust, and political dynamics within the 

organization (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Kacmar & Carlson, 1997; Severt & Estrada, 2016); 

general and leadership intolerance of harassing and/or assault behaviors (Estrada & Laurence, 

2011; Estrada, Olson, Harbke & Berggren, 2011); and bystander harassment and/or assault 

experiences and gender context of the work environment and occupational field (Bastian, 

Lancaster, & Reyst, 1996; Estrada & Laurence, 2011).

Our examination of the literature on job-related attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors 

pertinent to harassment and/or assault in the workplace also suggested a myriad of job-related 

outcomes that could be examined in relation to these experiences (Chan, Lam, Chow, & Cheung, 

2008; Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Hershcovis, & Barling, 2010; Lapierre, Spector, & Leck, 

2005; Pascoe, & Smart Richman, 2009; Raver & Nishii, 2010; Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 

1997; Sojo, Wood, & Genat, 2016). However, due to practical concerns and guidance from 

organizational members, we limited our selection of job-related outcomes to job satisfaction 

(Lapierre et al., 2005; Raver & Nishii, 2010; Sojo et al., 2016), job engagement (Schaufeli & 

Bakker, 2010), and organizational commitment (Chan et al., 2008; Raver & Nishii, 2010; Sojo et 

al., 2016).

Finally, our examination of the literature on job-related attitudes, perceptions, and 

behaviors pertinent to harassment and/or assault in the workplace also confirmed the importance 

of examining situational characteristics and circumstances involved in specific harassing and/or 

assault behaviors employees were likely to experience (Krieger et al., 2005; Mazzeo, Bergman, 

Buchanan, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2001). Accordingly, we identified specific characteristics to 

assess situational factors, reporting behaviors and outcomes, and the impact of these experiences 

on interpersonal relationships (Lapierre et al. 2005; Sojo et al., 2016), physical or emotional 

well-being (Chan et al, 2008; Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; 

Schneider et al., 1997; Sojo et al., 2016), job performance, and willingness to remain part of the 

organization (Chan et al., 2008; Raver & Nishii, 2010; Sojo et al., 2016).

Based on our review of the literature, and guidance from organizational members, we 

refined the list of topics and constructs in order to identify valid and reliable measures for the 

WES. Table 1.1 shows the final list of topic areas and constructs included in the WES.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

5 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 1.1 Topics and Constructs Assessed in the Study

Topic Area Description Constructs

Work Experiences Assessment of employees’ experiences 

with harassment and/or assault 

behaviors at work

• Harassment Experiences with 

Regard to Age, Disability, 

Ethnicity, Religion, and Sexual 

Orientation

• Gender and Sexual Harassment

• Sexual Assault Related Behaviors

Demographic and 

Occupational

Characteristics

Assessment of employee characteristics • Individual Characteristics (Sex, 

Age, Race/Ethnicity, Education, 

Relationship Status)

• Occupational Characteristics (Pay 

Grade, Tenure, Employment 

Status, Type of Work Unit)

Organizational 

Factors

Assessment of employees’ attitudes and 

perceptions of the work unit and 

organization

• Inclusion and Support

• Organizational Politics

• Organizational Trust

• Bystander Harassment

• General and Leadership 

Intolerance for Harassment

• Gender Context

Job Related Outcomes Assessment of employees’ perceptions 

of their job

• Job Satisfaction

• Job Engagement

Organizational Commitment

Situational 

Characteristics

Assessment of employees’ situational 

characteristics involving specific 

harassment and/or assault behaviors or 

set of experiences

• Situational Characteristics

• Reporting Behaviors and 

Outcomes

• Bystander Interventions

1.3 Tasks and Objectives

As noted above, the statement of work included four overarching objectives that specified 

the goals for the WES. Data collected from the WES would allow NPS to establish baseline 

estimates for the nature and prevalence of various forms of workplace harassment using 

behavioral experience methodology. Data from the WES would allow for appropriately weighted 

comparisons of selected demographic and professional characteristics (e.g., sex, race/ethnicity, 

and age) for the various forms of workplace harassment. Additionally, data from the WES would 

examine perceptions of workplace climate at the work unit and other variables deemed essential 

to understanding the nature, extent, and impact of workplace harassment on the NPS workforce. 

Figure 1.1 presents the conceptual framework that distills the project objectives into a 

relational structure that organizes constructs identified through our review of the literature and in 

consultation with NPS organizational members. The conceptual framework is not an analytical 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

6 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

model. The framework is meant to help organize variables into a schematic by which to distill 

research questions.

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework

As shown in Figure 1.1, the WES included measures of employee demographic 

characteristics, occupational characteristics, and organizational factors associated with harassing 

and/or assault related behaviors; various forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors based on 

one’s age, race/ethnicity, disability status, sexual orientation, as well as gender and sexual 

harassment and sexual assault; job-related outcomes including satisfaction, engagement and 

commitment; and other factors involving situational characteristics associated with these types of 

experiences, reporting behaviors, bystander experiences and harassment experiences before the 

most recent 12 months. This framework helped us to translate the four project objectives into the 

five overarching research questions designed to examine attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors 

related to the character, context, correlates and consequences of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors experienced by employees within the NPS work environment. Specifically, we report 

analyses addressing the following research questions:

• What is the character of harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced?

• What contextual factors influence specific behaviors or sets of experiences?

• What demographic, occupational, and organizational factors were correlated with 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced?
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

7 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• What job-related consequences were associated with harassing and/or assault behaviors 

experienced?

• What additional findings were uncovered with regard to harassment and/or assault 

experiences?

1.4 Organization of Report

This report documents the results of the WES. Specifically, it documents descriptive and 

inferential analyses designed to uncover the character, context, correlates, and consequences of 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced by employees within the NPS work environment.

The report is written to address specific interests of organizational members, organizational 

leaders and policy makers, and for members of the scientific community. We balanced the 

inclusion and exclusion of technical information to give the reader sufficient details to get a clear 

understanding of the survey methodology and analytical strategy employed to derive findings 

and conclusions from the WES. We include detailed technical information for scientifically 

minded readers in the Appendices to the report. The main body of the report describes the survey 

methodology, presents results from the analyses of the WES, and highlights major findings. A 

companion Supplemental Statistical Report documents all results and findings not otherwise 

highlighted in this report.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

8 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

2 Survey Methodology

2.1 Overview

The Work Environment Survey (WES) was designed to assess employees’ attitudes, 

perceptions, and behaviors on a wide range of topics related to the character, context, correlates, 

and consequences of harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced by employees within the 

work environment. In this section, we describe the process used to develop the survey, provide 

an overview of the data collection procedures, provide an overview of each of the measures 

included in the survey, and outline the analytical strategy used to examine research questions 

delineated within the Introduction. A complete technical description of the survey methodology 

is provided in Appendix C. A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix D.

2.2 Development of Survey

The CFI Group collaborated with various organizational members to establish topics and 

constructs to inform the development, content, and structure of the WES. We also reviewed 

internal surveys and publicly available research, studies, and investigative reports pertinent to the 

topic of harassment (e.g., Lighthouse Associates, 1999, 2000; U.S. Department of the Interior, 

2016a, 2016b) and consulted literature on job-related attitudes and behaviors, organizational 

dynamics, and diversity to develop a conceptual framework for the WES. As shown previously, 

Figure 1.1 illustrated the conceptual framework used to identify measures for various constructs 

included in the WES. These included demographic, occupational, and organizational factors 

associated with harassing and/or assault related behaviors; various forms of harassing and/or 

assault behaviors; job-related outcomes; and other factors involving situational characteristics 

associated with these types of experiences.

2.3 Data Collection Procedures

We partnered with three organizations to assist with the data collection process for the 

WES. We obtained support from GovDelivery to distribute electronic invitations and reminders,

CASO Document Management to manage distribution and collection of paper surveys, and 

Qualtrics to host the online survey. The separation of responsibilities among these companies 

and CFI Group assured that Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and employees’ survey 

responses were compartmentalized, providing us the ability to ensure that employees’ contact 

information could not be linked to individual survey responses. Our protocols also specified 

procedures for the secure transfer and storage of contact information, secure distribution of 

surveys, and secure collection and storage of data (see Appendix C for technical details). The 

WES was a census based survey, which was fielded from January 9, 2017 to March 5, 2017.16

 

16 This report does not present findings from a separate study of newly hired employees performed in July through 

September of 2017. Those findings will be documented in a separate report.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

9 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

As of December 10, 2016, the population of employees included a total of 18,550 

individuals, all of whom had valid email and/or postal addresses and were sent an electronic 

invitation or paper copy of the survey.17 A total of 9,395 surveys were submitted electronically 

or by postal delivery at the end of the survey period, yielding a participation rate of 50.6%.

18

Upon screening of the data, we eliminated data from 239 surveys because they did not meet 

criteria for inclusion (see Appendix C for technical details), leaving a total of 9,156 completed 

surveys, yielding an adjusted response rate of 49.4%.

Each completed survey had to be associated with a unique survey identifier, include 

responses to items assessing respondents’ gender identity, responses to at least one item from the 

sexual harassment questions, responses to 50% of the core variables, and have variability within 

responses associated with reverse-coded items distributed throughout the survey (see Appendix 

C for technical details).

2.4 Description of Survey Instrument and Measures

The WES included multi-item measures assessing attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors 

related to the character, context, correlates, and consequences of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors19 experienced by employees within the NPS work environment. The WES was 

structured to include two preliminary questions assessing employees’ work classification and 

schedule to appropriately frame certain questions within the survey. The remaining questions 

were structured into five sections, organized to minimize response burden, and optimize survey 

completion (see Appendix C for technical details). Table 2.1 displays the sections of the survey, 

key constructs, and sample items for each of the measures included in the WES.

 

17 Paper surveys were mailed directly to 132 NPS employees without an email address on file. 

18 Five follow-up emails were sent to all employees throughout the survey period. Each email thanked individuals 

who had responded to the survey and reminded others to complete the survey if they had not already done so. 

Response rates were tracked after each follow-up and at survey closing on March 5, 2017. We found no systematic 

evidence of differential participation among employees throughout the survey period. The fifth and final follow-up 

yielded only an additional 1.79% increase in participation rate. Participation rates were comparable to those obtained 

in the Federal Employee Value Survey for 2015—49.7% Government Wide; 57.4% for the Department of the 

Interior; 54.1% for the National Park Service (US Office of Personnel Management, 2015).

19 Each measure of harassment included questions asking respondents to indicate if they experienced a harassing and 

assault behavior based on age, race/ethnicity, religion, disability and sexual orientation. Separate questions were also 

included to assess gender harassment and sexual harassment without asking about assault behaviors pertinent to 

those forms of harassment. A separate set of items were used to assess sexual assault related behaviors. Accordingly, 

the phrase “harassing and/or assault behaviors” is used to denote instances where an employee may have 

experienced a particular form of harassment, an assault behavior pertinent to a specific type of harassment, or a 

particular sexual assault related behavior.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

10 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 2.1 Description of Survey Constructs with Sample Items

Survey Section Construct Sample Item

Part I Your 

Perceptions 

About Your Job

• Job Satisfaction • How satisfied are you with your job?

• Job Engagement • I am immersed in my work.

• Organizational Commitment • I would be happy to spend the rest of my career 

in my work unit.

• Organizational Politics • It is best not to rock the boat in my work unit.

• Organizational Trust • I feel my work unit will keep its word.

• Supervisor Support • My supervisor cares about my opinions.

• Organizational Inclusion • Members of my current work unit feel accepted 

by other members.

Part II Work 

Related 

Experiences

• Harassment based on my age, 

race/ethnicity, religious 

beliefs, disability status, 

sexual orientation

• How often did you hear negative comments or 

remarks based on your...

• Sexual Harassment • How often did someone at work tell offensive 

sexual stories or jokes?

• Gender Harassment • How often did someone at work make 

offensive, sexist remarks?

• Sexual Assault Related 

Behaviors

• How often did you experience any intentional 

sexual contacts that were against your will?

Part III One 

Behavior/ 

Experience with 

the Greatest 

Effect

• Specific Behavior or 

Experience with Greatest 

Effect

• Was the type of behavior or experience based 

on your: age; race or ethnicity; religious beliefs; 

disability status or condition; sexual orientation; 

sex/gender; When and where did it occur? Who 

did it? Did you report it?

Part IV 

Organizational 

Policies & 

Procedures

• General Intolerance for 

Harassment

• At your current work unit, it would be very 

risky to file a harassment complaint.

• Leadership Intolerance for 

Harassment

• Do the persons below tolerate harassment?

• Bystander Harassment • How often have you witnessed another 

employee being harassed?

• Bystander Intervention • What actions did you take if you witnessed 

another employee being harassed?

• Resource Utilization • Which resources would you use if you were to 

make an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report about a harassment 

experience?

Part V 

Demographic & 

Occupational 

Characteristics

• Demographic and 

Occupational Characteristics

• Age, Marital Status, Ethnicity, Race, Sexual 

Orientation, Education, Tenure, Pay Grade, 

Supervisory Status, Work Location, Gender 

Context.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

11 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Part I included multi-item scales designed to assess employees’ attitudes and perceptions 

about their job to include job satisfaction (e.g., How satisfied are you with the kind of work you 

do?), job engagement (e.g., I am immersed in my work), commitment to the work unit (e.g., I feel 

a strong sense of belonging to my work unit), political dynamics (e.g., It is best not to rock the 

boat in my work unit) and trust (e.g., I feel my work unit will keep its word) within the work 

unit, as well as, supervisor support (e.g., Supervisor of your unit cares about your opinions?) and 

inclusion within the work unit (e.g., Members of your work unit feel accepted by other members 

of the work unit). Items assessing job satisfaction were rated on a 5-point response scale ranging 

from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5), with higher scores indicating employees were 

more satisfied with their job. Items assessing job engagement were rated on a 7-point response 

scale ranging from never (1) to always/everyday (7), with higher scores indicating employees 

were more engaged in their jobs. Items assessing commitment, political dynamics, trust, and 

inclusion within the work unit, as well as supervisor support were rated on a 5-point response 

scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with higher scores indicating 

higher levels of commitment, trust, inclusion within the work unit, and higher levels of support 

from supervisor. More negative perceptions of the political dynamics within the work unit are 

also indicated by higher scores.

Part II included items assessing employees’ experiences with harassing and/or assault 

behaviors based on their age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, 

gender and sexual harassment, and a measure of sexual assault related behaviors. All measures 

asked about behaviors that occurred both during and before the past 12 months. This section also 

included a follow-up question to assess the pay grade at which each of the forms of harassment 

was experienced for the first time. Instructions asked employees to indicate how often they 

experienced a series of behaviors from someone at work in the past 12 months using a 6-point 

response scale that ranged from never (1), once (2), once a month or less (3), two to three times a 

month (4), once a week or more (5), to one or more times a day (6). Harassment experience rates

were computed by averaging across items and counting employees who answered in the 

affirmative (i.e., selected any option from once to one or more times a day) for each type of 

harassing and/or assault experience occurring one or more times, with higher percentages 

indicating more employees experienced harassing and/or assault behaviors.

Part III included items assessing a variety of situational characteristics surrounding a 

specific harassing and/or assault behavior or set of experiences (e.g., time, location, frequency, 

and duration of the experience; sex, age, and employment status of the person[s] involved); 

reporting behaviors and outcomes; and items assessing the impact of these experiences on 

interpersonal relationships, physical or emotional well-being, job performance, and willingness 

to remain a part of the organization. Responses to this section of the survey were purposely 

focused on a single experience or set of related experiences to minimize response burden and 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

12 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

optimize survey completion.20 We computed descriptive statistics including counts, percentages, 

means and standard deviations, and median and modal values for these items.

Part IV included items assessing employees’ perceptions of both the general and 

leadership intolerance of harassment in the work unit (e.g., Actions are being taken to prevent 

harassment; supervisors tolerate harassment), bystander experiences with harassing and/or 

assault behaviors (e.g., How often have you witnessed another employee being subjected to 

harassment based on their age?), bystander responses to harassing and/or assault experiences of 

other employees (e.g., I told someone in a position of authority about the situation), and items 

assessing future use of resources (e.g., Would you use a supervisor or manager to make a 

complaint/grievance/report?). Items assessing employees’ perceptions of the general intolerance 

of harassment were measured on a 5-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to 

strongly agree (5), with higher scores indicating greater intolerance of harassment within the 

work unit (i.e., higher scores indicate that members of one’s work unit do not tolerate 

harassment). Items measuring leadership intolerance of harassment were measured using a yes, 

no, do not know response format, and scored so that higher scores indicated greater leadership 

intolerance of harassment within the work unit (i.e., higher scores indicate that leaders within 

one’s work unit do not tolerate harassment). Items assessing bystander experiences were 

measured on a 6-point response scale that ranged from never (1), once (2), once a month or less 

(3), two to three times a month (4), once a week or more (5), to one or more times a day (6). 

Bystander harassment experiences were computed by averaging items and counting employees 

who answered in the affirmative (i.e., selected any option from once to one or more times a day) 

for each type of bystander harassing experience occurring one or more times, with results 

indicating the percentage of employees who witnessed incidents of bystander harassment. For 

items assessing bystander responses and future use of resources we computed descriptive 

statistics including counts, percentages, means and standard deviations, and median and modal 

values.

Part V included items assessing employees’ demographic and occupational 

characteristics to include age, relationship status, racial/ethnic background, sex and gender 

identity, sexual orientation, disability status, education, tenure, pay grade, supervisory status, 

 

20 We recognize that people may have experienced more than one type of harassing and/or assault behavior in the 

past 12 months. However, to ask about each specific form of harassment and/or assault experience would have 

added substantial content to an already lengthy survey. Hence, we made a compromise to focus on a specific 

behavior or experience that had the greatest effect on the person responding to the survey and asked them to respond 

to all subsequent questions to this section in terms of the specific form of harassment and/or assault experience that 

had the greatest effect on their personal and professional life. Following the same approach, we also included a 

single question to ask about harassing and/or assault behaviors related to the respondents’ sex and/or gender (e.g., 

gender harassment, sexual harassment, sexual assault related behaviors) because asking about experiences for each 

of the sex/gender related experiences would have required repetition of the individual behaviors specific to gender 

harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual assault related behaviors, thus adding considerable length to the survey.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

13 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

type of work location, gender context and career field. We computed descriptive statistics 

including counts, percentages, and means and standard deviations for each of these items.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

14 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3 Results and Findings

3.1 Overview of Results

Data were cleaned, cross-checked, verified, and screened prior to weighting. All active 

employees (as of December 10, 2016) were invited to complete the survey. However, some were 

not available during the fielding period (e.g., on extended leave, hospitalized, unable to locate), 

some submitted incomplete surveys, others started but did not submit the survey, and some 

declined to participate at the outset. Because unweighted survey results are subject to bias 

introduced by disproportionate numbers of respondents representing a specific group, the data 

were weighted to estimate results as though all employees completed a survey, reflecting 

population estimates and reducing non-response bias. The resulting weighted dataset was used to 

derive the population estimates and their corresponding margins of error were calculated for all 

variables in the database (see Appendix C for technical details).

Analyses were done in two steps. We performed structural and psychometric analysis to 

examine the measurement properties of multi-item scales included in the WES. Principal-axis 

factor analyses were performed to examine the structural relations among items within each of 

the multi-item scales. Internal consistency analyses were performed to estimate reliability of 

each of the multi-item scales and to validate results of factor analytic tests. Validity analyses 

examined associations among scale scores for different constructs included in the WES. Results 

of these analyses are presented in Appendix C.

Upon completion of structural and psychometric analyses, we also performed descriptive 

and inferential analyses designed to address specific research questions examined in the study. 

We computed descriptive statistics including counts, percentages, means, and standard 

deviations for characteristics of employees and for all constructs included in the WES. 

Descriptive statistics for multi-item scales were examined in relation to key demographic and 

occupational characteristics (e.g., sex, race/ethnicity, age, pay grade, employment status) for 

specific results. Appropriate statistical significance tests, such as t-tests or Analysis of Variance 

(ANOVA) tests, were performed to assess whether significant differences existed between/

among groups. We also performed a series of regression analyses to examine associations among 

demographic, occupational, and organizational variables and employees’ harassment and/or 

assault behaviors experienced; and to examine associations between harassment and/or assault 

behaviors experienced and employees’ ratings of job satisfaction, job engagement, and 

organizational commitment. These analyses provided information about the unique associations 

between each independent variable (e.g., demographic, occupational, and organizational 

variables) and the dependent variable (e.g., type of harassment experienced), while controlling 

for the potential influence of every other variable included in the models we examined. 

Statistically significant differences among groups or associations among variables were 

annotated within respective tables and figures throughout the report and were also documented in 

the Supplemental Statistical Report. For all statistical significance testing, probability values 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

15 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

were set at p <.05, meaning that in 95% of such comparisons the differences would be of a 

magnitude such that they represent true differences in attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors and 

are not likely to be due to chance. Given that the likelihood of finding statistically significant 

results increases as a function of sample size, we also evaluated the practical significance of 

findings to ascertain the meaningfulness of particular results. A finding was deemed to be 

meaningful if it was both statistically and practically significant. Practical significance was 

determined by evaluating (a) the absolute value of the difference within subgroup comparisons—

the absolute value of the difference within subgroup comparisons had to vary by 30% or more 

for the groups and/or variables involved, or (b) the absolute value for Change in -2 Log 

Likelihood Chi Square—the absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood Chi Square had to 

be ≥ 100 for specific variables identified for the logistic regression analyses we performed.

We use several annotations throughout the results section to highlight key findings. In 

some instances, results were not reported due to instability or low reliability of results or because 

they meet criteria for suppression. A result was suppressed if it had (a) fewer than five cases in 

the numerator; (b) fewer than 15 cases in the denominator; and/or (c) high relative standard error 

of the estimate (see details in survey methodology or Appendix C).21 Suppressed results are 

denoted as “NR” when the result is “Not Reportable.” The denotation “NA” has two uses. First, 

we use “NA” to describe instances where data were “Not available” as in the case of some 

demographic data. Second, we use “NA” to describe instances where the computation of a result 

is “Not Applicable.” For example, if a point estimate is 0.0%, meaning no respondents were 

estimated to have experienced a behavior, the margin of error is not applicable. Dashed lines, (- -

) are used to denote instances where no one received a question based on the skip logic 

employed, or where no one who received the question answered it. We use an asterisk (*) and/or 

capital letters (e.g., ABCD) to denote statistically significant differences among group(s). We use 

an arrow head (◄) to denote differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical 

significance. Additionally, we use shading to highlight the most important findings within 

respective tables.

The sections that follow present results of statistical analyses designed to examine 

attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors related to the character, context, correlates, and 

consequences of harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced by employees within the NPS 

work force. We begin by presenting descriptive statistics for individual and occupational 

characteristics for both the NPS population and for the estimated study population. The next 

section presents analyses involving the character of harassing and/or assault behaviors. This is 

followed by a presentation of results involving contextual factors influencing specific harassing 

and/or assault behaviors experienced among employees. Results examining associations among 

demographic, occupational, and organizational factors and harassing and/or assault behaviors 

 

21 Numerator denotes the number of individuals who selected a particular option within a question. Denominator 

denotes the number of individuals who responded to the question itself. Hence, there had to be at least five people 

who selected a particular response option and at least 15 people who answered the question. 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

16 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

experienced are presented next. These analyses are followed by results examining job-related 

consequences of harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced. The last section reports 

additional findings we uncovered with regard to harassment and/or assault experiences that were 

not described in earlier sections of the results. All results have been weighted to reflect estimated 

population parameters for the NPS workforce.

3.2 Population and Employee Characteristics

Demographic and occupational characteristics of the employee and study populations are 

presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. Comparisons of the known employee population 

characteristics to the estimated study population characteristics reveal the estimated study 

population data was representative of the NPS population, especially with regard to age, racial/

ethnic background, disability status, sex, appointment type, and work schedule. Hence the 

estimated study population mirrors the employee population in terms of these demographic and 

occupational characteristics (see Table 3.1 and Table 3.2).

22

Table 3.1 Employee and Estimated Study Population Demographic Characteristics

Employee

population

Estimated study 

population

Number Percent Number* Percent*

Age

25 or under 850 4.6% 852 (±58) 4.6% (±0.3)

26-29 1,218 6.6% 1,221 (±68) 6.6% (±0.4)

30-39 4,165 22.5% 4,181 (±113) 22.6% (±0.6)

40-49 4,392 23.7% 4,408 (±115) 23.8% (±0.6)

50-59 5,260 28.4% 5,221 (±121) 28.2% (±0.7)

60 or older 2,665 14.4% 2,633 (±95) 14.2% (±0.5)

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 14,723 81.5% 14,506 (±107) 79.7% (±0.6)

Minority 3,352 18.5% 3,690 (±107) 20.3% (±0.6)

Disability

Yes 1,569 9.4% 1,957 (±84) 10.6% (±0.5)

No 15,063 90.6% 16,483 (±84) 89.4% (±0.5)

Sex

Men 11,585 62.5% 11,521 (±130) 62.3% (±0.7)

Women 6,965 37.5% 6,964 (±130) 37.7% (±0.7)

*Number and percent values reflect estimated weighted proportions based on complete, eligible responses.

 

22 We were not able to assess the accuracy of estimated population distributions for pay plan and supervisory status 

due to the nature and quality of the data we obtained. Additionally, we were unable to assess the accuracy of the 

estimated population distributions for relationship status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and years of service 

because these data were not available from Human Resources. These limitations notwithstanding, results derived 

from the survey responses provide an accurate reflection of estimated population parameters for the NPS workforce.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

17 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.1 Continued

Employee

population

Estimated study 

population

Number Percent Number* Percent*

Gender Identity

Male 11,585 62.5% 11,521 (±130) 62.1% (±0.7)

Female 6,965 37.5% 6,964 (±130) 37.5% (±0.7)

Transgender NA NA 16 (±10) 0.1% (±0.1)

Do not identify as female, male, or 

transgender NA NA 53 (±16) 0.3% (±0.1)

Sexual Orientation - Collapsed

Heterosexual NA NA 16,682 (±58) 95.1% (±0.3)

Sexual Minority NA NA 851 (±58) 4.9% (±0.3)

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or straight NA NA 16,682 (±78) 90.9% (±0.4)

Lesbian NA NA 182 (±28) 1.0% (±0.2)

Gay NA NA 248 (±33) 1.4% (±0.2)

Bisexual NA NA 286 (±35) 1.6% (±0.2)

Other NA NA 135 (±25) 0.7% (±0.1)

I prefer not to say NA NA 816 (±57) 4.4% (±0.3)

Relationship Status

Single NA NA 4,276 (±113) 23.4% (±0.6)

Partnered/Married NA NA 12,016 (±126) 65.7% (±0.7)

Separated/Widowed/Divorced NA NA 2,006 (±84) 11.0% (±0.5)

*Number and percent values reflect estimated weighted proportions based on complete, eligible responses.

Table 3.2 Employee and Estimated Study Population Occupational Characteristics

Employee

population

Estimated study 

population

Number Percent Number* Percent*

Education Level

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 5,402 30.0% 5,587 (±123) 30.7% (±0.7)

Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 2,640 14.7% 2,938 (±99) 16.1% (±0.5)

AA/College Degree 7,003 38.9% 6,450 (±127) 35.4% (±0.7)

Graduate Degree 2,939 16.3% 3,223 (±102) 17.7% (±0.6)

Appointment Type

Permanent 14,978 80.9% 15,831 (±93) 86.2% (±0.5)

Term 1,294 7.0% 1,658 (±78) 9.0% (±0.4)

Temporary 2,232 12.1% 868 (±58) 4.7% (±0.3)

*Number and percent values reflect estimated weighted proportions based on complete, eligible responses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

18 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.2 Continued

Employee

population

Estimated study 

population

Number Percent Number* Percent*

Work Schedule

Seasonal 2,197 12.8% 1,841 (±81) 11.2% (±0.5)

Non-seasonal 15,013 87.2% 14,625 (±81) 88.8% (±0.5)

Years of Service at Bureau or Office

Less than 1 year NA NA 1,149 (±66) 6.2% (±0.4)

1 to 3 years NA NA 2,585 (±94) 14.0% (±0.5)

4 to 5 years NA NA 1,494 (±74) 8.1% (±0.4)

6 to 10 years NA NA 3,830 (±109) 20.8% (±0.6)

11 to 14 years NA NA 1,807 (±81) 9.8% (±0.4)

15 to 20 years NA NA 2,822 (±97) 15.3% (±0.5)

More than 20 years NA NA 4,736 (±117) 25.7% (±0.6)

Pay Plan and Grade

Wage Grade (WG) 1 - 4 430 2.3% 640 (±51) 3.5% (±0.3)

Wage Grade (WG) 5 - 8 1,716 9.3% 2,828 (±97) 15.5% (±0.5)

Wage Grade (WG) 9 - 16 988 5.3% 1,496 (±74) 8.2% (±0.4)

Other Wage Grade (WG) 570 3.1% 236 (±32) 1.3% (±0.2)

General Schedule (GS) 1 - 6 3,110 16.8% 2,146 (±87) 11.7% (±0.5)

General Schedule (GS) 7 - 10 3,535 19.1% 4,043 (±111) 22.1% (±0.6)

General Schedule (GS) 11 - 12 4,532 24.5% 4,407 (±114) 24.1% (±0.6)

General Schedule (GS) 13 - 15 1,987 10.7% 1,785 (±80) 9.8% (±0.4)

Senior Level (SL)/Scientific Professional 

(ST)/Senior Executive Service (SES) 26 0.1% 24 (±12) 0.1% (±0.1)

Other 1,610 8.7% 691 (±52) 3.8% (±0.3)

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 14,141 76.4% 9,205 (±133) 50.3% (±0.7)

Supervisor 4,363 23.6% 9,092 (±133) 49.7% (±0.7)

Duty Station

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) NA NA 1,091 (±65) 5.9% (±0.4)

Regional Office NA NA 1,389 (±72) 7.6% (±0.4)

Park or Other Field Location NA NA 15,865 (±92) 86.5% (±0.5)

*Number and percent values reflect estimated weighted proportions based on complete, eligible responses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

19 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3.3 Character of Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced

Estimated experience rates and number of occurrences for all forms of harassment and/or 

assault behaviors assessed in the WES are presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Estimated Experience Rate and Number of Harassment Experiences in Past 12 Months

Experience rate Estimated number

Type of Harassment Percent MoE Lower Limit Upper Limit

Any Form 38.7% ±0.7 7,053 7,313

Age 22.9% ±0.6 4,133 4,358

Racial/Ethnic 9.5% ±0.4 1,690 1,846

Religious 7.2% ±0.4 1,258 1,395

Disability 6.9% ±0.4 1,209 1,344

Sexual Orientation 4.5% ±0.3 774 885

Gender Harassment 19.3% ±0.6 3,466 3,677

Sexual Harassment 10.4% ±0.4 1,833 1,996

Sexual Assault Related Behaviors 0.95% ±0.15 151 203

Sexual Touching 0.72% ±0.13 113 158

Attempted Sex 0.17% ±0.07 22 45

Completed Sex 0.05% ±0.05 5 19

As can be seen in Table 3.3 and in Figure 3.1, an estimated 38.7% of employees 

experienced some form of harassing and/or assault behaviors in the 12 months preceding the 

survey. More specifically, 22.9% experienced harassing behaviors based on their age; 9.5% 

experienced harassing behaviors based on their racial/ethnic background; 7.2% experienced

harassing behaviors based on their religious beliefs; 6.9% experienced harassing behaviors based 

on a perceived or actual disability; 4.5% experienced harassing behaviors based on their sexual 

orientation; 19.3% experienced harassing behaviors based on their gender; 10.4% experienced 

sexually harassing behaviors; and 0.95% of experienced sexual assault related behaviors, with 

the preponderance of these experiences involving sexual touching (0.72%) or attempted sexual 

assault behaviors with or without sexual touching (0.17%).23

 

23 In many instances of sexual assault related behaviors, people experience a combination of behaviors. For example, 

someone who marked in the survey that they experienced “Made you have sexual intercourse” once or more might 

have also marked once or more to “Sexually touched you.” Rather than attempt to provide experience rates for every 

possible combination of behaviors, responses were coded to create three mutually exclusive categories: unwanted 

sexual touching (this includes only those who marked once or more to intentional touching of genitalia, breasts, or 

buttocks), attempted sex (this includes those who marked once or more to an attempt to make someone have sexual 

intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or object regardless of whether they also experienced 

unwanted sexual touching), and completed sex (this includes those who marked once or more to making someone 

have sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or object regardless of whether they also 

experienced unwanted sexual touching or attempted sex). Specifically, responses were coded as unwanted sexual 

touching (single category) if the respondents indicated experiencing sexual touching without identifying an 

attempted or completed sexual behavior. Responses were coded as experiencing attempted sex (with or without 

unwanted touching) if the respondents indicated experiencing attempted sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or 

penetration by a finger or object, regardless of whether they also experienced unwanted sexual touching, but without 

an experience of completed sex. Responses were coded as experiencing completed sex (with or without unwanted 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

20 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.1 Estimated Experience Rates for Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors in Past 12 

Months

While summarizing employees’ experiences into proportions provides a convenient way 

to describe the patterns observed in these data, translating these rates into numbers of employees 

affected offers another way to understand their meaningfulness. Considering the estimated rate 

for any form of harassment and reflecting on the estimated number of individuals it represents 

reveals that a rate of 38.7% translates into 7,053 to 7,313 individuals who experienced some 

form of harassing and/or assault behavior in 12 months preceding the survey. Likewise, a rate of 

22.9% translates into 4,133 to 4,358 individuals who experienced some form of harassing 

behavior based on their age; a rate of 9.5% translates into 1,690 to 1,846 individuals who 

experienced some form of harassing behavior based on their racial/ethnic background; a rate of 

7.2% translates into 1,258 to 1,395 individuals who experienced some form of harassing 

behavior based on their religious beliefs; a rate of 6.9% translates into 1,209 to 1,344 individuals 

who experienced some form of harassing behavior based on a disability status; a rate of 4.5% 

translates into 774 to 885 individuals who experienced some form of harassing behavior based 

on sexual orientation; a rate of 19.3% translates into 3,466 to 3,677 individuals who experienced 

some form of gender harassing behavior; a rate of 10.4% translates into 1,833 to 1,996 

individuals who experienced some form of sexually harassing behavior; a rate of 0.95% 

translates into 151 to 203 individuals who experienced some type of sexual assault related 

behavior; a rate of 0.72% translates into 113 to 158 individuals who experienced some form of 

sexual touching behavior; a rate of 0.17% translates into 22 to 45 individuals who experienced 

some form of attempted sexual assault related behavior; and a rate of 0.05% translates into 5 to 

19 individuals who experienced some form of completed sexual assault related behavior.

 

touching and/or attempted sex) if the respondents indicated experiencing a behavior associated with completed sex, 

regardless of whether they also indicated experiencing unwanted sexual touching or attempted sex. The results then 

show the percentage of employees who experienced any of the unwanted sexual touching behaviors only, any of the 

attempted sex behaviors excluding unwanted sexual touching, and any of the completed sex behaviors excluding 

unwanted sexual touching and attempted sex. 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

21 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.4 Estimated Number and Frequency Distribution of Harassment Experiences in Past 12 

Months

Type of 

Harassment N

Average 

frequency

Once

Once a 

month or 

less

Two-three 

times a 

month

Once a 

week or 

more

One or 

more times 

a day

Any Form 7,183 3.1

(±0.0)

38.4%

(±0.5)

35.6%

(±0.5)

12.5%

(±0.3)

8.6%

(±0.3)

5.0%

(±0.2)

Age 4,244 3.1

(±0.0)

38.2%

(±0.9)

33.7%

(±0.9)

15.5%

(±0.7)

8.8%

(±0.6)

3.9%

(±0.4)

Racial/Ethnic 1,766 3.0

(±0.0)

40.5%

(±1.5)

40.1%

(±1.5)

6.4%

(±0.8)

5.8%

(±0.7)

7.2%

(±0.8)

Religious 1,325 2.9

(±0.0)

43.8%

(±1.8)

35.1%

(±1.7)

10.3%

(±1.1)

6.6%

(±0.9)

4.2%

(±0.8)

Disability 1,275 3.1

(±0.0)

37.2%

(±1.6)

37.1%

(±1.6)

11.4%

(±1.1)

8.2%

(±1.0)

6.1%

(±0.9)

Sexual Orientation 828 3.2

(±0.1)

37.0%

(±2.1)

33.7%

(±2.1)

13.3%

(±1.5)

7.2%

(±1.2)

8.8%

(±1.3)

Gender 

Harassment 3,570 3.1(±0.0)

33.8%

(±1.0)

38.4%

(±1.0)

13.1%

(±0.7)

9.7%

(±0.6)

5.0%

(±0.5)

Sexual Harassment 1,913 3.0

(±0.0)

40.6%

(±1.2)

32.7%

(±1.1)

12.3%

(±0.8)

10.4%

(±0.8)

4.0%

(±0.5)

Sexual Assault 

Related Behaviors 175 2.5(±0.1)

71.8%

(±6.2)

11.9%

(±4.9)

11.4%

(±4.8)

NR NR

Note. Frequency scale scores ranged from once to one or more times per day for respondents who reported 

experiencing harassing and/or assault behaviors. A value of 3 correspond to once a month or less.

Table 3.4 shows the average frequency and corresponding distribution for all forms of 

harassing and/or assault behaviors measured in the WES. As shown in Table 3.4, average 

frequency ratings were within 2-3, on a response scale ranging from once (2) to one or more 

times a day (6), with once a month or less representing a value of 3.

Figure 3.2 Frequency of Occurrence for Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

22 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Examination of the distribution of these experiences clearly show that most employees 

experienced these types of behaviors more than once (see Table 3.4). Figure 3.2 displays the 

distribution of these experiences for all forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors measured in 

the WES. As shown in Figure 3.2, regardless of the particular behavior involved, 61.6% of 

employees experienced these behaviors more than once. This pattern is observed for all other

forms of harassing behaviors measured with the exception of sexual assault behaviors which 

were experienced once by the majority of employees.

To identify vulnerability factors associated with employees’ experiences, we examined 

harassing and/or assault rates by various demographic and occupational characteristics measured 

in the WES. Demographic characteristics included variables measuring employees’ age, sex, 

level of education, racial/ethnic background, and relationship status. Occupational characteristics 

included variables measuring employees’ pay grade, tenure in the organization, employment 

classification, and type of work unit.

For these analyses, t-tests or ANOVA tests were performed to identify statistically 

significant differences between/among groups. Given that the likelihood of finding statistically 

significant results increase as a function of sample size, we also evaluated the practical 

significance to ascertain the meaningfulness of these findings. Practical significance was 

determined by evaluating the absolute value of the difference within subgroup comparisons—the 

absolute value of the difference within subgroup comparisons had to vary by 30% or more for 

the groups and/or variables involved. Major findings for these analyses are highlighted within 

Table 3.5 to Table 3.13 and complete findings are documented in the Supplemental Statistical 

Report. As noted earlier, findings that met statistical significance criteria are denoted by an 

asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met practical significant criteria are denoted by an 

arrowhead; and the most impactful of the variables are also shaded within the each of the tables.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

23 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.5 Estimated Experience Rate and Frequency of Any Form of Harassment in Past 12 

Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 7,183 38.7% ±0.7

Age

A 25 or under 492 57.8%CDEF ±3.4 ◄

B 26-29 641 52.5%CDEF ±2.8 ◄

C 30-39 1,793 42.9%ABDEF ±1.5

D 40-49 1,385 31.4%ABCEF ±1.4

E 50-59 1,877 35.9%ABCD ±1.3

F 60 or older 971 36.9%ABCD ±1.9

Relationship Status

A Single 1,999 46.7%BC ±1.5

B Partnered/Married 4,233 35.2%AC ±0.9

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 841 41.9%AB ±2.2

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 5,626 38.8% ±0.8

Minority 1,387 37.6% ±1.6

Disability

Yes 964 49.2%* ±2.2

No 6,169 37.4%* ±0.7

Sex

Men 3,767 32.7%* ±0.9

Women 3,381 48.5%* ±1.2

Gender Identity

A Male 3,767 32.7%BD ±0.9

B Female 3,381 48.5%A ±1.2

C Transgender NR NR NR

D Do not identify as female, male, or transgender 27 50.9%A ±13.6

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 6,253 37.5%* ±0.7

Sexual Minority 529 62.2%* ±3.3 ◄

Education Level

A Less than High School/High School Diploma/GED 1,697 30.4%BCD ±1.2

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 1,156 39.4%AD ±1.8

C AA/College Degree 2,702 41.9%AD ±1.2

D Graduate Degree 1,474 45.7%ABC ±1.7

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

24 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.5 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Appointment Type

A Permanent 5,949 37.6%BC ±0.8

B Term 712 42.9%AC ±2.4

C Temporary 416 47.9%AB ±3.3

Work Schedule

Seasonal 847 46.0%* ±2.3

Non-seasonal 5,450 37.3%* ±0.8

Years of Service at Bureau or Office

A Less than 1 year 377 32.8%BCDEF ±2.8

B 1 to 3 years 1,021 39.5%ACG ±1.9

C 4 to 5 years 680 45.5%ABEFG ±2.5

D 6 to 10 years 1,614 42.1%AG ±1.6

E 11 to 14 years 705 39.0%ACG ±2.3

F 15 to 20 years 1,098 38.9%ACG ±1.8

G More than 20 years 1,641 34.6%BCDEF ±1.4

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 1,201 43.1%BC ±1.8

B Middle Grade 3,363 40.2%AC ±1.1

C Senior Grade 2,220 35.9%AB ±1.2

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 3,696 40.2%* ±1.0

Supervisor 3,342 36.8%* ±1.0

Duty Station

A National Park Service Headquarters Office (WASO) 391 35.8% ±2.9

B Regional Office 515 37.0% ±2.6

C Park or Other Field Location 6,206 39.1% ±0.8

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.

Table 3.5 displays experience rates for any form of harassing and/or assault behavior by 

demographic and occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met 

statistical significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met 

practical significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences 

are shaded within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age and sexual minority status 

were the only variables that were notably associated with employees harassing and/or assault 

experiences. Specifically, employees who were 29 and younger experienced more harassment 

than their older counterparts; and sexual minority employees experienced more harassment than 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

25 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

their heterosexual counterparts (see Table 3.5). None of the other associations among 

demographic, occupational, and harassment experiences were noteworthy.

Table 3.6 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Age in Past 12 Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 4,244 22.9% ±0.6

Age

A 25 or under 437 51.3%BCDEF ±3.4 ◄

B 26-29 431 35.3%ACDEF ±2.7 ◄

C 30-39 915 21.9%ABDF ±1.3

D 40-49 599 13.6%ABCEF ±1.0 ◄

E 50-59 1,092 21.0%ABDF ±1.1

F 60 or older 751 28.5%ABCDE ±1.8

Relationship Status

A Single 1,254 29.4%BC ±1.4

B Partnered/Married 2,492 20.8%A ±0.7

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 439 21.9%A ±1.9

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 3,365 23.2%* ±0.7

Minority 777 21.1%* ±1.3

Disability

Yes 589 30.2%* ±2.1 ◄

No 3,625 22.0%* ±0.6

Sex

Men 2,359 20.5%* ±0.7

Women 1,864 26.8%* ±1.1

Gender Identity

A Male 2,359 20.5%B ±0.7

B Female 1,864 26.8%A ±1.1

C Transgender NR NR NR

D Do not identify as female, male, or transgender 18 34.0% ±14.1

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 3,702 22.2%* ±0.6

Sexual Minority 301 35.3%* ±3.3 ◄

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 980 17.6%BCD ±1.0

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 714 24.4%A ±1.6

C AA/College Degree 1,583 24.5%A ±1.1

D Graduate Degree 849 26.4%A ±1.6

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

26 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.6 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Appointment Type

A Permanent 3,452 21.8%BC ±0.7

B Term 441 26.6%AC ±2.2

C Temporary 270 31.2%AB ±3.2 ◄

Work Schedule

Seasonal 490 26.6%* ±2.1

Non-seasonal 3,176 21.8%* ±0.7

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year 250 21.7%C ±2.5

B 1 to 3 years 673 26.0%DFG ±1.7

C 4 to 5 years 413 27.7%ADEFG ±2.3

D 6 to 10 years 858 22.4%BC ±1.4

E 11 to 14 years 404 22.5%C ±2.0

F 15 to 20 years 561 19.9%BC ±1.5

G More than 20 years 1,054 22.3%BC ±1.2

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 755 27.2%C ±1.7

B Middle Grade 2,102 25.1%C ±0.9

C Senior Grade 1,169 18.9%AB ±1.0

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 2,229 24.3%* ±0.9

Supervisor 1,907 21.0%* ±0.8

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) 235 21.6% ±2.6

B Regional Office 286 20.6% ±2.2

C Park or Other Field Location 3,663 23.1% ±0.7

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.

Table 3.6 displays experience rates for harassing behaviors based on age by demographic 

and occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met statistical 

significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met practical 

significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences are shaded 

within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, disability status, sexual minority 

status and appointment type were significantly associated with employees’ harassment

experiences. Specifically, employees who were 29 and younger experienced more harassment 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

27 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

than their older counterparts; employees who were 40-49 experienced less harassment than any 

of the other groups; employees with a documented disability experienced more harassment than 

their non-disabled counterparts; sexual minority employees experienced more harassment than 

their heterosexual counterparts; and employees with a temporary employment classification 

experienced more harassment than their counterparts (see Table 3.6). None of the other 

associations among demographic, occupational, and harassment experiences were noteworthy. It 

is important to note that while age, disability status, sexual minority status and appointment type 

were significantly associated with employees’ harassment experiences, age was by far the most 

impactful variable involved.

Table 3.7 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic Background in Past 

12 Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 1,766 9.5% ±0.4

Age

A 25 or under 113 13.3%BCDF ±2.5 ◄

B 26-29 102 8.4%A ±1.7

C 30-39 413 9.9%A ±0.9

D 40-49 381 8.7%A ±0.9

E 50-59 540 10.4%F ±0.9

F 60 or older 209 8.0%AE ±1.1

Relationship Status

A Single 501 11.8%BC ±1.0

B Partnered/Married 1,052 8.8%A ±0.5

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 180 9.0%A ±1.3

Ethnicity/Race - Collapsed

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 1,014 7.0%* ±0.4

Minority 704 19.2%* ±1.3 ◄

Ethnicity/Race 

A Hispanic 240 16.9%BDF ±2.0

B American Indian or Alaskan Native 86 22.8%AF ±4.5

C Asian 33 20.1%F ±6.8

D Black/African-American 177 22.2%AF ±3.0

E Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 37 18.4%F ±6.0

F Non-Hispanic White 1,014 7.0%ABCDEG ±0.4

G Multi-racial 131 18.3%F ±3.0

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

28 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.7 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Disability

Yes 261 13.3%* ±1.6

No 1,477 9.0%* ±0.4

Sex

Men 1,094 9.5% ±0.6

Women 657 9.5% ±0.7

Gender Identity

A Male 1,094 9.5% ±0.6

B Female 657 9.5% ±0.7

C Transgender NR NR NR

D Do not identify as female, male, or transgender 9 17.0% ±13.0

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 1,494 9.0%* ±0.4

Sexual Minority 132 15.5%* ±2.6 ◄

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 389 7.0%BCD ±0.7

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 333 11.3%A ±1.2

C AA/College Degree 633 9.8%A ±0.8

D Graduate Degree 336 10.4%A ±1.1

Appointment Type

A Permanent 1,470 9.3%B ±0.5

B Term 204 12.3%AC ±1.7

C Temporary 65 7.5%B ±2.0

Work Schedule

Seasonal 122 6.6%* ±1.2

Non-seasonal 1,396 9.6%* ±0.5

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year 109 9.5% ±1.8

B 1 to 3 years 223 8.7%CE ±1.2

C 4 to 5 years 180 12.0%BDF ±1.8

D 6 to 10 years 328 8.6%CE ±0.9

E 11 to 14 years 206 11.5%BDF ±1.6

F 15 to 20 years 233 8.3%CE ±1.1

G More than 20 years 464 9.8% ±0.9

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

29 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.7 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 243 8.8%B ±1.1

B Middle Grade 881 10.5%AC ±0.7

C Senior Grade 504 8.2%B ±0.7

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 879 9.6% ±0.6

Supervisor 836 9.2% ±0.6

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) 122 11.2% ±2.0

B Regional Office 128 9.2% ±1.6

C Park or Other Field Location 1,473 9.3% ±0.5

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.

Table 3.7 displays experience rates for harassing behaviors based on race/ethnicity by 

demographic and occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met 

statistical significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met 

practical significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences 

are shaded within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, race/ethnicity and sexual 

minority status were significantly associated with employees’ harassment experiences. 

Specifically, employees who were 25 and younger experienced more harassment than their older 

counterparts; ethnic minority employees experienced more harassment than their non-minority 

counterparts; and sexual minority employees experienced more harassment than their 

heterosexual counterparts (see Table 3.7). None of the other associations among demographic, 

occupational, and harassment experiences were noteworthy. It is important to note that while 

age, race/ethnicity and sexual minority status were significantly associated with employees’

harassment experiences, race/ethnicity was by far the most impactful variable involved.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

30 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.8 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Religious Beliefs in Past 12 

Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 1,325 7.2% ±0.4

Age

A 25 or under 88 10.8%DEF ±2.3 ◄

B 26-29 116 9.5%DF ±1.8

C 30-39 370 8.9%DF ±0.9

D 40-49 268 6.1%ABCF ±0.7

E 50-59 382 7.3%AF ±0.7

F 60 or older 93 3.6%ABCDE ±0.8 ◄

Relationship Status

A Single 363 8.6%BC ±0.9

B Partnered/Married 843 7.0%A ±0.5

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 112 5.6%A ±1.1

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 991 6.9%* ±0.4

Minority 320 8.8%* ±1.0

Disability

Yes 159 8.3% ±1.3

No 1,163 7.1% ±0.4

Sex

Men 854 7.4%* ±0.5

Women 458 6.6%* ±0.6

Gender Identity

A Male 854 7.4%D ±0.5

B Female 458 6.6%D ±0.6

C Transgender NR NR NR

D Do not identify as female, male, or transgender 10 18.9%AB ±13.3

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 1,165 7.0%* ±0.4

Sexual Minority 100 11.7%* ±2.3 ◄

Education Level

A Less than High School/High School Diploma/GED 247 4.5%BCD ±0.6 ◄

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 284 9.7%AC ±1.1 ◄

C AA/College Degree 527 8.2%AB ±0.7

D Graduate Degree 261 8.1%A ±1.0

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

31 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.8 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 247 4.5%BCD ±0.6 ◄

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 284 9.7%AC ±1.1 ◄

C AA/College Degree 527 8.2%AB ±0.7

D Graduate Degree 261 8.1%A ±1.0

Appointment Type

A Permanent 1,057 6.7%BC ±0.4

B Term 171 10.3%A ±1.6 ◄

C Temporary 91 10.5%A ±2.2 ◄

Work Schedule

Seasonal 150 8.1%* ±1.3

Non-seasonal 989 6.8%* ±0.4

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year 87 7.6%G ±1.7

B 1 to 3 years 164 6.5%D ±1.0

C 4 to 5 years 131 8.8%G ±1.5

D 6 to 10 years 337 8.8%BG ±0.9

E 11 to 14 years 159 8.8%G ±1.4

F 15 to 20 years 208 7.4%G ±1.0

G More than 20 years 238 5.0%ACDEF ±0.7 ◄

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 239 8.7%C ±1.1

B Middle Grade 677 8.1%C ±0.6

C Senior Grade 349 5.7%AB ±0.6

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 664 7.3% ±0.5

Supervisor 646 7.1% ±0.5

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) 57 5.3%C ±1.5

B Regional Office 62 4.4%C ±1.2

C Park or Other Field Location 1,195 7.6%AB ±0.4

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.

Table 3.8 displays experience rates for harassment based on religious beliefs by 

demographic and occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

32 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

statistical significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met 

practical significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences 

are shaded within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, sexual minority status, 

education level, appointment type and years of service were significantly associated with 

employees’ harassment experiences. Specifically, employees who were 29 and younger 

experienced more harassment than their older counterparts; employees who were 60 and older 

experienced less harassment than their younger counterparts; sexual minority employees 

experienced more harassment than their heterosexual counterparts; employees with a less than 

high school diploma/high school diploma/GED experienced less harassment than their 

counterparts; employees with a trade/tech certificate/some college experienced more harassment 

than their counterparts; employees with a term and/or temporary employment classification 

experienced more harassment than their permanent counterparts; and employees with more than 

20 years of service experienced less harassment than their counterparts (see Table 3.8). None of 

the other associations among demographic, occupational, and harassment experiences were 

noteworthy. It is important to note that while age, sexual minority status, education level, 

appointment type and years of service were significantly associated with employees’ harassment

experiences, none of these variables stood out as being more or less impactful.

Table 3.9 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Disability Status in Past 12 

Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 1,275 6.9% ±0.4

Age

A 25 or under 56 6.7% ±1.9

B 26-29 55 4.6%EF ±1.3 ◄

C 30-39 231 5.6%EF ±0.7

D 40-49 263 6.0%EF ±0.7

E 50-59 438 8.5%BCD ±0.8

F 60 or older 229 8.8%BCD ±1.2

Relationship Status 

A Single 281 6.7%C ±0.8

B Partnered/Married 763 6.4%C ±0.5

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 187 9.4%AB ±1.4 ◄

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 957 6.7%* ±0.4

Minority 286 7.9%* ±0.9

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

33 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.9 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Disability

Yes 520 26.8%* ±2.0 ◄

No 746 4.6%* ±0.3

Sex

Men 776 6.8% ±0.5

Women 486 7.1% ±0.6

Gender Identity

A Male 776 6.8%D ±0.5

B Female 486 7.1%D ±0.6

C Transgender NR NR NR

D

Do not identify as female, male, or 

transgender 9 17.0%AB ±13.0

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 1,044 6.3%* ±0.4

Sexual Minority 118 14.1%* ±2.5 ◄

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 361 6.5%B ±0.7

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 281 9.7%ACD ±1.1 ◄

C AA/College Degree 392 6.2%B ±0.6

D Graduate Degree 186 5.9%B ±0.9

Appointment Type

A Permanent 1,132 7.2%B ±0.4

B Term 72 4.4%A ±1.1 ◄

C Temporary 49 5.6% ±1.8

Work Schedule

Seasonal 115 6.3% ±1.2

Non-seasonal 1,054 7.3% ±0.4

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year 61 5.4%C ±1.5

B 1 to 3 years 131 5.1%CDF ±0.9

C 4 to 5 years 141 9.5%ABEG ±1.6 ◄

D 6 to 10 years 284 7.5%B ±0.9

E 11 to 14 years 115 6.5%C ±1.2

F 15 to 20 years 216 7.7%B ±1.0

G More than 20 years 314 6.7%C ±0.8

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

34 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.9 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 161 5.9%B ±0.9

B Middle Grade 764 9.2%AC ±0.6 ◄

C Senior Grade 286 4.7%B ±0.6

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 822 9.0%* ±0.6 ◄

Supervisor 448 5.0%* ±0.5

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) 78 7.3% ±1.7

B Regional Office 112 8.1% ±1.6

C Park or Other Field Location 1,065 6.8% ±0.4

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.

Table 3.9 displays experience rates for harassment based on disability status by 

demographic and occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met 

statistical significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met 

practical significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences 

are shaded within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, relationship status, 

disability status, sexual minority status, education level, appointment type, years of service, pay 

plan and grade, and supervisory status were significantly associated with employees harassing 

and/or assault experiences. Specifically, employees who were 29 and younger experienced more 

harassment than their older counterparts; employees who were separated/widowed/divorced 

experienced more harassment than their single, partnered and/or married counterparts; 

employees with a documented disability experienced more harassment than their non-disabled

counterparts; sexual minority employees experienced more harassment than their heterosexual 

counterparts; employees with a trade/tech certificate/some college experienced more harassment 

than their counterparts; employees with a term employment classification experienced more 

harassment than their permanent counterparts; employees with 4-5 years of service experienced 

more harassment than their counterparts; employees in the middle grades and/or non-supervisory 

positions experienced more harassment than their counterparts (see Table 3.9). None of the other 

associations among demographic, occupational, and harassment experiences were noteworthy. It 

is important to note that while age, relationship status, disability status, sexual minority status, 

education level, appointment type, years of service, pay plan and grade, and supervisory status

were significantly associated with employees’ harassment experiences, disability status was by 

far the most impactful variable involved.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

35 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.10 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation in Past 12 

Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 828 4.5% ±0.3

Age

A 25 or under 72 8.5%CDEF ±2.1 ◄

B 26-29 89 7.3%CDEF ±1.6 ◄

C 30-39 183 4.4%AB ±0.7

D 40-49 154 3.5%AB ±0.6

E 50-59 244 4.7%ABF ±0.6

F 60 or older 85 3.2%ABE ±0.8

Relationship Status

A Single 266 6.3%B ±0.8 ◄

B Partnered/Married 443 3.7%AC ±0.4

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 117 5.8%B ±1.1

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 668 4.6% ±0.4

Minority 149 4.1% ±0.7

Disability

Yes 111 5.7%* ±1.1

No 715 4.4%* ±0.3

Sex

Men 380 3.3%* ±0.3

Women 433 6.3%* ±0.6 ◄

Gender Identity

A Male 380 3.3%BD ±0.3

B Female 433 6.3%AD ±0.6

C Transgender NR NR NR

D Do not identify as female, male, or transgender 9 17.0%AB ±13.0

Sexual Orientation - Collapsed

Heterosexual 505 3.0%* ±0.3

Sexual Minority 257 30.3%* ±3.2 ◄

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

36 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.10 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Sexual Orientation

A Heterosexual or straight 505 3.0%BCDEF ±0.3

B Lesbian 76 42.1%ACDEF ±7.4

C Gay 90 36.1%ABDEF ±6.2

D Bisexual 77 27.0%ABCEF ±5.5

E

Other (e.g., questioning, asexual, undecided, 

self-identified, or intersex) 14 10.3%ABCD ±6.5

F I prefer not to say 58 7.2%ABCD ±2.0

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 174 3.1%BCD ±0.5

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 137 4.7%A ±0.8

C AA/College Degree 333 5.2%A ±0.6

D Graduate Degree 178 5.6%A ±0.9

Appointment Type

A Permanent 648 4.1%BC ±0.3

B Term 91 5.5%AC ±1.2

C Temporary 75 8.7%AB ±2.1 ◄

Work Schedule

Seasonal 124 6.8%* ±1.2 ◄

Non-seasonal 589 4.0%* ±0.3

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year 44 3.9%C ±1.3

B 1 to 3 years 119 4.6%C ±0.9

C 4 to 5 years 129 8.7%ABDEFG ±1.5 ◄

D 6 to 10 years 178 4.7%C ±0.7

E 11 to 14 years 85 4.8%C ±1.1

F 15 to 20 years 105 3.7%C ±0.8

G More than 20 years 168 3.6%C ±0.6

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 165 6.0%C ±0.9

B Middle Grade 417 5.0%C ±0.5

C Senior Grade 217 3.5%AB ±0.5

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

37 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.10 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 467 5.1%* ±0.5

Supervisor 358 3.9%* ±0.4

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters 

Office (WASO) 43 4.0% ±1.3

B Regional Office 44 3.2%C ±1.1

C Park or Other Field Location 738 4.7%B ±0.3

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.

Table 3.10 displays experience rates for harassment based on sexual orientation status by 

demographic and occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met 

statistical significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met 

practical significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences 

are shaded within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, relationship status, sex, 

sexual minority status, appointment type, work schedule and years of service were significantly 

associated with employees harassing and/or assault experiences. Specifically, employees who 

were 29 and younger experienced more harassment than their older counterparts; employees who 

were single experienced more harassment than their counterparts; women experienced more 

harassment than men; sexual minority employees experienced more harassment than their 

heterosexual counterparts; employees with a temporary employment classification and/or 

seasonal schedule experienced more harassment than their counterparts; and employees with 4-5 

years of service experienced more harassment than their counterparts (see Table 3.10). None of 

the other associations among demographic, occupational, and harassment experiences were 

noteworthy. It is important to note that while age, relationship status, sex, sexual minority status, 

appointment type, work schedule and years of service were significantly associated with 

employees harassing and/or assault experiences, sexual minority status was by far the most 

impactful variable involved.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

38 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.11 Estimated Experience Rate of Gender Harassment in Past 12 Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 3,570 19.3% ±0.6

Age

A 25 or under 275 32.3%CDEF ±3.2 ◄

B 26-29 372 30.5%CDEF ±2.6 ◄

C 30-39 1,057 25.3%ABDEF ±1.3 ◄

D 40-49 774 17.6%ABCEF ±1.2

E 50-59 797 15.3%ABCDF ±1.0

F 60 or older 282 10.7%ABCDE ±1.2

Relationship Status

A Single 1,137 26.6%BC ±1.3 ◄

B Partnered/Married 1,959 16.3%AC ±0.7

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 410 20.5%AB ±1.8

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 2,921 20.1%* ±0.7

Minority 584 15.8%* ±1.2

Disability

Yes 402 20.5% ±1.9

No 3,154 19.1% ±0.6

Sex

Men 1,100 9.6%* ±0.6

Women 2,448 35.2%* ±1.1 ◄

Gender Identity

A Male 1,100 9.6%BD ±0.6

B Female 2,448 35.2%A ±1.1

C Transgender NR NR NR

D Do not identify as female, male, or transgender 15 28.3%A ±14.0

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 3,012 18.1%* ±0.6

Sexual Minority 353 41.5%* ±3.4 ◄

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 634 11.3%BCD ±0.9

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 485 16.5%ACD ±1.4

C AA/College Degree 1,453 22.5%ABD ±1.0

D Graduate Degree 940 29.2%ABC ±1.6 ◄

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

39 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.11 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Appointment Type

A Permanent 2,923 18.5%BC ±0.6

B Term 357 21.5%AC ±2.0

C Temporary 246 28.3%AB ±3.1 ◄

Work Schedule

Seasonal 493 26.8%* ±2.1 ◄

Non-seasonal 2,661 18.2%* ±0.6

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year 202 17.6%C ±2.3

B 1 to 3 years 536 20.7%G ±1.6

C 4 to 5 years 360 24.1%AG ±2.2

D 6 to 10 years 804 21.0%G ±1.3

E 11 to 14 years 382 21.1%G ±1.9

F 15 to 20 years 596 21.1%G ±1.5

G More than 20 years 667 14.1%BCDEF ±1.0

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 648 23.3%BC ±1.6

B Middle Grade 1,571 18.8%A ±0.9

C Senior Grade 1,186 19.2%A ±1.0

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 1,762 19.2% ±0.8

Supervisor 1,759 19.3% ±0.8

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) 211 19.3% ±2.5

B Regional Office 226 16.2%C ±2.0

C Park or Other Field Location 3,100 19.5%B ±0.6

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.

Table 3.11 displays experience rates for gender harassment by demographic and 

occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met statistical 

significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met practical 

significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences are shaded 

within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, relationship status, sex, sexual 

minority status, education level, appointment type and work schedule were significantly 

associated with employees’ gender harassment experiences. Specifically, employees who were 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

40 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

39 and younger experienced more harassment than their older counterparts; employees who were 

single experienced more harassment than their counterparts; women experienced more 

harassment than men; sexual minority employees experienced more harassment than their 

heterosexual counterparts; employees with a graduate degree experienced more harassment than 

their counterparts; and employees with a temporary employment classification and/or seasonal 

schedule experienced more harassment than their counterparts (see Table 3.11). None of the 

other associations among demographic, occupational, and harassment experiences were 

noteworthy. It is important to note that while age, relationship status, sex, sexual minority status, 

educational level, appointment type and work schedule were significantly associated with 

employees’ gender harassment experiences, both sex and sexual minority status were the most 

impactful variables involved.

Table 3.12 Estimated Experience Rate and Frequency of Sexual Harassment in Past 12 Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 1,913 10.4% ±0.4

Age

A 25 or under 152 18.1%CDEF ±2.8 ◄

B 26-29 225 18.5%CDEF ±2.3 ◄

C 30-39 547 13.1%ABDEF ±1.1

D 40-49 362 8.3%ABC ±0.9

E 50-59 446 8.6%ABC ±0.8

F 60 or older 175 6.7%ABC ±1.0

Relationship Status

A Single 646 15.2%B ±1.1 ◄

B Partnered/Married 949 7.9%AC ±0.5

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 286 14.2%B ±1.6 ◄

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 1,543 10.7%* ±0.5

Minority 344 9.4%* ±1.0

Disability

Yes 217 11.1% ±1.5

No 1,690 10.3% ±0.5

Sex

Men 687 6.0%* ±0.4

Women 1,217 17.6%* ±0.9 ◄

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

41 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.12 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Gender Identity

A Male 687 6.0%B ±0.4

B Female 1,217 17.6%A ±0.9

C Transgender NR NR NR

D

Do not identify as female, male, or 

transgender 8 15.1% ±12.8

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 1,557 9.4%* ±0.5

Sexual Minority 223 26.2%* ±3.1 ◄

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 359 6.4%BCD ±0.7

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 292 10.0%ACD ±1.1

C AA/College Degree 795 12.3%AB ±0.8

D Graduate Degree 419 13.0%AB ±1.2

Appointment Type

A Permanent 1,577 10.0%C ±0.5

B Term 193 11.6%C ±1.6

C Temporary 142 16.7%AB ±2.7 ◄

Work Schedule

Seasonal 249 13.6%* ±1.7 ◄

Non-seasonal 1,466 10.1%* ±0.5

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year 84 7.3%BCDE ±1.7

B 1 to 3 years 272 10.6%ADG ±1.2

C 4 to 5 years 184 12.3%AG ±1.8

D 6 to 10 years 500 13.1%ABFG ±1.1

E 11 to 14 years 238 13.2%AFG ±1.6

F 15 to 20 years 284 10.1%DEG ±1.2

G More than 20 years 326 6.9%BCDEF ±0.8

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 352 12.7%BC ±1.3

B Middle Grade 918 11.0%AC ±0.7

C Senior Grade 540 8.7%AB ±0.7

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

42 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.12 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 975 10.6% ±0.6

Supervisor 902 9.9% ±0.6

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) 78 7.2%C ±1.7

B Regional Office 106 7.6%C ±1.5

C Park or Other Field Location 1,702 10.8%AB ±0.5

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.

Table 3.12 displays experience rates for sexual harassment by demographic and 

occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met statistical 

significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met practical 

significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences are shaded 

within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, relationship status, sex, sexual 

minority status, appointment type and work schedule were significantly associated with 

employees’ sexual harassment experiences. Specifically, employees who were 29 and younger 

experienced more harassment than their older counterparts; employees who were single and/or 

separated/widowed/divorced experienced more harassment than their partnered/married 

counterparts; women experienced more harassment than men; sexual minority employees 

experienced more harassment than their heterosexual counterparts; and employees with a 

temporary employment classification and/or seasonal schedule experienced more harassment 

than their counterparts (see Table 3.12). None of the other associations among demographic, 

occupational, and harassment experiences were noteworthy. It is important to note that while 

age, relationship status, sex, sexual minority status, appointment type and work schedule were 

significantly associated with employees’ sexual harassment experiences, both sex and sexual 

minority status were the most impactful variables involved.

Table 3.13 Estimated Experience Rate of Sexual Assault Related Behaviors in Past 12 Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Overall 175 0.95% ±0.15

Age - Collapsed

39 or under 85 1.36%* ±0.32

40 or older 89 0.72%* ±0.17

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

43 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.13 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Age

A 25 or under NR NR NR

B 26-29 31 2.50%CDEF ±1.04 ◄

C 30-39 50 1.20%BDF ±0.38

D 40-49 26 0.59%BC ±0.27

E 50-59 54 1.03%BF ±0.31

F 60 or older 9 0.33%BCE ±0.31

Relationship Status

A Single 91 2.14%B ±0.48

B Partnered/Married 51 0.43%AC ±0.13 ◄

C Separated/Widowed/Divorced 31 1.54%B ±0.64

Ethnicity/Race

Non-Minority (Non-Hispanic White) 143 0.99% ±0.17

Minority 32 0.86% ±0.36

Disability

Yes 43 2.22%* ±0.76 ◄

No 131 0.80%* ±0.15

Sex

Men 68 0.59%* ±0.16

Women 103 1.48%* ±0.31 ◄

Gender Identity

A Male 68 0.59%B ±0.16

B Female 103 1.48%A ±0.31

C Transgender 0 0.00% NA

D

Do not identify as female, male, or 

transgender NR NR NR

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 161 0.96% ±0.16

Sexual Minority 7 0.85% ±0.90

Education Level

A

Less than High School/High School 

Diploma/GED 53 0.95% ±0.29

B Trade/Tech Certificate/Some College 16 0.54%C ±0.34

C AA/College Degree 75 1.16%B ±0.29

D Graduate Degree 32 0.98% ±0.41

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

44 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.13 Continued

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Appointment Type

A Permanent 153 0.97% ±0.17

B Term 13 0.77% ±0.56

C Temporary 9 1.09% ±0.96

Work Schedule

Seasonal 34 1.84%* ±0.73 ◄

Non-seasonal 129 0.88%* ±0.17

Years of Service

A Less than 1 year NR NR NR

B 1 to 3 years 32 1.23%G ±0.51

C 4 to 5 years 17 1.16% ±0.69

D 6 to 10 years 56 1.46%G ±0.43 ◄

E 11 to 14 years 26 1.42%G ±0.67 ◄

F 15 to 20 years 24 0.85% ±0.42

G More than 20 years 15 0.31%BDE ±0.21 ◄

Pay Plan and Grade

A Junior Grade 48 1.72%BC ±0.56 ◄

B Middle Grade 82 0.99%AC ±0.24

C Senior Grade 29 0.46%AB ±0.20

D Executive Grade NR NR NR

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 113 1.23%* ±0.25

Supervisor 60 0.66%* ±0.19

Duty Station

A

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO) 13 1.23% ±0.86

B Regional Office NR NR NR

C Park or Other Field Location 157 0.99% ±0.17

Note. Asterisks and/or capital letters denote statistically significant differences among group(s) indicated. ◄ 

denotes differences that met criteria for both statistical and practical significance. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4

and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade includes GS 11-15; and Executive 

Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive Service.

Table 3.13 displays experience rates for sexual assault related behaviors by demographic 

and occupational variables included in the WES. As noted earlier, findings that met statistical 

significance criteria are denoted by an asterisk and/or capital letters; findings that met practical 

significance criteria are denoted by an arrowhead; and the largest of those differences are shaded 

within the table. Examination of these data reveals that age, relationship status, disability status, 

sex, work schedule, years of service, and pay plan and grade were significantly associated with 

employees’ sexual assault related experiences. Specifically, employees who were 26-29 years 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

45 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

experienced more sexual assault related behaviors than their older counterparts; employees who 

were single/separated/widowed/divorced experienced more sexual assault related behaviors than 

their partnered and/or married counterparts; employees with a documented disability experienced 

more sexual assault related behaviors than their non-disabled counterparts; women experienced 

more sexual assault related behaviors than men; sexual minority employees experienced more 

sexual assault related behaviors than their heterosexual counterparts; employees with a seasonal 

work schedule experienced more sexual assault related behaviors than their counterparts;

employees with 6-14 years of service experienced more sexual assault related behaviors than 

their counterparts; employees with more than 20 years of service experienced less sexual assault 

related behaviors than their counterparts; employees in the middle grades experienced more 

sexual assault related behaviors than their counterparts (see Table 3.13). None of the other 

associations among demographic, occupational, and harassment experiences were noteworthy. It 

is important to note that while age, relationship status, disability status, sex, work schedule, years 

of service, pay plan and grade were significantly associated with employees’ sexual assault 

related behaviors, relationship status, disability status and sex were by far the most impactful 

variables involved.

3.3.1 Summary of Analyses of Demographic, Occupational, and Harassing and/or 

Assault Experiences

Collectively, the pattern of findings examining associations involving demographic and 

occupational variables and employees’ experiences with harassing and/or assault behaviors 

clearly indicates that it is the matched demographic characteristic to the particular form of 

harassing and/or assault behavior experienced that yields the largest differences in these 

behaviors. As noted previously, none of the associations among other demographic and 

occupational variables were significantly related to employees’ harassment and/or assault 

behaviors. Therefore, these are not depicted in the Table 3.14.

Table 3.14 Associations of Demographic and Occupational Characteristics with Harassment 

Experiences in Past 12 Months

Variable

Any Form

Age

Racial/Ethnic

Religion

Disability

Sexual

Orientation

Gender

Harassment

Sexual

Harassment

Sexual

Assault

Behaviors

Age ✓ ✓

Race/Ethnicity ✓

Disability Status ✓ ✓

Sex ✓ ✓ ✓

Sexual Orientation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Relationship Status ✓
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

46 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.14 and Figure 3.3 to Figure 3.7 highlight findings for the most impactful 

demographic and/or occupational characteristics associated with each specific form of harassing 

and/or assault behaviors experienced.

Figure 3.3 Estimated Experience Rate of Harassment Based on Age in Past 12 Months

Figure 3.4 Estimated Experience Rates for Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic Background, 

Disability Status, and Sexual Orientation in Past 12 Months

Figure 3.5 Estimated Experience Rates of Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic Background in 

Past 12 Months
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

47 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.6 Estimated Experience Rates of Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation in Past 12 

Months

Figure 3.7 Estimated Experience Rates for Gender and Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 

Behaviors in Past 12 Months
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

48 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3.4 Contextual Factors Influencing Specific Behaviors or Experiences

Analyses of contextual factors involving specific behaviors or set of experiences that 

significantly affected employees’ personal and professional lives were performed with data from 

employees who indicated they experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors and who also 

responded to follow-up questions exploring situational characteristics such as time, location, 

frequency, and duration of the experience; sex, age, and employment status of the person(s)

involved; reporting behaviors and outcomes; and the impact of these experiences on 

interpersonal relationships, physical or emotional well-being, job performance, and willingness 

to remain a part of the organization.

It is worth noting that the data available for these analyses are limited to those 

respondents who experienced some form of harassing and/or assault behavior and provided 

responses to questions within this section of the survey (n = 7,044). As noted in Section 2.4 of 

the methodology, responses to this section of the survey were purposely focused on a single 

experience or set of related experiences to minimize response burden and optimize survey 

completion.24 Responses to questions involving gender harassment, sexual harassment and 

sexual assault related behaviors were assessed in reference to sex and/or gender within this 

section of the survey to minimize response burden and optimize survey completion.

We computed descriptive statistics including counts, percentages, means, standard 

deviations, and median and modal values for these items to describe overarching trends in these 

data and highlight these findings in the coming sections. Given the small number of employees 

involved in some of these analyses, differences in percentages who reported each form of 

harassment are reported for descriptive purposes only. Therefore, caution should be used in 

interpreting differences among specific forms of harassment and/or assault behaviors. We refer 

readers to the Supplemental Statistical Report for a complete description of these data.

 

24 We recognize that people may have experienced more than one type of harassing and/or assault behavior in the 

past 12 months. However, to ask about each specific form of harassment and/or assault experience would have 

added substantial content to an already lengthy survey. Hence, we asked employees to focus their responses to a 

specific behavior or experience that had the greatest effect and asked them to respond to all subsequent questions in 

this section in terms of this experience.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

49 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.15 Primary Basis for Experience of Greatest Effect

N Percent MoE

Q33 Thinking about the one behavior or experience that had the greatest effect on 

you in the past 12 months, what was the primary basis for the behavior or 

experience?

7,044

Your age 1,377 19.5% ±0.9

Your race or ethnicity 561 8.0% ±0.7

Your religious beliefs 386 5.5% ±0.6

Your disability status or condition 398 5.7% ±0.6

Your sexual orientation 179 2.5% ±0.4

Your sex/gender 2,189 31.1% ±1.1

Unknown 1,954 27.7% ±1.1

Note. Analyses above rely on a subset of the weighted responses presented in the earlier sections of this report.

Figure 3.8 Primary Basis for Experience of Greatest Effect

Table 3.15 presents the number and proportion of employees who provided information 

regarding the primary basis for the specific behavior or experience they used to answer 

subsequent questions in this section. As shown in Table 3.15, among employees who responded 

to this section of the WES (n = 7,044), 19.5% indicated the experience was primarily based their 

age; 8.0% indicated the experience was primarily based on their racial/ethnic background; 5.5% 

indicated the experience was primarily based on their religious beliefs; 5.7% indicated the 

experience was primarily based on disability status or condition; 2.5% indicated the experience 

was primarily based on their sexual orientation; 31.1% indicated the experience was primarily 

based on their sex/gender; and 27.7% indicated the experience was primarily based on some 

other unknown characteristic. It is worth noting that regardless of the particular behaviors

experienced, there were overarching trends that were common across employees’ experiences.

Trends observed in the data are described in subsequent sections. Because these analyses rely on 

a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these questions, differences in the 

percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for 

descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be 

interpreted with caution.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

50 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.16 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of When Occurred Any form Age Race/ ethnicity Religious Disability Sexual orientation Sex/ gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q34 When did the specific type of 

behavior or experience occur? 6,798 1,363 558 385 396 179 2,188 1,728

All of it occurred during work 

hours

74.4%

(±1.1)

77.3% 

(±2.3)

81.6% 

(±3.4)

76.0% 

(±4.5)

83.3% 

(±4.0)

59.3% 

(±7.4)

78.8% 

(±1.8)

63.3% 

(±2.3)

Most of it occurred during work 

hours; some off work hours

12.9%

(±0.8)

13.7% 

(±1.9)

8.5% 

(±2.6)

13.9% 

(±3.8)

11.6% 

(±3.6)

23.9% 

(±6.9)

13.7% 

(±1.5)

11.4% 

(±1.6)

Some of it occurred during work 

hours; most off work hours

6.2%

(±0.6)

5.6% 

(±1.4)

9.0% 

(±2.7)

5.4% 

(±2.8)

2.4% 

(±2.1)

15.3% 

(±6.1)

6.1% 

(±1.1)

6.0% 

(±1.2)

None of it occurred during work 

hours; all off work hours

6.6%

(±0.6)

3.4% 

(±1.1)

0.9% 

(±1.2)

4.7% 

(±2.6)

2.6% 

(±2.1) NR 1.4% (±0.6)

19.3% 

(±1.9)

Table 3.17 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Travel Any form Age Race/ ethnicity Religious Disability Sexual orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q35 Did the specific behavior or 

experience occur while you were on 

travel?

6,963 1,370 561 383 398 179 2,186 1,886

Yes 5.2%

(±0.5)

4.8% 

(±1.3)

4.0% 

(±2.0)

3.4% 

(±2.4)

6.6% 

(±2.9) NR 6.8% (±1.1)

4.4% 

(±1.0)

No 94.8%

(±0.5)

95.2% 

(±1.3)

96.0% 

(±2.0)

96.6% 

(±2.4)

93.4% 

(±2.9)

98.4% 

(±3.4)

93.2% 

(±1.1)

95.6% 

(±1.0)

Table 3.18 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Where Occurred Any form Age Race/ ethnicity Religious Disability Sexual orientation Sex/ gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q36 Where did the specific type of 

behavior or experience typically 

occur?

6,603 1,349 554 360 394 179 2,178 1,590

At a work location or site 88.5%

(±0.8)

91.0% 

(±1.6)

92.1% 

(±2.6)

83.8% 

(±4.2)

90.7% 

(±3.3)

85.4% 

(±6.0)

91.3% 

(±1.3)

82.0% 

(±2.0)

At a work-sponsored social 

event

1.8%

(±0.3)

1.8% 

(±0.9) NR NR NR 10.5% (±5.5)

1.2% 

(±0.6)

2.4% 

(±0.9)

At a non-work sponsored social 

event where coworkers were 

present

2.2%

(±0.4)

2.8% 

(±1.0)

1.7% 

(±1.5)

4.3% 

(±2.7) NR NR 1.9% (±0.7)

2.1% 

(±0.8)

At a permanent Bureau supplied 

housing location, if applicable

1.4%

(±0.3)

0.9% 

(±0.7)

2.9% 

(±1.8)

1.6% 

(±2.0) NR NR 1.5% (±0.6)

1.5% 

(±0.7)

At a location outside the 

park/site

6.1%

(±0.6)

3.4% 

(±1.1)

3.0% 

(±1.8)

9.1% 

(±3.5)

7.2% 

(±3.0) NR 4.0% (±0.9)

12.0% 

(±1.7)
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

51 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.19 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Work Location Any form Age Race/ ethnicity Religious Disability Sexual orientation Sex/ gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q37 You indicated that the behavior 

or experience typically occurred at a 

work location or site. Which of the 

following best describes the location 

or site?

5,749 1,223 485 302 337 153 1,979 1,271

At an indoor location (office 

setting)

68.2%

(±1.2)

67.6% 

(±2.7)

69.6% 

(±4.3)

66.7% 

(±5.5)

67.0% 

(±5.2)

58.9% 

(±8.1)

67.8% 

(±2.1)

70.8% 

(±2.6)

At an indoor location (shop or 

maintenance area)

15.7%

(±1.0)

18.4% 

(±2.3)

19.7% 

(±3.8)

9.0% 

(±3.8)

23.9% 

(±4.9)

34.6% 

(±8.0)

11.3% 

(±1.5)

15.7% 

(±2.1)

At an outdoor location (e.g., 

field site) that did not require an 

overnight stay

14.5%

(±0.9)

12.2% 

(±2.0)

10.6% 

(±3.1)

23.0% 

(±5.1)

8.7% 

(±3.5)

5.0% 

(±4.9)

18.8% 

(±1.8)

12.0% 

(±1.9)

At an outdoor location (e.g., 

field site) that required an 

overnight stay

1.6%

(±0.4)

1.8% 

(±0.9)

0.0% 

(NA) NR NR NR 2.1% (±0.7)

1.6% 

(±0.9)

Table 3.16 through Table 3.19 show employees’ responses to question involving the time 

and location of a specific behavior or set of experiences that had the greatest effect on them. 

Responses shaded within the table show the most frequently endorsed response options for each 

question presented. As shown in Table 3.16 through Table 3.19, employees’ response patterns 

clearly indicate the majority of experiences occurred within the NPS work environment. In fact, 

regardless of the particular behavior involved for the majority of employees these experiences 

occurred during work hours (74.4%), at a work location or site (88.5%) that was most frequently 

characterized as an indoor location (68.2%) and for a minority of employees some of these 

experiences occurred while on travel (5.2%). Because these analyses rely on a much smaller 

subset of employees who responded to these questions, differences in the percentages reported 

for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes 

only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

52 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.9 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Location Trends

Figure 3.9 displays the trends in these responses for all forms of harassment and/or 

assault behavior measured in this section of the survey. As illustrated in Figure 3.9 the pattern 

described above appropriately characterizes response distributions for these questions across 

specific types of behaviors we examined. The consistency of the pattern across these experiences 

points to the fact that these behaviors are experienced where employees typically work and not in 

any other place.

Table 3.20 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Frequency of 

Occurrence

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q38 How often did the specific 

type of behavior or experience 

occur?

6,567 1,362 554 385 395 179 2,161 1,530

Once 37.0%

(±1.2)

33.5% 

(±2.6)

32.8% 

(±4.0)

28.8% 

(±4.7)

25.7% 

(±4.6)

24.0% 

(±6.9)

34.3% 

(±2.0)

52.1% 

(±2.5)

More than once

Once a month or less 40.4%

(±1.2)

46.5% 

(±2.7)

36.5% 

(±4.1)

50.2% 

(±5.0)

37.0% 

(±4.9)

43.8% 

(±7.4)

42.2% 

(±2.1)

31.6% 

(±2.4)

2-4 times a month 12.7%

(±0.8)

14.5% 

(±2.0)

14.9% 

(±3.2)

11.9% 

(±3.7)

17.8% 

(±4.1)

6.7% 

(±4.8)

13.5% 

(±1.5)

8.8% 

(±1.5)

Every few days 6.9%

(±0.6)

3.4% 

(±1.1)

6.4% 

(±2.4)

7.8% 

(±3.1)

15.1% 

(±3.9)

10.3% 

(±5.4)

8.0% 

(±1.2)

6.1% 

(±1.3)

Every day 3.0%

(±0.4)

2.0% 

(±0.9)

9.3% 

(±2.7) NR 4.5% (±2.6)

15.2% 

(±6.1)

2.1% 

(±0.7)

1.4% 

(±0.7)

Table 3.20 presents data on the frequency of occurrence associated with specific 

behaviors or set of experiences measured in the WES. Responses shaded within the table show 

63.0%
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

53 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

the most frequently endorsed response options for each question presented. Examination of these 

response patterns suggests that regardless of the particular behavior or experience involved, the 

experiences involved were not isolated or episodic events. In fact, for the majority of employees,

these experiences occurred more than once (63.0%). Because these analyses rely on a much 

smaller subset of employees who responded to these questions, differences in the percentages 

reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for descriptive 

purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be interpreted with 

caution.

Figure 3.10 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Frequency of Occurrence

Figure 3.10 displays trends in these responses for all forms of harassment and/or assault 

behavior measured in this section of the survey. As illustrated in Figure 3.10 the pattern 

described above appropriately characterizes response distributions for these questions across the 

various behaviors we measured. The consistency of this pattern reveals that these behaviors are 

experienced with some degree of regularity.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

54 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.21 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Persons Involved Any form Age Race/ ethnicity Religious Disability Sexual orientation Sex/ gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q40 How many people were 

involved? 6,550 1,345 550 383 395 179 2,173 1,524

One person 57.3%

(±1.2)

47.4% 

(±2.7)

40.0% 

(±4.2)

53.6% 

(±5.0)

42.0% 

(±4.9)

34.4% 

(±7.3)

66.3% 

(±2.0)

67.2% 

(±2.4)

More than one person 42.7%

(±1.2)

52.6% 

(±2.7)

60.0% 

(±4.2)

46.4% 

(±5.0)

58.0% 

(±4.9)

65.6% 

(±7.3)

33.7% 

(±2.0)

32.8% 

(±2.4)

Q41 Was/were the person(s) who 

did this to you? 6,516 1,323 533 380 392 177 2,161 1,549

Male 62.8%

(±1.2)

51.2% 

(±2.7)

45.4% 

(±4.3)

43.7% 

(±5.1)

49.9% 

(±5.0)

58.2% 

(±7.5)

80.2% 

(±1.7)

62.9% 

(±2.4)

Female 16.4%

(±0.9)

15.7% 

(±2.1)

18.3% 

(±3.5)

20.4% 

(±4.4)

11.2% 

(±3.5)

5.5% 

(±4.6)

12.8% 

(±1.5)

23.1% 

(±2.2)

Both males and females 20.8%

(±1.0)

33.1% 

(±2.6)

36.3% 

(±4.2)

36.0% 

(±5.0)

38.8% 

(±4.9)

36.3% 

(±7.4)

7.0% 

(±1.2)

14.0% 

(±1.8)

Q42 Was/were the person(s) who 

did this to you? 6,632 1,358 550 383 393 177 2,166 1,604

Younger 20.0%

(±1.0)

39.9% 

(±2.6)

14.7% 

(±3.2)

14.8% 

(±3.9)

25.2% 

(±4.5)

4.9% 

(±4.4)

9.7% 

(±1.3)

20.4% 

(±2.0)

About my age 17.8%

(±0.9)

7.4% 

(±1.5)

13.4% 

(±3.1)

20.5% 

(±4.4)

18.0% 

(±4.1)

12.3% 

(±5.8)

23.6% 

(±1.8)

20.1% 

(±2.0)

Older 43.5%

(±1.2)

44.7% 

(±2.7)

35.6% 

(±4.1)

35.0% 

(±4.9)

23.0% 

(±4.4)

39.3% 

(±7.4)

53.7% 

(±2.1)

39.0% 

(±2.4)

Some were younger, older, 

and/or about my age

13.6%

(±0.8)

5.8% 

(±1.4)

28.8% 

(±3.9)

23.2% 

(±4.5)

27.9% 

(±4.7)

38.2% 

(±7.4)

11.0% 

(±1.4)

10.0% 

(±1.6)

Do not know 5.1%

(±0.6)

2.1% 

(±0.9)

7.5% 

(±2.5)

6.5% 

(±3.0)

5.8% 

(±2.8)

5.3% 

(±4.5)

2.0% 

(±0.7)

10.4% 

(±1.6)
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

55 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.21 Continued

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q43 Was/were the person(s) who 

did this to you any of the 

following?

7,044 1,377 561 386 398 179 2,189 1,954

Peer(s)/Coworker(s) 53.5%

(±1.2)

54.2% 

(±2.6)

53.6% 

(±4.2)

61.1% 

(±5.0)

58.7% 

(±4.9)

82.6% 

(±6.3)

59.8% 

(±2.1)

40.8% 

(±2.2)

Subordinate(s) or someone you 

supervise/manage

7.1%

(±0.6)

9.8% 

(±1.7)

13.0% 

(±3.1)

4.2% 

(±2.5)

6.1% 

(±2.8)

7.8% 

(±5.0)

4.5% 

(±1.0)

7.2% 

(±1.2)

Your Team lead(s) (current or 

former)

7.9%

(±0.7)

11.6% 

(±1.8)

8.2% 

(±2.6)

7.2% 

(±3.1)

13.3% 

(±3.7)

9.6% 

(±5.3)

6.9% 

(±1.1)

5.1% 

(±1.1)

Another Team lead(s) (current 

or former)

4.0%

(±0.5)

3.8% 

(±1.2)

4.4% 

(±2.0)

3.3% 

(±2.3)

6.0% 

(±2.8)

7.0% 

(±4.8)

5.7% 

(±1.1)

1.6% 

(±0.7)

Your Supervisor(s) (current or 

former)

21.3%

(±1.0)

24.4% 

(±2.3)

27.6% 

(±3.9)

22.5% 

(±4.5)

40.5% 

(±4.9)

33.2% 

(±7.3)

19.1% 

(±1.7)

14.4% 

(±1.6)

Another Supervisor(s) (current 

or former)

9.2%

(±0.7)

10.8% 

(±1.8)

7.6% 

(±2.5)

4.8% 

(±2.6)

8.5% 

(±3.2)

8.1% 

(±5.1)

10.5% 

(±1.4)

8.2% 

(±1.3)

Your Manager(s) (current or 

former)

10.7%

(±0.7)

13.1% 

(±1.9)

17.0% 

(±3.4)

5.3% 

(±2.8)

14.8% 

(±3.9)

10.7% 

(±5.5)

9.5% 

(±1.3)

8.7% 

(±1.3)

Another Manager(s) (current or 

former)

5.6%

(±0.6)

7.3% 

(±1.5)

6.8% 

(±2.4)

3.2% 

(±2.3)

5.3% 

(±2.7)

3.4% 

(±4.0)

7.4% 

(±1.2)

2.9% 

(±0.8)

Another federal employee 8.9%

(±0.7)

8.4% 

(±1.6)

9.1% 

(±2.7)

11.2% 

(±3.6)

9.6% 

(±3.3)

9.1% 

(±5.2)

8.6% 

(±1.3)

8.8% 

(±1.3)

A contractor 1.9%

(±0.3)

1.4% 

(±0.8)

1.8% 

(±1.5)

2.7% 

(±2.2)

3.3% 

(±2.3) NR 2.8% (±0.8)

0.9% 

(±0.5)

A concessioner 1.0%

(±0.3)

0.4% 

(±0.5)

2.6% 

(±1.7) NR NR NR 1.8% (±0.7)

0.3% 

(±0.4)

A park partner 3.3%

(±0.4)

2.9% 

(±1.0)

4.9% 

(±2.1)

4.4% 

(±2.6)

1.8% 

(±1.9) NR 4.9% (±1.0)

1.6% 

(±0.7)

A park visitor 5.5%

(±0.6)

5.0% 

(±1.3)

8.9% 

(±2.7)

2.5% 

(±2.1)

3.1% 

(±2.2)

2.9% 

(±3.8)

8.8% 

(±1.3)

2.5% 

(±0.8)

Other 3.0%

(±0.4)

4.1% 

(±1.2)

2.4% 

(±1.7)

7.3% 

(±3.1)

3.8% 

(±2.4) NR 1.9% (±0.7)

2.9% 

(±0.8)

Do not know 2.2%

(±0.4)

1.2% 

(±0.7)

0.9% 

(±1.3) NR NR 0.0% (NA)

0.4% 

(±0.4)

6.3% 

(±1.2)

None selected 7.1%

(±0.6)

3.8% 

(±1.1)

1.9% 

(±1.5)

7.4% 

(±3.1)

4.6% 

(±2.6) NR 1.4% (±0.6)

18.2% 

(±1.8)

Table 3.21 presents data on individual characteristics of persons involved in a specific 

behavior or set of experiences measured in the WES. Responses shaded within the table show the 

most frequently endorsed response options for each question presented. Examination of these 

response patterns suggests that regardless of the particular behavior or experience involved, the 

person(s) involved one, or multiple individuals, who were most likely to be older and male, and 

could be characterized as a peer/coworker, supervisor, and/or manager. In fact, regardless of the 

particulars of the behaviors experienced, 57.3% of employees indicated the experience involved 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

56 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

one person, while 42.7% of employees indicated the experience involved more than one person. 

The person(s) involved were most often male (62.8%), though female (16.4%), and/or both 

males and females were also involved (20.8%). The person(s) involved was most likely to be 

older (43.5%), though younger (20.0%), same age (17.8%), and/or mixed age (13.6%) 

individuals were also involved. The person(s) involved were more likely to include a peer and/ or 

coworker (53.5%), though supervisors (21.3%), and/or managers (10.7%) were also involved.

Because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these 

questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for 

specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 3.11 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Persons Involved Trends

Figure 3.11 and displays the trends in these responses for all forms of harassment and/or 

assault behavior measured in this section of the survey. As illustrated in Figure 3.11 the pattern 

described above appropriately characterizes response distributions for these questions across the 

various behaviors we measured. 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

57 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.12 Distribution of the Person(s) Engaging in Harassing Behavior for Any Form of 

Harassment

Figure 3.12 displays the distribution of the those engaging in the harassing behavior for 

any form of harassment.

Table 3.22 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Interactions Any form Age Race/ ethnicity Religious Disability Sexual orientation Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q44 Did your work role require 

you to continue to interact with 

this/these person(s)?

6,583 1,343 555 364 378 176 2,158 1,610

No, I did not have to interact 

with this/these person(s) at all

13.8%

(±0.9)

12.1% 

(±1.9)

13.8% 

(±3.1)

6.4% 

(±3.0)

8.9% 

(±3.3)

6.3% 

(±4.7)

14.2% 

(±1.5)

18.3% 

(±2.0)

Yes, I had to or still have to 

interact with this/these 

person(s)

86.2%

(±0.9)

87.9% 

(±1.9)

86.2% 

(±3.1)

93.6% 

(±3.0)

91.1% 

(±3.3)

93.7% 

(±4.7)

85.8% 

(±1.5)

81.7% 

(±2.0)

Table 3.22 presents data on the interaction particulars for a specific behavior or set of 

experiences measured in the WES. Responses shaded within the table show the most frequently 

endorsed response options for each question presented. Examination of these response patterns 

suggests that regardless of the particular behavior or experience involved, a majority of 

employees had to continue to interact with the person(s) involved. In fact, 86.2% of employees 

indicated their work role required them to continue to interact with the person(s) involved.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

58 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these 

questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for 

specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 3.13 Context of the One Experience of Harassment – Interaction Trends

Figure 3.13 displays the trends in these responses for all forms of harassment and/or 

assault behavior measured in this section of the survey. As illustrated in Figure 3.13 the pattern 

described above appropriately characterizes response distributions for these questions across 

each of the specific behaviors we examined.

Table 3.23 Discussion of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary

Q46 Discussed the experience with:

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

My coworkers

3,871

58.3%

(±1.2)

715

53.7% 

(±2.7)

373

68.4% 

(±4.0)

195

51.0% 

(±5.0)

228

61.4% 

(±5.1)

126

71.5% 

(±7.2)

1,380

64.2% 

(±2.1)

854

50.9% 

(±2.4)

Another employee in my bureau

3,207

49.0%

(±1.2)

572

43.3% 

(±2.7)

311

57.6% 

(±4.2)

150

39.2% 

(±5.0)

184

50.2% 

(±5.1)

117

67.1% 

(±7.4)

1,206

57.5% 

(±2.1)

668

40.0% 

(±2.4)
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

59 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.23 Continued

Q46 Discussed the experience with:

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Someone from another 

bureau/office

739

11.4%

(±0.8)

108

8.2% 

(±1.6)

109

20.3% 

(±3.6)

48

12.7% 

(±3.8)

61

16.7% 

(±4.2)

25

14.4% 

(±6.2)

248

12.1% 

(±1.5)

140

8.5% 

(±1.4)

My team leader

1,234

18.9%

(±1.0)

152

11.6% 

(±1.9)

132

24.5% 

(±3.8)

87

22.9% 

(±4.5)

109

30.0% 

(±4.9)

38

21.8% 

(±6.8)

396

18.9% 

(±1.7)

320

19.3% 

(±2.0)

My supervisor

2,435

36.8%

(±1.2)

402

30.0% 

(±2.5)

229

42.0% 

(±4.2)

126

32.9% 

(±4.9)

213

56.6% 

(±5.1)

72

41.3% 

(±7.5)

804

37.9% 

(±2.1)

589

35.1% 

(±2.3)

My manager

1,354

20.7%

(±1.0)

194

14.6% 

(±2.0)

163

30.3% 

(±4.0)

79

20.7% 

(±4.4)

115

31.0% 

(±4.9)

25

14.2% 

(±6.1)

444

21.3% 

(±1.8)

335

20.1% 

(±2.0)

A senior leader

870

13.4%

(±0.8)

127

9.6% 

(±1.7)

134

25.0% 

(±3.9)

33

8.7% 

(±3.3)

89

24.4% 

(±4.7)

13

7.3% 

(±5.0)

276

13.3% 

(±1.5)

199

12.0% 

(±1.7)

The person(s) involved

2,369

37.0%

(±1.2)

350

26.5% 

(±2.5)

258

48.8% 

(±4.3)

168

44.5% 

(±5.1)

204

55.9% 

(±5.2)

95

55.6% 

(±7.6)

686

33.6% 

(±2.1)

609

38.2% 

(±2.4)

Table 3.23 presents data on the percentage of employees who talked to someone about 

specific behaviors or set of experiences measured in the WES. Responses shaded within the table 

show the most frequently endorsed response options for each question presented. Examination of

these response patterns suggests that regardless of the particular behavior or experience involved,

employees talked to someone at work about their experience. In fact, sizable percentages of 

employees indicated they discussed these experiences with someone at work: 58.3% of 

employees discussed the experience with a coworker; 49.0% of employees discussed the 

experience with another employee; 36.8% of employees discussed the experience with a 

supervisor; 20.7% of employees discussed the experience with a manager; and 37.0% of 

employees discussed the experience with the person(s) involved. Because these analyses rely on 

a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these questions, differences in the 

percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for 

descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be 

interpreted with caution.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

60 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.14 Discussion of the One Experience of Harassment – Trends

Figure 3.14 displays the trends in these responses for all forms of harassment and/or 

assault behaviors measured in this section of the survey. As illustrated in Figure 3.14 the pattern 

described above appropriately characterizes response distributions for these questions across the 

various behaviors we examined. Collectively, the pattern of findings suggests that regardless of 

the particular behavior involved, employees share their experiences with someone at work.

Table 3.24 Resources for Making Complaint of the One Experience of Harassment - Summary Any form Age Race/ ethnicity Religious Disability Sexual orientation Sex/ gender Unknown 

reasons

Estimated percent of employees who 

made a complaint/grievance/report. 6,632 1,324 199 60 193 69 2,158 1,678

Yes 25.3% 18.5% 36.1% 16.6% 51.0% 38.9% 27.3% 19.3%

No 74.7% 81.5% 63.9% 83.4% 49.0% 61.1% 72.7% 80.7%
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

61 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.24 Continued

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q47 Did you make a complaint/

grievance/report using any of the 

following resources? 

Supervisor or Manager

1,297

19.6%

(±1.0)

156

11.9% 

(±1.9)

171

31.1% 

(±4.0)

51

13.9% 

(±4.0)

129

34.2%

(±5.0)

63

35.8% 

(±7.4)

468

21.7% 

(±1.8)

259

15.4% 

(±1.8)

Employee Assistance Program 

(EAP)

335

5.4%

(±0.6)

65

5.1% 

(±1.3)

44

8.1% 

(±2.6)

9

2.4% 

(±2.2)

76

20.6% 

(±4.5)

NR

96

4.5% 

(±1.0)

60

3.7% 

(±1.0)

Ombudsman (if applicable)

48

0.8%

(±0.2)

NR

14

2.6%

(±1.8)

NR NR NR

17

0.8% 

(±0.5)

7

0.4% 

(±0.5)

CADR Office, CORE PLUS

126

1.9%

(±0.4)

19

1.5% 

(±0.8)

44

8.4% 

(±2.7)

NR

12

3.4% 

(±2.5)

5

3.1% 

(±3.9)

25

1.2% 

(±0.6)

16

1.0% 

(±0.6)

Employee & Labor Relations 

(Human Resources)

349

5.4%

(±0.6)

62

4.8% 

(±1.3)

69

13.1% 

(±3.2)

14

3.9% 

(±2.6)

52

14.1% 

(±4.0)

9

5.3% 

(±4.5)

97

4.6% 

(±1.0)

44

2.7% 

(±0.9)

Union (if applicable)

151

2.4%

(±0.4)

16

1.3% 

(±0.8)

45

8.3% 

(±2.6)

NR

32

8.8% 

(±3.4)

NR

28

1.3% 

(±0.6)

25

1.6% 

(±0.7)

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Counselor

342

5.3%

(±0.6)

66

5.1% 

(±1.4)

75

13.7% 

(±3.2)

8

2.2% 

(±2.2)

53

14.3% 

(±4.0)

NR

87

4.1% 

(±0.9)

48

3.0% 

(±1.0)

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Office

251

3.9%

(±0.5)

34

2.6% 

(±1.0)

72

13.3% 

(±3.1)

8

2.1% 

(±2.2)

46

12.6% 

(±3.8)

NR

57

2.7% 

(±0.8)

34

2.1% 

(±0.8)

Office of Inspector General Hotline

42

0.7%

(±0.2)

6

0.5% 

(±0.6)

18

3.4% 

(±1.9)

0

0.0% 

(NA)

NR

0

0.0% 

(NA)

7

0.3% 

(±0.4)

7

0.4% 

(±0.5)

Office of Inspector General

79

1.2%

(±0.3)

7

0.6% 

(±0.6)

14

2.6% 

(±1.8)

NR

7

1.8% 

(±2.0)

0

0.0% 

(NA)

19

0.9% 

(±0.5)

31

1.9% 

(±0.8)
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

62 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.24 Continued

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Q47 Did you make a complaint/

grievance/report using any of the 

following resources?

Office of Inspector General

79

1.2%

(±0.3)

7

0.6% 

(±0.6)

14

2.6% 

(±1.8)

NR

7

1.8% 

(±2.0)

0

0.0% 

(NA)

19

0.9% 

(±0.5)

31

1.9% 

(±0.8)

Other Law Enforcement/Civil 

Authority not in the bureau

32

0.5%

(±0.2)

NR NR

0

0.0% 

(NA)

NR NR

11

0.5% 

(±0.4)

10

0.6% 

(±0.5)

Department of Interior Ethics/

Bureau Ethics Office

97

1.5%

(±0.3)

NR

22

4.2% 

(±2.1)

25

6.9% 

(±3.2)

12

3.3% 

(±2.4)

0

0.0% 

(NA)

19

0.9% 

(±0.5)

15

0.9% 

(±0.6)

National Park Service Law 

Enforcement/Park Police

190

2.9%

(±0.4)

9

0.7% 

(±0.6)

35

6.6% 

(±2.5)

NR

33

9.1% 

(±3.4)

7

4.2% 

(±4.3)

61

2.9% 

(±0.8)

41

2.5% 

(±0.9)

Table 3.24 presents the percentage of employees who made a complaint/grievance/report 

regarding behaviors or experiences and the specific resource they utilized by type of harassment 

and/or assault experience measured in the WES. Responses shaded within the table show the 

most frequently endorsed response options for each question presented. Examination of these 

response patterns suggests that regardless of the particular behavior involved, employees were 

not likely to make a complaint/grievance/report about their experience. In fact, 74.7% of 

employees indicated they did not make a complaint/grievance/report, while only 25.3% did.

Because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these 

questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for 

specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.

Table 3.24 also shows that regardless of the particular behavior involved, employees 

were not very likely to have used an NPS resource to make a complaint/grievance/report. An 

exception to this general pattern involved complaints/grievances/reports made to a supervisor or 

manager; 19.6% of employees made a complaint/grievance/report to a supervisor or manager

(see Figure 3.15). All other resources were used less frequently (e.g., Employee Assistance 

Program, Ombudsman,25 CADR Office or CORE PLUS, Employee & Labor Relations, Union, 

Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor, Equal Employment Opportunity Office, Office of 

the Inspector General Hotline, Office of the Inspector General, Other Law Enforcement/Civil 

 

25 Ombudsman was only in existence about 1.5 months before the survey opened.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

63 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Authority, Department of Interior Ethics/Bureau Ethics Office, National Park Service Law 

Enforcement/Park Police).

Figure 3.15 Frequency Distribution of Likelihood to Make a Complaint/Grievance/Report and 

Most Frequently Used NPS Resource of the One Experience of Harassment

Table 3.25 Average Ratings of the Helpfulness of NPS Resources Used to Make a 

Complaint/Grievance/Report of the One Experience of Harassment

Q47 How helpful was it?

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientatio

n

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Supervisor or Manager

1,281

2.1

(±0.1)

156

2.0 

(±0.2)

157

1.6 

(±0.2)

51

2.8 

(±0.4)

129

1.6 

(±0.2)

63

1.4 

(±0.2)

468

2.3 

(±0.1)

257

2.3 

(±0.2)

Employee Assistance Program 

(EAP)

340

2.4

(±0.1)

65

2.1 

(±0.3)

30

2.2 

(±0.3)

9

2.1 

(±0.8)

76

2.8 

(±0.3)

NR

96

2.6 

(±0.3)

60

2.3 

(±0.3)

Ombudsman (if applicable)

46

2.4

(±0.3)

NR

14

1.9 

(±0.1)

NR NR NR

17

2.6 

(±0.6)

7

2.0 

(±0.7)

CADR Office, CORE PLUS

123

1.5

(±0.2)

19

1.2 

(±0.3)

43

1.3 

(±0.2)

NR

12

1.9 

(±0.6)

5

1.0 

(±0.0)

25

1.4 

(±0.3)

16

2.1 

(±0.6)

Employee & Labor Relations 

(Human Resources)

346

1.8

(±0.1)

62

2.0 

(±0.3)

69

1.3 

(±0.2)

14

1.5 

(±0.4)

51

1.7 

(±0.3)

9

1.8 

(±0.6)

97

2.0 

(±0.3)

43

2.1 

(±0.4)

Union (if applicable)

148

2.3

(±0.2)

16

2.5 

(±0.6)

45

2.0 

(±0.3)

NR

32

2.1 

(±0.4)

NR

28

2.3 

(±0.4)

23

2.7 

(±0.6)

Note. Scale scores ranged from not at all helpful (1) to extremely helpful (5), with values ranging from 2-3 

indicating somewhat to moderately helpful. Ombudsman was only in existence about 1.5 months before the 

survey opened.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

64 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.25 Continued

Q47 How helpful was it?

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Counselor

339

2.1

(±0.1)

66

1.9 

(±0.2)

75

2.4 

(±0.3)

8

2.4 

(±1.0)

53

1.9 

(±0.3)

NR

87

2.1 

(±0.2)

45

1.9 

(±0.3)

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Office

251

2.0

(±0.1)

34

1.5 

(±0.3)

72

2.3 

(±0.3)

8

2.2 

(±0.9)

46

2.1 

(±0.3)

NR

57

2.1 

(±0.3)

34

1.6 

(±0.4)

Office of Inspector General 

Hotline

42

1.7

(±0.4)

6

1.8 

(±1.3)

18

1.5 

(±0.5)

NA NR NA

7

2.5 

(±1.1)

7

1.9 

(±0.6)

Office of Inspector General

79

1.9

(±0.3)

7

1.6 

(±0.9)

14

1.7 

(±0.4)

NR

7

2.1 

(±1.3)

NA

19

2.4 

(±0.6)

31

1.7 

(±0.4)

Other Law Enforcement/Civil 

Authority not in the bureau

32

2.7

(±0.5)

NR NR NA NR NR

11

2.9 

(±1.0)

10

3.3 

(±0.7)

Department of Interior 

Ethics/Bureau Ethics Office

97

2.3

(±0.2)

NR

22

1.7 

(±0.3)

25

3.8 

(±0.3)

12

1.7 

(±0.5)

NA

19

1.7 

(±0.2)

15

2.0 

(±0.7)

National Park Service Law 

Enforcement/Park Police

189

2.2

(±0.2)

9

1.9 

(±0.7)

35

1.7 

(±0.4)

NR

33

1.1 

(±0.2)

17

2.9 

(±0.9)

61

2.9 

(±0.3)

41

2.5 

(±0.4)

Note. Scale scores ranged from not at all helpful (1) to extremely helpful (5), with values ranging from 2-3 

indicating somewhat to moderately helpful. Ombudsman was only in existence about 1.5 months before the 

survey opened.

As shown in Table 3.25, regardless of the particular behavior or resource involved, 

employees indicated the majority of these resources were somewhat helpful. Average ratings of 

the helpfulness of each of the resources ranged from 1-3, on a response scale that scores ranged 

from not at all helpful (1) to extremely helpful (5), with values ranging from 1-3 indicating not at 

all to moderately helpful. Because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees 

who responded to these questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of 

harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the 

general pattern for specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

65 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.26 Helpfulness of Resources for Making Complaint of the One Experience of 

Harassment – Scale Distributions for Any Form of Harassment

Q47 How helpful was 

it?

N

Average

rating

Not at 

all 

helpful 

(1)

Somewhat 

helpful

(2)

Moderately 

helpful

(3)

Very 

helpful

(4)

Extremely 

helpful

(5)

Supervisor or Manager 1,281 2.1

(±0.1)

50.4%

(±2.7)

18.9%

(±2.2)

9.1%

(±1.7)

14.0%

(±2.0)

7.6%

(±1.6)

Employee Assistance 

Program (EAP) 340 2.4(±0.1)

24.1%

(±4.9)

34.4%

(±5.2)

21.8%

(±4.7)

13.5%

(±4.1)

6.1%

(±3.1)

Ombudsman (if 

applicable) 46 2.4(±0.3)

NR 64.4%

(±15.2)

NR NR 11.6%

(±13.4)

CADR Office, CORE 

PLUS 123 1.5(±0.2)

72.3%

(±8.7)

12.2%

(±7.2)

9.9%

(±6.8)

5.6%

(±5.8)

0.0%

(NA)

Employee & Labor 

Relations (Human 

Resources)

346 1.8

(±0.1)

59.3%

(±5.3)

15.2%

(±4.2)

14.5%

(±4.1)

7.2%

(±3.3)

3.8%

(±2.6)

Union (if applicable) 148 2.3

(±0.2)

30.8%

(±8.0)

37.6%

(±8.1)

15.2%

(±6.8)

7.1%

(±5.5)

9.3%

(±5.9)

Equal Employment 

Opportunity Counselor 339 2.1(±0.1)

38.0%

(±5.3)

32.9%

(±5.2)

15.2%

(±4.3)

10.8%

(±3.8)

3.1%

(±2.5)

Equal Employment 

Opportunity Office 251 2.0(±0.1)

45.4%

(±6.2)

29.0%

(±6.0)

9.1%

(±4.3)

12.8%

(±4.8)

3.7%

(±3.2)

Office of Inspector 

General Hotline 42 1.7(±0.4)

67.9%

(±16.0)

NR NR NR NR

Office of Inspector 

General 79

1.9

(±0.3)

52.2%

(±11.2)

25.0%

(±10.9)

NR 11.1%

(±9.3)

NR

Other Law 

Enforcement/Civil 

Authority not in the 

bureau

32 2.7

(±0.5)

NR 22.9%

(±18.5)

0.0%

(NA)

NR NR

Department of Interior 

Ethics/Bureau Ethics 

Office

97 2.3

(±0.2)

31.4%

(±10.0)

34.6%

(±10.1)

NR 26.6%

(±9.8)

NR

National Park Service 

Law Enforcement/Park 

Police

189 2.2

(±0.2)

48.9%

(±7.2)

13.5%

(±5.7)

11.7%

(±5.5)

19.2%

(±6.3)

6.8%

(±4.6)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses. Ombudsman was only in existence about 1.5 months before the survey opened.

Scale scores ranged from not at all helpful (1) to extremely helpful (5), with values ranging from 2-3 indicating 

somewhat to moderately helpful.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

66 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.26 shows the average rating and distribution of ratings for the helpfulness of each 

resource assessed in the WES. As can be seen in Table 3.26, the distribution of responses for 

each of the resources was within the 1-3 score, indicating that these resources were somewhat to 

moderately helpful.

Table 3.27 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Actions 

Focused on the Organization

Q48 Did any of the experiences 

listed below occur as a result of 

making an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report? 

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

a. The person I told took no action 1,657 243 197 59 192 69 585 312

Yes 39.6%

(±2.4)

37.0% 

(±6.3)

32.8% 

(±6.9)

23.7% 

(±12.8)

51.7% 

(±7.1)

53.4% 

(±12.0)

38.2% 

(±4.0)

41.4% 

(±5.6)

No 35.3%

(±2.3)

38.4% 

(±6.3)

32.5% 

(±6.9)

53.8% 

(±13.0)

17.1% 

(±6.1)

18.0% 

(±11.2)

40.7% 

(±4.0)

35.9% 

(±5.5)

Don't Know 25.0%

(±2.1)

24.6% 

(±5.8)

34.7% 

(±7.0)

22.5% 

(±12.7)

31.2% 

(±7.0)

28.7% 

(±12.0)

21.0% 

(±3.5)

22.7% 

(±5.0)

b. The rules of harassment were 

explained to everyone in the 

workplace

1,656 242 198 58 190 67 584 315

Yes 34.4%

(±2.3)

37.5% 

(±6.3)

37.1% 

(±7.0)

54.2% 

(±13.2)

29.3% 

(±6.9)

44.6% 

(±12.3)

31.1% 

(±3.9)

33.7% 

(±5.4)

No 51.7%

(±2.4)

45.0% 

(±6.4)

49.1% 

(±7.0)

43.0% 

(±13.3)

55.8% 

(±7.2)

41.6% 

(±12.3)

58.6% 

(±4.1)

46.9% 

(±5.6)

Don't Know 13.9%

(±1.8)

17.5% 

(±5.3)

13.8% 

(±5.6) NR 14.9% (±5.9)

13.8% 

(±10.8)

10.3% 

(±2.7)

19.4% 

(±4.8)

c. A review/investigation/other 

assessment of the workplace was 

conducted by management

1,658 245 198 58 192 67 582 316

Yes 17.5%

(±1.9)

12.0% 

(±4.7)

32.1% 

(±6.9) NR 8.3% (±4.9)

12.7% 

(±10.6)

18.6% 

(±3.4)

19.3% 

(±4.8)

No 65.9%

(±2.3)

75.9% 

(±5.8)

41.7% 

(±7.0)

91.3% 

(±10.9)

76.4% 

(±6.6)

78.1% 

(±11.7)

68.0% 

(±3.9)

55.7% 

(±5.6)

Don't Know 16.6%

(±1.9)

12.0% 

(±4.7)

26.2% 

(±6.6) NR 15.3% (±5.9)

9.2% 

(±9.9)

13.4% 

(±3.0)

25.0% 

(±5.1)

d. An investigation was conducted 

by a law enforcement official 1,651 242 198 58 190 67 582 313

Yes 6.9%

(±1.3)

2.1% 

(±2.8)

14.1% 

(±5.6) NR NR NR 8.0% (±2.5)

7.8% 

(±3.6)

No 81.0%

(±2.0)

89.6% 

(±4.6)

60.6% 

(±7.0)

93.1% 

(±10.5)

85.6% 

(±5.8)

85.6% 

(±10.9)

84.0% 

(±3.2)

75.9% 

(±5.1)

Don't Know 12.1%

(±1.7)

8.3% 

(±4.2)

25.3% 

(±6.6) NR 11.9% (±5.5)

10.9% 

(±10.3)

8.1% 

(±2.5)

16.4% 

(±4.5)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses. An individual who made a complaint/grievance/report may not actually be 

informed of the outcome of their complaint/grievance/report because personnel policies may prohibit disclosure 

of such information.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

67 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.27 presents data on various actions that may have resulted from making a 

complaint/grievance/report regarding harassing and/or assault behaviors. Responses shaded 

within the table show the most notable response options for each question presented.

Examination of these response patterns reveals that regardless of the specific form of harassment 

or assault behaviors experienced, employees indicated some actions were taken as a result of 

making a complaint/grievance/report, 35.3% of employees indicated that some action was taken 

(see item a in Table 3.27).26 Examination of response patterns to items addressing organizational 

actions reveals that regardless of the harassing and/or assault behaviors involved: 34.4% of 

employees indicated the rules were explained to everyone; 17.5% of employees indicated 

management conducted a review/investigation or other assessment; and 6.9% of employees 

indicated an investigation was conducted by a law enforcement official (see Table 3.27 items b, 

c, d). Because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these 

questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for 

specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.

Table 3.28 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Actions 

Focused on the Person(s) Involved

Q48 Did any of the experiences 

listed below occur as a result of 

making an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report? 

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

e. Someone talked to the person(s) 

to ask him/her/them to change their 

behavior

1,655 243 199 58 190 67 582 316

Yes 32.8%

(±2.3)

22.1% 

(±5.7)

27.7% 

(±6.7)

51.2% 

(±13.0)

12.4% 

(±5.6)

19.4% 

(±11.5)

42.5% 

(±4.1)

38.1% 

(±5.5)

No 38.4%

(±2.4)

51.8% 

(±6.3)

31.4% 

(±6.8)

38.8% 

(±13.4)

62.1% 

(±7.2)

42.6% 

(±12.3)

32.9% 

(±3.9)

27.3% 

(±5.2)

Don't Know 28.8%

(±2.2)

26.1% 

(±5.9)

40.9% 

(±7.0)

10.0% 

(±11.1)

25.4% 

(±6.7)

38.0% 

(±12.4)

24.6% 

(±3.7)

34.6% 

(±5.4)

g. Person(s) was moved/reassigned 

so I did not have as much contact 

with him/her/them

1,644 243 198 58 189 66 576 313

Yes 8.0%

(±1.4)

6.0% 

(±3.8)

13.6% 

(±5.6) NR 4.6% (±4.2)

9.6% 

(±10.1)

7.7% 

(±2.5)

9.0% 

(±3.7)

No 85.6%

(±1.8)

82.6% 

(±5.3)

76.3% 

(±6.5)

95.5% 

(±9.9)

94.1% 

(±4.4)

72.5% 

(±12.3)

88.7% 

(±2.9)

83.9% 

(±4.5)

Don't Know 6.4%

(±1.3)

11.3% 

(±4.7)

10.1% 

(±5.1)

0.0% 

(NA) NR 17.9% (±11.5)

3.6% 

(±1.9)

7.1% 

(±3.5)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses. An individual who made a complaint/grievance/report may not actually be 

informed of the outcome of their complaint/grievance/report because personnel policies may prohibit disclosure 

of such information.

 

26 It is worth noting that an individual who made a complaint/grievance/report may not actually be informed of the 

outcome of their complaint/grievance/report because personnel policies may prohibit disclosure of such information.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

68 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.28 Continued

Q48 Did any of the experiences 

listed below occur as a result of 

making an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report? 

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

h. There was some official career 

action taken against person(s) for 

the behavior

1,647 242 198 58 191 65 574 317

Yes 4.9%

(±1.2)

NR 8.7% 

(±4.8) NR NR NR 4.6% (±2.1)

8.7% 

(±3.7)

No 77.3%

(±2.1)

80.5% 

(±5.5)

77.3% 

(±6.4)

94.4% 

(±10.2)

83.0% 

(±6.1)

71.3% 

(±12.4)

78.7% 

(±3.6)

67.1% 

(±5.4)

Don't Know 17.8%

(±1.9)

18.6% 

(±5.4)

14.1% 

(±5.6) NR 15.5% (±5.9)

23.7% 

(±12.1)

16.7% 

(±3.3)

24.2% 

(±5.1)

i. The person(s) stopped the 

behavior 1,651 242 199 59 190 67 576 317

Yes 22.0%

(±2.1)

29.0% 

(±6.1)

13.2% 

(±5.5)

8.7% 

(±10.8)

16.5% 

(±6.0)

12.8% 

(±10.6)

22.5% 

(±3.6)

29.0% 

(±5.3)

No 58.3%

(±2.4)

45.7% 

(±6.4)

68.3% 

(±6.8)

79.5% 

(±12.6)

59.6% 

(±7.2)

74.1% 

(±12.0)

57.6% 

(±4.1)

54.6% 

(±5.5)

Don't Know 19.7%

(±2.0)

25.3% 

(±5.9)

18.5% 

(±6.1)

11.7% 

(±11.4)

23.9% 

(±6.6)

13.2% 

(±10.7)

19.9% 

(±3.5)

16.4% 

(±4.5)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses. An individual who made a complaint/grievance/report may not actually be 

informed of the outcome of their complaint/grievance/report because personnel policies may prohibit disclosure 

of such information.

Table 3.28 presents data on various actions that may have resulted from making a 

complaint/grievance/report regarding harassing and/or assault behaviors. Responses shaded 

within the table show the most notable response options for each question presented. 

Examination of responses to items addressing actions focused on the person(s) who engaged in 

the harassing behavior revealed that: 32.8% of employees indicated someone talked to the 

person(s) about changing their behavior; 8.0% of employees indicated the person(s) involved 

was moved or reassigned to avoid continuing contact; 4.9% of employees indicated some official 

career action was taken against person(s) involved; and 22.0% of employees indicated the person 

stopped the behavior (see Table 3.28 items e, g, h, i).27 Because these analyses rely on a much 

smaller subset of employees who responded to these questions, differences in the percentages 

reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for descriptive 

purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be interpreted with 

caution.

 

27 Note. An individual who made a complaint/grievance/report may not actually be informed of the outcome of their 

complaint/grievance/report because personnel policies may prohibit disclosure of such information.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

69 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.29 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Negative 

Outcomes

Q48 Did any of the experiences 

listed below occur as a result of 

making an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report? 

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

f. My work station location or 

duties were changed to help me 

avoid the person(s)

1,648 242 193 58 189 66 583 315

Yes 9.6%

(±1.5)

4.8% 

(±3.6)

6.1% 

(±4.4) NR 12.7% (±5.6)

20.4% 

(±11.7)

10.4% 

(±2.8)

10.3% 

(±3.9)

No 86.7%

(±1.7)

90.9% 

(±4.4)

85.8% 

(±5.7)

92.7% 

(±10.6)

86.7% 

(±5.7)

76.7% 

(±12.0)

86.9% 

(±3.0)

84.9% 

(±4.4)

Don't Know 3.7%

(±1.0)

4.3% 

(±3.4)

8.2% 

(±4.8)

0.0% 

(NA) NR NR 2.7% (±1.7)

4.8% 

(±3.0)

j. I was encouraged to drop the 

issue 1,662 243 199 58 192 67 582 320

Yes 39.8%

(±2.4)

48.3% 

(±6.3)

45.9% 

(±7.0)

29.5% 

(±13.3)

58.9% 

(±7.2)

64.2% 

(±12.4)

29.4% 

(±3.8)

33.4% 

(±5.4)

No 55.0%

(±2.4)

46.0% 

(±6.3)

52.2% 

(±7.0)

66.9% 

(±13.4)

31.0% 

(±7.0)

35.8% 

(±12.4)

66.9% 

(±3.9)

58.3% 

(±5.5)

Don't Know 5.2%

(±1.2)

5.6% 

(±3.7) NR NR 10.0% (±5.2)

0.0% 

(NA)

3.7% 

(±1.9)

8.3% 

(±3.6)

k. I was discouraged from making 

an oral and/or written complaint/

grievance/report

1,653 240 199 58 193 67 580 315

Yes 33.4%

(±2.3)

33.6% 

(±6.3)

37.0% 

(±7.0)

17.9% 

(±12.4)

60.3% 

(±7.1)

19.1% 

(±11.5)

31.3% 

(±3.9)

24.4% 

(±5.1)

No 63.1%

(±2.4)

64.3% 

(±6.3)

61.6% 

(±7.0)

75.3% 

(±13.0)

33.1% 

(±7.0)

79.4% 

(±11.6)

64.9% 

(±4.0)

72.3% 

(±5.2)

Don't Know 3.5%

(±1.0)

2.1% 

(±2.9) NR NR 6.5% (±4.5) NR 3.7% (±1.9)

3.3% 

(±2.7)

l. The person(s) who did this took 

action against me for complaining 1,649 240 197 58 190 67 581 315

Yes 33.6%

(±2.3)

30.8% 

(±6.2)

45.0% 

(±7.1)

17.6% 

(±12.4)

33.4% 

(±7.1)

27.0% 

(±12.1)

32.8% 

(±3.9)

34.7% 

(±5.5)

No 58.1%

(±2.4)

60.4% 

(±6.4)

44.8% 

(±7.1)

69.9% 

(±13.3)

61.1% 

(±7.2)

67.0% 

(±12.3)

59.9% 

(±4.1)

55.4% 

(±5.6)

Don't Know 8.3%

(±1.4)

8.9% 

(±4.3)

10.2% 

(±5.1)

12.5% 

(±11.6)

5.4% 

(±4.3) NR 7.3% (±2.4)

9.9% 

(±3.8)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

70 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.29 Continued

Q48 Did any of the experiences 

listed below occur as a result of 

making an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report? 

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

m. My coworkers treated me worse, 

avoided me, or blamed me for the 

problem

1,651 242 199 58 191 67 577 315

Yes 33.4%

(±2.3)

29.5% 

(±6.1)

65.3% 

(±6.9)

22.5% 

(±12.9)

24.3% 

(±6.6)

63.1% 

(±12.4)

28.4% 

(±3.8)

26.6% 

(±5.2)

No 59.5%

(±2.4)

65.7% 

(±6.2)

31.4% 

(±6.8)

73.6% 

(±13.1)

52.4% 

(±7.1)

35.5% 

(±12.4)

66.9% 

(±4.0)

65.7% 

(±5.4)

Don't Know 7.1%

(±1.3)

4.8% 

(±3.6)

3.3% 

(±3.7) NR 23.3% (±6.6) NR 4.6% (±2.1)

7.7% 

(±3.5)

n. My leadership punished me for 

bringing it up 1,655 242 198 58 191 67 583 314

Yes 27.3%

(±2.2)

26.4% 

(±6.0)

42.3% 

(±7.0)

17.7% 

(±12.4)

33.2% 

(±7.0)

52.1% 

(±12.1)

23.8% 

(±3.6)

17.6% 

(±4.6)

No 65.0%

(±2.3)

63.3% 

(±6.3)

47.4% 

(±7.0)

80.6% 

(±12.6)

56.6% 

(±7.2)

40.1% 

(±12.4)

69.9% 

(±3.9)

76.2% 

(±5.1)

Don't Know 7.7%

(±1.4)

10.3% 

(±4.5)

10.2% 

(±5.1) NR 10.1% (±5.2)

7.8% 

(±9.6)

6.4% 

(±2.3)

6.2% 

(±3.3)

o. I was threatened with loss of 

employment 1,651 241 199 58 190 67 580 315

Yes 13.5%

(±1.7)

21.1% 

(±5.7)

6.9% 

(±4.5)

11.0% 

(±11.4)

20.3% 

(±6.4) NR 11.6% (±2.9)

13.8% 

(±4.3)

No 79.7%

(±2.0)

70.7% 

(±6.1)

71.6% 

(±6.7)

87.3% 

(±11.7)

73.0% 

(±6.8)

89.7% 

(±10.1)

84.1% 

(±3.2)

84.3% 

(±4.5)

Don't Know 6.8%

(±1.3)

8.2% 

(±4.2)

21.6% 

(±6.3) NR 6.7% (±4.6) NR 4.4% (±2.0)

2.0% 

(±2.3)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses.

Table 3.29 presents data on negative outcomes that may have resulted from making a 

complaint/grievance/report regarding harassing and/or assault behaviors. Responses shaded 

within the table show the most notable response options for each question presented. 

Examination of responses to items addressing actions focused on employees revealed that 

regardless of the particular behavior involved: 9.6% of employees indicated their station location 

or duties were changed to help them avoid the person(s); 39.8% of employees were encouraged 

to drop the issue; 33.4% of employees were discouraged from making a complaint/grievance/

report; 33.6% of employees indicated the person(s) involved took action against them for 

complaining; 33.4% of employees indicated their coworker(s) treated them worse, avoided or 

blamed them for the problem; 27.3% of employees indicated leadership punished them for 

bringing the experience up; and 13.5% of employees indicated they were threatened with loss of 

employment (see Table 3.29 items f, j, k, l, m, n, o). Because these analyses rely on a much 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

71 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

smaller subset of employees who responded to these questions, differences in the percentages 

reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for descriptive 

purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be interpreted with 

caution.

Figure 3.16 Results of Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary of Actions 

Resulting from a Complaint/Grievance/Report for Any Form of Harassment

Figure 3.16 displays the actions resulting from a complaint/grievance/report for any form 

of harassment.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

72 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.30 Satisfaction with Reporting of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary

Q49 How satisfied were you with:

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

The availability of information on 

how to file a complaint/

grievance/report?

1,653

2.7

(±0.1)

245

2.7

(±0.1)

199

2.5 

(±0.2)

59

2.6 

(±0.2)

192

2.4 

(±0.2)

67

2.8 

(±0.2)

585

2.7 

(±0.1)

306

2.9 

(±0.1)

How you were treated by personnel 

handling the complaint/

grievance/report?

1,621

2.7

(±0.1)

242

2.7 

(±0.2)

199

2.2 

(±0.2)

59

2.6 

(±0.2)

185

2.3 

(±0.2)

69

2.6 

(±0.2)

575

2.9 

(±0.1)

291

2.9 

(±0.2)

Actions taken by the person 

handling the complaint/

grievance/report?

1,626

2.6

(±0.1)

244

2.6 

(±0.1)

199

2.3 

(±0.2)

59

2.7 

(±0.2)

185

2.2 

(±0.2)

69

2.4 

(±0.2)

579

2.6 

(±0.1)

289

2.8 

(±0.2)

Being informed about the current 

status of the complaint/

grievance/report?

1,613

2.5

(±0.1)

239

2.5 

(±0.1)

199

2.3 

(±0.2)

59

2.6 

(±0.2)

185

2.3 

(±0.2)

67

2.4 

(±0.2)

573

2.6 

(±0.1)

289

2.7 

(±0.2)

The amount of time it took to 

address the complaint/

grievance/report?

1,614

2.5

(±0.0)

240

2.5 

(±0.1)

199

2.1 

(±0.2)

58

2.8 

(±0.2)

185

2.2 

(±0.2)

67

2.3 

(±0.2)

574

2.7 

(±0.1)

289

2.7 

(±0.2)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses. Scale scores ranged from Very Dissatisfied (1) to Very Satisfied (5), with values 

ranging from 2-3 indicating dissatisfied to neutral responses.

Table 3.30 presents ratings of satisfaction with reporting on harassing and/or assault 

behaviors experienced. Responses shaded within the table show the most notable response 

options for each question presented. As shown in Table 3.30, regardless of the particular 

behaviors experienced, or the resource involved, employees were generally dissatisfied with the 

availability of information, the treatment received by personnel, actions and time required to 

resolve issues, and information about the status of the complaint/grievance/report. Because these 

analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these questions, 

differences in the means for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented 

for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be 

interpreted with caution.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

73 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.17 Satisfaction with Reporting Experience

Figure 3.17 displays the pattern of ratings for all behaviors measured in this section of the 

WES. As can be seen in Figure 3.17, regardless of the particular behavior experienced or the 

particular dimension of satisfaction being assessed all ratings were below 3, the neutral point of 

the scale indicating that employees were generally dissatisfied with their reporting experiences.

Table 3.31 Satisfaction with Reporting Experience – Scale Distributions for Any Form of 

Harassment

Q49 How satisfied were you 

with:

N

Mean

rating

Very 

Dissatisfied 

(1)

Dissatisfied

(2)

Neither 

Dissatisfied

nor 

Satisfied

(3)

Satisfied

(4)

Very 

Satisfied

(5)

The availability of 

information on how to file a 

complaint/grievance/report?

1,653 2.7

(±0.1)

20.8%

(±2.0)

19.5%

(±2.0)

35.5%

(±2.3)

18.6%

(±2.0)

5.6%

(±1.2)

How you were treated by 

personnel handling the 

complaint/grievance/report?

1,621 2.7

(±0.1)

24.1%

(±2.1)

18.3%

(±2.0)

30.5%

(±2.3)

19.0%

(±2.0)

8.1%

(±1.4)

Actions taken by the person 

handling the complaint/

grievance/report?

1,626 2.6

(±0.1)

25.7%

(±2.2)

21.8%

(±2.1)

30.4%

(±2.3)

16.1%

(±1.9)

6.1%

(±1.3)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses. Scale scores ranged from not at all helpful (1) to extremely helpful (5), with 

values ranging from 2-3 indicating somewhat to moderately helpful.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

74 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.31 Continued

Q49 How satisfied were you 

with:

N

Mean

rating

Very 

Dissatisfied 

(1)

Dissatisfied

(2)

Neither 

Dissatisfied

nor 

Satisfied

(3)

Satisfied

(4)

Very 

Satisfied

(5)

Being informed about the 

current status of the 

complaint/grievance/report?

1,613 2.5

(±0.1)

27.4%

(±2.2)

18.8%

(±2.0)

35.8%

(±2.4)

12.7%

(±1.7)

5.3%

(±1.2)

The amount of time it took to 

address the complaint/

grievance/report?

1,614 2.5

(±0.0)

29.1%

(±2.3)

16.8%

(±1.9)

35.0%

(±2.4)

11.7%

(±1.7)

7.4%

(±1.4)

Note. Only individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses. Scale scores ranged from not at all helpful (1) to extremely helpful (5), with 

values ranging from 2-3 indicating somewhat to moderately helpful.

Table 3.31 shows the mean and distribution of ratings for satisfaction with reporting 

items included the WES for any form of harassment. As can be seen in Table 3.31, the 

distribution of responses for each of the resources was below 3, indicating that employees are 

generally dissatisfied with their reporting experiences.

Table 3.32 Reasons for Not Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Summary

Q50 Reasons for not making oral 

and/or written complaint/

grievance/report about the behavior 

or experience

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

The behavior or experience 

stopped on its own

2,428

51.2%

(±1.4)

523

50.7% 

(±3.1)

141

40.8% 

(±5.3)

140

47.1% 

(±5.7)

81

47.0% 

(±7.5)

41

37.8% 

(±9.7)

746

48.6% 

(±2.5)

757

60.6% 

(±2.7)

I took care of it myself by 

confronting the person(s) who 

did it

1,595

33.7%

(±1.4)

291

28.6% 

(±2.9)

115

33.5% 

(±5.2)

114

38.7% 

(±5.7)

62

36.0% 

(±7.5)

35

32.6% 

(±9.6)

479

31.2%

(±2.4)

498

39.7% 

(±2.7)

I took other actions to handle 

the situation

1,486

31.7%

(±1.3)

312

30.6% 

(±2.9)

103

29.7% 

(±5.0)

82

28.0% 

(±5.5)

66

38.1% 

(±7.5)

14

12.9% 

(±7.9)

562

36.9% 

(±2.5)

347

28.1% 

(±2.6)

I thought it was not serious 

enough to discuss or report

3,345

69.9%

(±1.3)

737

70.8% 

(±2.8)

212

61.0% 

(±5.3)

254

84.0% 

(±4.6)

106

59.8% 

(±7.5)

83

76.4% 

(±9.0)

1,126

72.8% 

(±2.3)

828

65.7% 

(±2.7)

I did not know who to report 

the behavior to and/or how to 

file a complaint

666

14.1%

(±1.0)

131

13.0% 

(±2.2)

113

32.8% 

(±5.1)

25

8.6% 

(±3.8)

30

16.9% 

(±6.3)

26

23.8% 

(±9.1)

152

10.1% 

(±1.6)

188

14.6% 

(±2.0)

Note. Individuals who did not make a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

75 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.32 Continued

Q50 Reasons for not making oral 

and/or written complaint/

grievance/report about the behavior 

or experience

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

I did not want more people to 

know

1,210

25.7%

(±1.3)

206

20.4% 

(±2.6)

110

31.9% 

(±5.1)

79

26.4% 

(±5.3)

67

37.4% 

(±7.4)

51

47.8% 

(±9.6)

376

24.6% 

(±2.2)

320

25.8% 

(±2.5)

I was ashamed or embarrassed

577

12.3%

(±1.0)

114

11.3% 

(±2.1)

43

12.4% 

(±3.9)

22

7.4% 

(±3.6)

61

33.5% 

(±7.3)

34

31.7% 

(±9.5)

203

13.3% 

(±1.8)

100

8.1% 

(±1.7)

I did not want people to think 

less of me

1,095

23.0%

(±1.2)

214

21.2% 

(±2.6)

79

22.8% 

(±4.7)

57

18.9% 

(±4.9)

80

44.1% 

(±7.4)

52

48.4% 

(±9.6)

361

23.7% 

(±2.2)

253

19.6% 

(±2.3)

I thought other people would 

blame me

763

16.1%

(±1.1)

115

11.4% 

(±2.1)

81

23.4% 

(±4.8)

37

12.2% 

(±4.2)

58

32.1% 

(±7.2)

30

27.5% 

(±9.3)

261

17.1% 

(±2.0)

181

14.3% 

(±2.0)

I felt partially to blame

285

6.1%

(±0.7)

39

3.9% 

(±1.4)

12

3.6% 

(±2.6)

10

3.3% 

(±2.8)

23

13.2% 

(±5.9)

13

12.0% 

(±7.8)

115

7.6% 

(±1.4)

72

5.9% 

(±1.5)

I wanted to forget about it or 

move on

2,477

51.2%

(±1.4)

513

49.7% 

(±3.1)

194

55.1% 

(±5.3)

153

50.8% 

(±5.7)

109

60.1% 

(±7.4)

82

75.4% 

(±9.1)

803

52.0% 

(±2.5)

623

47.4% 

(±2.7)

I did not think I would be 

believed

895

19.0%

(±1.1)

197

19.4% 

(±2.6)

100

28.6% 

(±5.0)

47

15.7% 

(±4.6)

44

24.8% 

(±7.0)

30

27.7% 

(±9.3)

253

16.9% 

(±2.0)

224

17.7% 

(±2.2)

I did not think anything would 

be done

2,187

45.9%

(±1.4)

499

47.6% 

(±3.0)

193

54.9% 

(±5.3)

157

52.3% 

(±5.7)

83

46.3% 

(±7.4)

55

51.2% 

(±9.5)

715

47.5% 

(±2.5)

486

38.1% 

(±2.7)

I did not trust that the process 

would be fair

1,564

33.0%

(±1.4)

363

35.0% 

(±3.0)

154

44.0% 

(±5.3)

116

38.8% 

(±5.7)

71

40.1% 

(±7.4)

41

38.1% 

(±9.7)

484

32.2% 

(±2.4)

335

26.5% 

(±2.5)

I thought I might get in trouble 

for something I did

599

12.7%

(±1.0)

117

11.6% 

(±2.1)

56

16.1% 

(±4.3)

19

6.2% 

(±3.4)

49

27.2% 

(±7.1)

19

17.6% 

(±8.5)

171

11.4% 

(±1.7)

168

13.2% 

(±2.0)

I thought I would be labeled as 

a troublemaker

1,789

37.5%

(±1.4)

361

35.2% 

(±3.0)

146

41.7%

(±5.3)

100

33.4% 

(±5.6)

102

56.6% 

(±7.4)

51

47.0% 

(±9.6)

644

42.6% 

(±2.5)

386

29.7% 

(±2.5)

I thought it might hurt my 

performance appraisal

1,000

21.1%

(±1.2)

267

25.8% 

(±2.8)

122

35.1% 

(±5.2)

40

13.1% 

(±4.3)

58

32.6% 

(±7.3)

26

23.9% 

(±9.1)

279

18.2% 

(±2.0)

208

16.8% 

(±2.2)

Note. Individuals who did not make a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

76 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.32 Continued

Q50 Reasons for not making oral 

and/or written complaint/

grievance/report about the behavior 

or experience

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

I thought it might hurt my 

chances of being renewed or 

obtaining permanent position

210

26.6%

(±3.2)

49

27.4% 

(±7.1)

15

35.3% 

(±16.1)

12

31.1% 

(±16.6)

NR

9

27.9% 

(±18.4)

57

19.3% 

(±4.9)

59

32.9% 

(±7.3)

I was worried about potential 

negative consequences from 

leadership

1,440

29.9%

(±1.3)

345

32.8% 

(±2.9)

163

46.6% 

(±5.3)

59

19.7% 

(±4.9)

85

46.9% 

(±7.4)

44

40.9% 

(±9.7)

415

26.9% 

(±2.3)

329

25.6% 

(±2.5)

I was worried about potential 

negative consequences from my 

coworkers or peers

1,203

25.4%

(±1.3)

220

21.3% 

(±2.6)

101

28.9% 

(±5.0)

78

25.9% 

(±5.3)

74

41.4% 

(±7.4)

47

43.4% 

(±9.7)

390

25.5% 

(±2.2)

293

23.9% 

(±2.5)

I thought it might hurt my 

career

1,219

31.3%

(±1.5)

256

30.6% 

(±3.2)

139

49.0% 

(±5.8)

58

22.2% 

(±5.5)

70

44.9% 

(±8.0)

25

34.3% 

(±11.7)

405

33.2% 

(±2.7)

265

24.9% 

(±2.7)

I did not want to hurt the 

person's/s' career/s or family/ies

1,122

23.8%

(±1.2)

196

19.2% 

(±2.5)

77

22.1% 

(±4.7)

57

18.9% 

(±4.8)

39

21.7% 

(±6.7)

36

32.9% 

(±9.5)

377

24.6% 

(±2.2)

341

28.0% 

(±2.6)

I was concerned for my 

physical safety

126

2.7%

(±0.5)

20

2.0% 

(±1.1)

18

5.2% 

(±2.9)

5

1.8% 

(±2.3)

6

3.5% 

(±4.0)

6

5.5% 

(±6.4)

34

2.2% 

(±0.9)

36

3.0% 

(±1.1)

I feared losing my job

562

11.9%

(±1.0)

85

8.4% 

(±1.9)

70

20.1% 

(±4.6)

9

3.1% 

(±2.7)

43

23.5% 

(±6.8)

23

21.0% 

(±8.9)

131

8.5% 

(±1.5)

202

16.2% 

(±2.2)

Some other reason

1,738

37.4%

(±1.4)

305

30.8% 

(±3.0)

136

39.8% 

(±5.3)

73

24.8% 

(±5.3)

60

34.8% 

(±7.5)

58

53.7% 

(±9.6)

669

44.1% 

(±2.5)

438

35.7% 

(±2.7)

Note. Individuals who did not make a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above 

were included in these analyses.

Several items were included in the WES to explore reasons why employees did not make 

a complaint/grievance/report in response to their specific behavior or set of experiences. Recall 

that 74.7% did not make a complaint/grievance/report (see Table 3.24 and Figure 3.15). Table 

3.32 presents employee responses to these questions for each of the harassing and/or assault 

behaviors or experiences measured in the WES. Responses shaded within the table show the 

most frequently endorsed response options for each question presented. Examination of the 

response patterns observed for these items indicates that regardless of the specific experience

involved, employees’ most frequent reasons for not making a complaint/grievance/report 

involved the perceived seriousness of the behavior, desire to move on, skepticism about actions 

that would be taken, and the behavior stopped on its own. Nearly 70% of employees thought it 

was not serious enough to discuss or report; 51.2% of employees wanted to forget about it or 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

77 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

move on; 51.2% of employees indicated the behavior or experience stopped on its own; and 

45.9% of employees did not think anything would be done (trends shown in Figure 3.18).

Because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these 

questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for 

specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 3.18 Reasons for Not Reporting the One Experience of Harassment – Trends

Table 3.33 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Summary

Q45 As a result of the behavior or 

experience:

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

g. Did it damage your relationship 

with coworkers, supervisors, or 

managers?

6,728 1,347 556 386 398 179 2,168 1,692

Yes 34.8%

(±1.1)

30.9% 

(±2.5)

51.2% 

(±4.2)

26.5% 

(±4.7)

58.1% 

(±4.9)

57.8% 

(±7.4)

34.2% 

(±2.0)

27.1% 

(±2.2)

No 58.4%

(±1.2)

63.8% 

(±2.6)

42.5% 

(±4.2)

59.0% 

(±5.0)

33.7% 

(±4.8)

38.1% 

(±7.4)

59.9% 

(±2.1)

65.4% 

(±2.3)

Don't Know 6.8%

(±0.6)

5.3% 

(±1.3)

6.3% 

(±2.4)

14.4% 

(±3.9)

8.2% 

(±3.1)

4.1% 

(±4.2)

5.9% 

(±1.1)

7.5% 

(±1.4)

Note. Individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above were 

included in these analyses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

78 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.33 Continued

Q45 As a result of the behavior or 

experience:

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

f. Did it cause arguments or damage 

interpersonal relations at work? 6,747 1,362 557 386 398 179 2,170 1,694

Yes 33.1%

(±1.1)

24.1% 

(±2.3)

51.4% 

(±4.2)

26.2% 

(±4.6)

42.8% 

(±4.9)

60.6% 

(±7.4)

34.7% 

(±2.0)

28.7% 

(±2.2)

No 60.6%

(±1.2)

70.3% 

(±2.5)

44.1% 

(±4.2)

59.5% 

(±5.0)

49.1% 

(±4.9)

33.6% 

(±7.3)

60.3% 

(±2.1)

64.3% 

(±2.3)

Don't Know 6.3%

(±0.6)

5.7% 

(±1.4)

4.4% 

(±2.1)

14.3% 

(±3.9)

8.1% 

(±3.1)

5.8% 

(±4.6)

5.0% 

(±1.0)

6.9% 

(±1.3)

h. Did it damage other personal 

relationships? 6,727 1,356 556 386 397 179 2,156 1,695

Yes 11.1%

(±0.8)

8.8% 

(±1.6)

17.4% 

(±3.4)

5.3% 

(±2.7)

21.8% 

(±4.4)

22.7% 

(±6.8)

10.1% 

(±1.3)

9.7% 

(±1.5)

No 85.9%

(±0.9)

87.5% 

(±1.9)

80.1% 

(±3.5)

92.8% 

(±3.1)

74.4% 

(±4.5)

75.4% 

(±6.9)

87.7% 

(±1.5)

86.5% 

(±1.7)

Don't Know 3.0%

(±0.4)

3.6% 

(±1.1)

2.5% 

(±1.7)

1.9% 

(±2.0)

3.7% 

(±2.4) NR 2.2% (±0.7)

3.8% 

(±1.0)

i. Did it cause you to call in sick or 

take other type of leave? 6,731 1,357 556 386 398 179 2,164 1,691

Yes 18.9%

(±1.0)

11.7% 

(±1.8)

36.3% 

(±4.1)

16.1% 

(±4.0)

44.0% 

(±4.9)

23.3% 

(±6.8)

16.9% 

(±1.6)

15.8% 

(±1.8)

No 79.7%

(±1.0)

86.1% 

(±1.9)

61.2% 

(±4.1)

82.8% 

(±4.1)

55.8% 

(±4.9)

76.7% 

(±6.8)

81.9% 

(±1.7)

83.0% 

(±1.9)

Don't Know 1.4%

(±0.3)

2.3% 

(±0.9)

2.5% 

(±1.7) NR NR 0.0% (NA)

1.1% 

(±0.5)

1.3% 

(±0.7)

k. Did you seek counseling from a 

religious leader/counselor/health 

care provider?

6,718 1,356 557 384 398 179 2,170 1,673

Yes 14.7%

(±0.9)

8.4% 

(±1.6)

31.5% 

(±4.0)

10.2% 

(±3.5)

39.2% 

(±4.9)

19.8% 

(±6.6)

14.9% 

(±1.6)

8.7% 

(±1.4)

No 84.2%

(±0.9)

90.6% 

(±1.7)

67.9% 

(±4.0)

89.3% 

(±3.5)

59.3% 

(±4.9)

80.2% 

(±6.6)

84.6%

(±1.6)

89.2% 

(±1.6)

Don't Know 1.1%

(±0.3)

1.0% 

(±0.7) NR NR 1.5% (±1.8)

0.0% 

(NA)

0.6% 

(±0.4)

2.2% 

(±0.8)

j. Did you seek any type of medical 

attention? 6,714 1,344 557 384 396 178 2,168 1,687

Yes 7.9%

(±0.7)

5.6% 

(±1.4)

19.4% 

(±3.5)

1.7% 

(±1.9)

28.1% 

(±4.7)

5.6% 

(±4.6)

5.8% 

(±1.1)

5.4% 

(±1.2)

No 91.1%

(±0.7)

93.6% 

(±1.4)

80.3% 

(±3.5)

97.7% 

(±2.1)

71.7% 

(±4.7)

93.0% 

(±4.9)

93.6% 

(±1.1)

92.4% 

(±1.4)

Don't Know 1.0%

(±0.3)

0.8% 

(±0.7) NR NR NR NR 0.6% (±0.4)

2.2% 

(±0.8)

Note. Individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above were 

included in these analyses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

79 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.33 Continued

Q45 As a result of the behavior or 

experience:

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

c. Did it make it harder to complete 

your work or do your job? 6,776 1,361 557 386 398 178 2,179 1,716

Yes 37.4%

(±1.2)

28.7% 

(±2.5)

56.7% 

(±4.2)

28.3% 

(±4.7)

55.1% 

(±4.9)

53.3% 

(±7.4)

40.9% 

(±2.1)

29.8% 

(±2.2)

No 59.2%

(±1.2)

67.8%

(±2.5)

41.3% 

(±4.2)

69.6% 

(±4.8)

42.6% 

(±4.9)

45.3% 

(±7.4)

56.3% 

(±2.1)

65.0% 

(±2.3)

Don't Know 3.4%

(±0.5)

3.5% 

(±1.1)

2.0% 

(±1.6)

2.1% 

(±2.0)

2.3% 

(±2.1) NR 2.7% (±0.8)

5.2% 

(±1.2)

d. Did it negatively affect your 

performance evaluation or 

promotion potential?

5,566 1,115 465 316 360 129 1,723 1,459

Yes 20.3%

(±1.1)

23.2% 

(±2.6)

38.3% 

(±4.5)

11.1% 

(±4.0)

38.0% 

(±5.2)

35.4% 

(±8.7)

15.9% 

(±1.8)

13.9% 

(±1.9)

No 71.5%

(±1.2)

68.7% 

(±2.8)

51.8% 

(±4.6)

86.1% 

(±4.3)

46.8% 

(±5.2)

59.2% 

(±8.8)

76.3% 

(±2.1)

78.1% 

(±2.2)

Don't Know 8.2%

(±0.8)

8.0% 

(±1.8)

9.8% 

(±3.1)

2.8% 

(±2.5)

15.2% 

(±4.1)

5.3% 

(±5.6)

7.7% 

(±1.4)

8.0% 

(±1.5)

e. Did it negatively affect your 

performance evaluation/

renewal/permanent employment?

1,095 218 67 70 34 50 441 216

Yes 18.5%

(±2.4)

9.0% 

(±4.6)

58.5% 

(±12.4)

7.2% 

(±9.2)

29.9% 

(±18.2)

49.0% 

(±14.0)

13.0% 

(±3.5)

21.7% 

(±6.1)

No 72.7%

(±2.7)

81.8% 

(±5.7)

41.5% 

(±12.4)

91.2% 

(±9.6) NR 42.2% (±14.4)

81.4% 

(±3.9)

60.2% 

(±6.7)

Don't Know 8.8%

(±1.8)

9.2% 

(±4.7)

0.0% 

(NA) NR 19.4% (±17.8) NR 5.6% (±2.6)

18.1% 

(±5.8)

l. Did you consider leaving the 

bureau? 6,735 1,360 557 386 396 179 2,168 1,689

Yes 31.5%

(±1.1)

25.8% 

(±2.4)

55.2% 

(±4.2)

33.0% 

(±4.9)

52.8% 

(±4.9)

48.3% 

(±7.4)

27.5% 

(±1.9)

26.3% 

(±2.2)

No 67.4%

(±1.1)

72.7% 

(±2.4)

44.2% 

(±4.2)

66.1% 

(±4.9)

46.0% 

(±5.0)

51.2% 

(±7.4)

71.5% 

(±1.9)

72.6% 

(±2.2)

Don't Know 1.1%

(±0.3)

1.4% 

(±0.8) NR NR NR NR 0.9% (±0.5)

1.2% 

(±0.6)

b. Did you take steps to leave your 

organization? 6,762 1,364 555 386 395 169 2,173 1,179

Yes 13.2%

(±0.8)

9.7% 

(±1.7)

26.2% 

(±3.8)

11.2% 

(±3.6)

33.1% 

(±4.8)

7.5% 

(±5.1)

11.5% 

(±1.4)

10.1% 

(±1.5)

No 85.6%

(±0.9)

89.3% 

(±1.8)

73.5% 

(±3.8)

88.8% 

(±3.6)

66.5% 

(±4.8)

92.5% 

(±5.1)

87.9% 

(±1.4)

86.8% 

(±1.7)

Don't Know 1.2%

(±0.3)

1.0% 

(±0.7) NR 0.0% (NA) NR 0.0% (NA)

0.6% 

(±0.4)

3.0% 

(±0.9)

Note. Individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above were 

included in these analyses.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

80 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.33 Continued

Q45 As a result of the behavior or 

experience:

Any form

Age

Race/

ethnicity

Religious

Disability

Sexual 

orientation

Sex/

gender

Unknown 

reasons

a. Did you request a transfer or 

change of assignment? 6,791 1,364 557 386 395 179 2,175 1,732

Yes

6.0%

(±0.6)

4.9% 

(±1.3)

13.9% 

(±3.1)

2.7% 

(±2.2)

15.3% 

(±3.9) NR 6.0% (±1.1)

3.2% 

(±0.9)

No 92.6%

(±0.6)

94.1% 

(±1.4)

81.5% 

(±3.5)

97.3% 

(±2.2)

84.1% 

(±4.0)

97.9% 

(±3.6)

93.6% 

(±1.1)

94.1% 

(±1.2)

Don't Know 1.5%

(±0.3)

1.0% 

(±0.7)

4.6% 

(±2.1)

0.0% 

(NA) NR 0.0% (NA)

0.4% 

(±0.4)

2.8% 

(±0.9)

Note. Individuals who made a complaint/grievance/report and responded to the follow up questions above were 

included in these analyses.

Table 3.33 presents responses to items asking employees about the impact of specific 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced on their personal and professional lives.

Responses shaded within the table show the most notable response options for each question 

presented. Examination of responses patterns to these questions reveals that for many employees 

their experiences did not have a negative impact on them. However, for some employees these 

experiences had a negative impact on their interpersonal relationships, their physical or 

emotional well-being, their job performance, and willingness to remain a part of the 

organization.

Figure 3.19 Effect of the One Experience of Harassment on Relationships at Work

As shown in Figure 3.19, regardless of the specific form of harassment and/or assault 

behavior experienced, for some employees these experiences had a negative impact on their 

interpersonal relationships: 34.8% of employees indicated it damaged relationships with 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

81 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

coworkers, supervisors, or managers, while 58.4% did not; 33.1% of employees indicated it 

caused arguments or damaged interpersonal relations at work, while 60.6% did not; and 11.1%

of employees indicated it damaged other personal relationships, while 85.9% did not. This 

pattern of findings was generally observed across the various forms of harassment and/or assault 

behaviors measured in the WES. Some variability was observed for this pattern for certain types 

of harassment and/or assault behaviors. However, given the small number of employees involved 

in some of these analyses differences in percentages who reported each form of harassment are 

presented for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting any of these 

differences across specific forms of harassment and/or assault behaviors.

Figure 3.20 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Physical or Emotional Well-Being

Moreover, regardless of the particular behavior involved, for some employees these 

experiences had a negative impact on their physical or emotional well-being: 18.9% of 

employees called in sick or took leave, while 79.7% did not; 14.7% of employees sought 

counseling, while 84.2% did not; and 7.9% of employees sought medical attention, while 91.1%

did not. This pattern of findings was generally observed across the various forms of harassment 

and/or assault behaviors measured in the WES. Because these analyses rely on a much smaller 

subset of employees who responded to these questions, differences in the percentages reported 

for specific forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes 

only. Variation in the general pattern for specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution

(see Figure 3.20).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

82 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.21 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Impact on Job Performance

As can be seen in Figure 3.21, regardless of the particular behavior involved, for some 

employees, these experiences had a negative impact on their job performance: 37.4% of 

employees made it harder to complete their work, while 59.2% did not; 20.3% of employees

indicated it negatively affected their performance evaluation or promotion potential, while 71.5%

did not; and 18.5% of employees indicated it negatively affected their performance evaluation/

renewal/permanent employment, while 72.7% did not. This pattern of findings was generally 

observed across the various forms of harassment and/or assault behaviors measured in the WES. 

Because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who responded to these 

questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the general pattern for 

specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 3.22 Results of the One Experience of Harassment – Remain Part of Organization
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

83 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

As shown in Figure 3.22, regardless of the particular behavior involved, for some

employees these experiences negatively affected their willingness to remain a part of the 

organization: 31.5% of employees indicated they considered leaving NPS, while 67.4% did not;

13.2% of employees took steps to leave their organization, while 85.6% did not; and 6.0% of 

employees requested a transfer, while 92.6% did not. This pattern of findings was generally 

observed across the various forms of harassment and/or assault behaviors measured in the WES. 

Some variability was observed for this pattern for certain types of harassment and/or assault 

behaviors. However, because these analyses rely on a much smaller subset of employees who 

responded to these questions, differences in the percentages reported for specific forms of 

harassing and/or assault behaviors are presented for descriptive purposes only. Variation in the 

general pattern for specific behaviors should be interpreted with caution.

3.4.1 Summary of Contextual Factors Influencing Specific Behaviors or 

Experiences

To summarize, regardless of the particular behavior involved, employees’ experiences 

occurred during work hours, at a work location, or at a site that was indoors. Employees

experienced these behaviors more than once. Employees’ experiences most often involved one 

person, who was typically older, male, and most often a peer and/or coworker with whom they 

had to continue to interact. Most employees talked to someone at work about their experience but 

did not make a complaint/grievance/report about their experience. Among employees who made 

complaints/grievances/reports, the most frequently used NPS resource was a supervisor or 

manager. In about a third of these cases some type action was taken. Employees’ most frequent 

reasons for not making a complaint/grievance/report involved the perceived seriousness of the 

behavior, desire to move on, or forget about the incident, and skepticism about action taken, or 

trust about the fairness of the process. For many employees, their experiences did not have a 

negative impact on them, but for some employees it had a negative impact on their interpersonal 

relationships, their physical or emotional well-being, and their willingness to remain a part of the 

organization.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

84 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3.5 Demographic, Occupational, and Organizational Factors Correlated with 

Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced

In the previous section, we examined all of the demographic and occupational 

characteristics to identify vulnerability characteristics that may be associated with harassment 

and/or assault behaviors employees may experience within the NPS work environment. Those 

analyses revealed that the matched demographic characteristic was the most impactful variable 

involved in understanding the nature of employees’ particular experiences. In this section, we 

examine organizational factors that might contribute to our understanding factors influencing 

employees’ harassment and/or assault related behaviors. Specially, we examined relationships 

among demographic, occupational, and organizational factors associated with the various forms 

of harassment and/or assault behaviors measured in the WES. Demographic variables included 

age, sex, gender identity, sexual minority status, race/ethnicity, disability status, relationship 

status, and education. Occupational variables included appointment type, work schedule, 

paygrade, and years of service. Organizational variables included supervisor support, 

organizational trust, organizational inclusion, organizational politics, general and leadership 

intolerance for harassment, bystander experiences, and gender context. Separate logistic 

regressions analyses were performed for each of the harassment and/or assault behaviors 

measured. We entered all demographic, occupational, and organizational variables into a 

simultaneous logistic regression equation using a forward selection procedure to assess the 

relative importance of each variable for each of the models we examined. For all statistical 

significance tests probability values were set at p <.05. Given that the likelihood of finding 

statistically significant results increases as a function of sample size, we also evaluated the 

practical significance of findings to ascertain the meaningfulness of particular results. Practical 

significance was determined by evaluating the absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood

Chi Square—the absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood Chi Square had to be ≥ 100 for 

specific variables identified for the logistic regression analyses we performed. Main findings are 

shaded in Table 3.34 to Table 3.41 for each of the types of harassment we examined. Results for 

those variables that met statistical and practical significance criteria are shaded within each table 

of results.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

85 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.34 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Age

Variable B Wald p

Odds 

Ratio

Model 

Log 

Likelihood

Change in 

-2 Log 

Likelihood

Constant 3.161 406.499 -- 23.590 -- --

Sex -0.173 12.996 0.000 0.841 -6157.543 12.941

Age -0.340 35.217 0.000 0.712 -6168.694 35.242

Education Level 0.355 47.284 0.000 1.426 -6174.858 47.570

Race/Ethnicity 0.260 16.931 0.000 1.297 -6159.756 17.366

Pay Grade -- 20.109 -- -- -- --

Middle vs. Junior Grade -0.114 2.691 0.101 0.893 -6160.899 19.652

Senior vs. Junior Grade -0.309 14.513 0.000 0.734 -6160.899 19.652

Executive vs. Junior Grade 0.711 1.843 0.175 2.036 -6160.899 19.652

Years of Service 0.040 6.435 0.011 1.041 -6154.311 6.477

Appointment Type -0.316 19.161 0.000 0.729 -6160.518 18.891

Work Schedule 0.232 9.346 0.002 1.261 -6155.835 9.524

Supervisor Support -0.147 30.243 0.000 0.864 -6166.128 30.110

Organizational Inclusion -0.282 82.398 0.000 0.754 -6192.147 82.148

Bystander Harassment -2.187 1525.031 0.000 0.112 -6959.824 1617.503

General Intolerance -0.390 121.326 0.000 0.677 -6211.939 121.732

Leadership Intolerance 0.157 5.485 0.019 1.170 -6153.832 5.519

Note. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4 and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade

includes GS 11-15; and Executive Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive 

Service. N = 15,222, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.340

Table 3.34 shows the demographic, occupational, and organizational factors that were 

significantly associated with experiences of harassment based on age. While many of the 

demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were associated with employees’ 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced, only perceptions regarding the general 

intolerance for harassment in the work place and bystander experience met both statistical and 

practical significance criteria for these analyses.28 None of the other demographic, occupational,

and organizational variables were significantly associated with employees’ experiences with 

harassment based on age. Hence, harassment based on age was more common in work 

environments perceived to be tolerant of these behaviors and where employees witnessed 

harassment against another employee based on their age.

 

28 Absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood was ≥ 100 for specific variables identified.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

86 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.35 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Racial/Ethnic 

Background

Variable B Wald p

Odds 

Ratio

Model Log 

Likelihood

Change in -2 

Log Likelihood

Constant 2.474 113.129 -- 11.872 -- --

Sex 0.302 17.961 0.000 1.352 -3341.259 18.223

Education Level 0.427 37.907 0.000 1.533 -3351.327 38.359

Race/Ethnicity -1.295 311.386 0.000 0.274 -3479.324 294.354

Work Schedule 0.350 9.394 0.002 1.419 -3337.157 10.019

Organizational Inclusion -0.441 138.546 0.000 0.643 -3401.398 138.501

Bystander Harassment -2.141 815.087 0.000 0.118 -3718.518 772.742

Note. N = 15,209, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.284

Table 3.35 shows the demographic, occupational, and organizational factors that were 

significantly associated with experiences of harassment based on racial/ethnic background. 

While many of the demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were associated with 

employees’ harassing and/or assault behaviors experiences, the racial/ethnic background of the 

employee, perceptions of organizational inclusion within the work unit, and bystander 

experiences were the only variables that met both statistical and practical significance criteria.29

None of the other demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were significantly 

associated with employees’ experiences with harassment based on racial/ethnic background.

Hence, harassment based on race/ethnicity was more common for racial/ethnic minority 

employees than for non-minority employees; and in work environments perceived to be less 

inclusive and where employees witnessed harassment against another employee based on their 

race/ethnicity.

 

29 Absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood was ≥ 100 for specific variables identified.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

87 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.36 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Religious Beliefs

Variable B Wald p

Odds 

Ratio

Model Log 

Likelihood

Change in -2 

Log Likelihood

Constant 0.708 3.744 -- 2.029 -- --

Sex 0.336 20.268 0.000 1.399 -3281.075 20.635

Age -0.372 19.717 0.000 0.690 -3280.621 19.727

Education Level 0.369 23.711 0.000 1.447 -3282.707 23.899

Race/Ethnicity -0.308 13.054 0.000 0.735 -3277.049 12.583

Relationship Status 0.324 17.695 0.000 1.383 -3279.842 18.168

Pay Grade -- 22.795 -- -- -- --

Middle vs. Junior Grade -0.031 0.096 0.757 0.969 -3282.365 23.215

Senior vs. Junior Grade -0.436 13.128 0.000 0.647 -3282.365 23.215

Executive vs. Junior Grade 0.014 0.000 0.989 1.014 -3282.365 23.215

Years of Service 0.072 9.012 0.003 1.074 -3275.334 9.154

Appointment Type -0.259 6.155 0.013 0.772 -3273.778 6.042

Organizational Politics 0.184 12.912 0.000 1.201 -3277.198 12.881

Organizational Inclusion -0.170 15.485 0.000 0.844 -3278.458 15.401

Bystander Harassment -2.572 912.135 0.000 0.076 -3694.061 846.607

General Intolerance -0.174 13.017 0.000 0.840 -3277.238 12.960

Note. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4 and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade

includes GS 11-15; and Executive Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive 

Service. N = 15,246, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.216

Table 3.36 shows the demographic, occupational, and organizational factors that were 

significantly associated with experiences of harassment based on religious beliefs. While many 

of the demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were associated with employees’ 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced, bystander experience was the only variable that 

met both statistical and practical significance criteria. 30 None of the other demographic, 

occupational, and organizational variables were significantly associated with employees’ 

experiences with harassment based on religious beliefs. Hence, harassment based on religious 

beliefs was more common in work environments where employees witnessed harassment against 

another employee based on their religious beliefs.

 

30 Absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood was ≥ 100 for specific variables identified.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

88 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.37 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Disability Status

Variable B Wald P

Odds 

Ratio

Model Log 

Likelihood

Change in -2 

Log Likelihood

Constant -0.070 0.027 -- 0.933 -- --

Age 0.545 34.914 0.000 1.724 -2519.061 36.602

Relationship Status 0.230 7.317 0.007 1.259 -2504.483 7.444

Disability Status -1.724 377.645 0.000 0.178 -2673.558 345.595

Pay Grade -- 54.735 -- -- -- --

Middle vs. Junior Grade 0.709 31.197 0.000 2.033 -2529.322 57.123

Senior vs. Junior Grade 0.155 1.193 0.275 1.168 -2529.322 57.123

Executive vs. Junior Grade -16.914 0.000 0.998 0.000 -2529.322 57.123

Supervisor Support 0.237 26.495 0.000 1.268 -2514.069 26.617

Organizational Politics 0.403 40.377 0.000 1.496 -2521.076 40.631

Organizational Inclusion -0.239 22.785 0.000 0.788 -2512.133 22.744

Bystander Harassment -2.144 538.666 0.000 0.117 -2758.066 514.610

General Intolerance -0.307 27.009 0.000 0.736 -2514.236 26.951

Leadership Intolerance -0.389 12.401 0.000 0.678 -2506.923 12.325

Note. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4 and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade

includes GS 11-15; and Executive Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive 

Service. N = 15,090, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.332

Table 3.37 shows the demographic, occupational, and organizational factors that were 

significantly associated with experiences of harassment based on a disability status or condition. 

While many of the demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were associated with 

employees’ harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced, disability status of the employee and 

bystander experience were the only variables that met both statistical and practical significance 

criteria.31 None of the other demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were 

significantly associated with employees’ experiences with harassment based on disability status 

or condition. Hence, harassment based on a disability status or condition was more common for 

employees with a documented disability and more common where employees witnessed 

harassment against another employee based on their disability status or condition.

 

31 Absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood was ≥ 100 for specific variables identified.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

89 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.38 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment Based on Sexual 

Orientation

Variable B Wald p

Odds 

Ratio

Model Log 

Likelihood

Change in -2 

Log Likelihood

Constant 0.734 3.090 -- 2.082 -- --

Sex -0.325 14.143 0.000 0.723 -2282.204 14.104

Education Level 0.244 7.849 0.005 1.277 -2279.104 7.903

Relationship Status -0.317 13.197 0.000 0.728 -2281.689 13.072

Years of Service -0.067 7.171 0.007 0.935 -2278.728 7.152

Appointment Type -0.498 18.093 0.000 0.608 -2283.923 17.542

Organizational Politics 0.218 9.904 0.002 1.244 -2280.131 9.956

Organizational Inclusion -0.240 16.760 0.000 0.787 -2283.573 16.842

Organizational Trust 0.219 8.165 0.004 1.245 -2279.278 8.251

Bystander Harassment -2.037 468.248 0.000 0.130 -2482.140 413.975

General Intolerance -0.471 53.539 0.000 0.624 -2301.680 53.054

Leadership Intolerance -0.374 9.693 0.002 0.688 -2280.002 9.699

Note. N = 15,188, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.218

Table 3.38 shows the demographic, occupational, and organizational factors that were 

significantly associated with experiences of harassment based on a sexual orientation. While 

many of the demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were associated with 

employees’ harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced, bystander experience was the only 

variable that met both statistical and practical significance criteria.32 None of the other 

demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were significantly associated with 

employees’ experiences with harassment based on sexual orientation. Hence, harassment based 

on sexual orientation was more common where employees witnessed harassment against another 

employee based on their sexual orientation.

 

32 Absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood was ≥ 100 for specific variable identified.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

90 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.39 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Gender Harassment

Variable B Wald p

Odds 

Ratio

Model Log 

Likelihood

Change in -2 

Log Likelihood

Constant 3.070 257.965 -- 21.534 -- --

Sex -1.686 918.674 0.000 0.185 -5572.026 1015.642

Age -0.560 97.487 0.000 0.571 -5112.754 97.097

Education Level 0.573 98.720 0.000 1.773 -5114.314 100.219

Race/Ethnicity 0.196 7.656 0.006 1.216 -5068.103 7.796

Relationship Status -0.137 6.499 0.011 0.872 -5067.440 6.470

Pay Grade -- 9.185 -- -- -- --

Middle vs. Junior Grade -0.115 2.405 0.121 0.891 -5068.613 8.816

Senior vs. Junior Grade 0.024 0.082 0.775 1.024 -5068.613 8.816

Executive vs. Junior Grade 1.080 3.264 0.071 2.945 -5068.613 8.816

Work Schedule -0.240 9.293 0.002 0.787 -5068.788 9.166

Organizational Inclusion -0.282 84.696 0.000 0.754 -5106.478 84.546

Bystander Harassment -2.214 1367.510 0.000 0.109 -5791.468 1454.526

General Intolerance -0.386 128.593 0.000 0.679 -5128.692 128.974

Gender Context 0.212 18.273 0.000 1.236 -5073.402 18.394

Note. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4 and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade

includes GS 11-15; and Executive Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive 

Service. N = 15,233, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.441

Table 3.39 shows the demographic, occupational, and organizational factors that were 

significantly associated with experiences of gender harassment. While many of the demographic, 

occupational, and organizational variables were associated with employees’ harassing and/or 

assault behaviors experienced, only sex, educational level, perceptions of the general intolerance 

of harassing behaviors, and bystander experience were the only variables that met both statistical 

and practical significance criteria.33 None of the other demographic, occupational, and 

organizational variables were significantly associated with employees’ experiences with gender 

harassment. Hence, gender harassment was more common for women than men, for employees 

with a college education than for those without a college education; gender harassment was more 

common in environments perceived as being tolerant of these behaviors and where employees 

witnessed harassment against another employee based on their sex/gender.

 

33 Absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood was ≥ 100 for specific variables identified.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

91 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.40 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Sexual Harassment

Variable B Wald p

Odds 

Ratio

Model Log 

Likelihood

Change in -2 

Log Likelihood

Constant 2.982 90.521 -- 19.722 -- --

Sex -0.876 180.201 0.000 0.416 -3805.414 184.242

Age -0.549 75.950 0.000 0.577 -3751.087 75.587

Education Level 0.229 12.210 0.000 1.258 -3719.429 12.272

Relationship Status -0.588 89.975 0.000 0.555 -3758.057 89.527

Organizational Politics -0.120 6.961 0.008 0.887 -3716.789 6.992

Organizational Inclusion -0.280 55.563 0.000 0.756 -3741.139 55.692

Bystander Harassment -1.816 772.150 0.000 0.163 -4097.658 768.730

General Intolerance -0.590 182.088 0.000 0.554 -3805.410 184.232

Gender Context 0.134 5.240 0.022 1.143 -3715.925 5.263

Note. N = 15,191, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.343

Table 3.40 shows the demographic, occupational, and organizational factors that were 

significantly associated with employees’ experiences of sexual harassment. While many of the 

demographic, occupational, and organizational variables were associated with employees’ 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced, only sex, their perceptions of the general 

intolerance for harassment in the work place, and bystander experiences were the only variables 

that met both statistical and practical significance criteria.34 None of the other demographic, 

occupational, and organizational variables were significantly associated with employees’ 

experiences with sexual harassment. Hence, sexual harassment was more common for women 

than men, in environments that were perceived as being tolerant of these behaviors and where 

employees witnessed harassment against another employee based on their sex/gender.

 

34 Absolute value for Change in -2 Log Likelihood was ≥ 100 for specific variables identified.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

92 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.41 Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Sexual Assault Related Behaviors

Variable B Wald p

Odds 

Ratio

Model 

Log 

Likelihoo

d

Change in -2 

Log Likelihood

Constant -2.861 15.588 -- 0.057 -- --

Sex -0.411 4.812 0.028 0.663 -633.194 4.894

Relationship Status -1.129 36.018 0.000 0.323 -650.009 38.522

Pay Grade -- 24.291 -- -- -- --

Middle vs. Junior Grade -0.839 15.177 0.000 0.432 -642.246 22.997

Senior vs. Junior Grade -1.253 21.515 0.000 0.286 -642.246 22.997

Executive vs. Junior Grade -15.946 0.000 0.998 0.000 -642.246 22.997

Appointment Type 0.882 10.284 0.001 2.415 -636.553 11.612

Work Schedule -0.507 5.009 0.025 0.603 -633.095 4.695

Organizational Politics 0.438 12.759 0.000 1.550 -637.185 12.875

Bystander Harassment -1.794 77.729 0.000 0.166 -672.440 83.385

General Intolerance -0.301 6.524 0.011 0.740 -634.005 6.516

Note. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4 and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade

includes GS 11-15; and Executive Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive 

Service. N = 15,225, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.207

As shown in Table 3.41, none of the demographic, occupational, and organizational 

variables met statistical and practical significance criteria.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

93 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.42 Summary of Logistic Regression Results for Predictors of Harassment/Assault

Variable

Age

Racial/Ethnic

Religion

Disability

Sexual

Orientation

Gender

Harassment

Sexual

Harassment

Sexual

Assault

Behaviors

Age

Sex ✓ ✓

Education Level ✓

Relationship Status

Disability Status ✓

Race/Ethnicity ✓

Pay Grade

Organizational Politics

Organizational Inclusion ✓

Organizational Trust

Bystander Harassment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

General Intolerance ✓ ✓ ✓

Leadership Intolerance

Table 3.42 summarizes results of logistic regression analyses for the predictors of 

harassment and/or assault behaviors examined in the WES. As shown in Table 3.42, the most 

consistently important variables associated with harassing and/or assault behaviors involve the 

organizational factors. To further examine these findings, we compared differences between 

individuals who experienced harassing and/or assault behaviors across each of the organizational 

factors included in the WES.

Table 3.43 Differences in Ratings of Organizational Factors by Harassment Experienced

Experienced harassment Did not experience harassment Effect size

N Mean MoE N Mean MoE Hedges' g

Age

Supervisor Support 4,087 3.2 ±0.0 13,880 3.9 ±0.0 -0.65 (M)

Organizational Trust 4,241 2.8 ±0.0 14,178 3.5 ±0.0 -0.71 (M)

Organizational Inclusion 4,241 3.1 ±0.0 14,272 3.8 ±0.0 -0.68 (M)

Organizational Politics 4,197 3.2 ±0.0 14,082 2.7 ±0.0 0.62 (M)

Leadership Intolerance 4,123 0.47 ±0.01 14,235 0.66 ±0.01 -0.45 (S)

General Intolerance 4,179 3.0 ±0.0 14,140 3.7 ±0.0 -0.81 (L)

Bystander Experiences 1,884 46.2% ±1.5 842 5.9% ±0.4 1.00 (L)*

Note. Scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) for scales measuring supervisor support, 

organizational trust, inclusion, politics, and general intolerance. Leadership intolerance was measured on a scale 

of yes (1) and no (0). Higher scores indicate greater levels of support, trust, inclusion; more pressure to conform 

to organization norms (Organizational Politics), greater intolerance of harassing behaviors, and greater number of 

employees experiencing bystander harassment. All differences in scores and percentages are statistically 

significant unless otherwise noted (p <.05). *Effect size for Bystander Experiences is Cohen’s h.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

94 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.43 Continued

Experienced harassment Did not experience harassment Effect size

N Mean MoE N Mean MoE Hedges' g

Racial/Ethnic

Supervisor Support 1,642 3.1 ±0.1 16,298 3.8 ±0.0 -0.65 (M)

Organizational Trust 1,762 2.7 ±0.0 16,630 3.4 ±0.0 -0.77 (M)

Organizational Inclusion 1,765 2.9 ±0.1 16,722 3.7 ±0.0 -0.86 (L)

Organizational Politics 1,726 3.3 ±0.0 16,528 2.8 ±0.0 0.59 (M)

Leadership Intolerance 1,718 0.41 ±0.02 16,618 0.64 ±0.01 -0.54 (M)

General Intolerance 1,734 2.8 ±0.0 16,564 3.6 ±0.0 -0.85 (L)

Bystander Experiences 749 45.4% ±2.4 950 5.7% ±0.4 0.99 (L)*

Religion

Supervisor Support 1,259 3.2 ±0.1 16,670 3.8 ±0.0 -0.50 (M)

Organizational Trust 1,322 2.8 ±0.1 17,031 3.3 ±0.0 -0.55 (M)

Organizational Inclusion 1,325 3.1 ±0.1 17,123 3.7 ±0.0 -0.56 (M)

Organizational Politics 1,303 3.2 ±0.0 16,938 2.8 ±0.0 0.52 (M)

Leadership Intolerance 1,302 0.48 ±0.02 17,001 0.63 ±0.01 -0.34 (S)

General Intolerance 1,313 3.0 ±0.1 16,941 3.6 ±0.0 -0.61 (M)

Bystander Experiences 489 37.7% ±2.7 536 3.2% ±0.3 0.96 (L)*

Disability

Supervisor Support 1,193 3.0 ±0.1 16,593 3.8 ±0.0 -0.75 (M)

Organizational Trust 1,274 2.5 ±0.0 16,962 3.4 ±0.0 -0.95 (L)

Organizational Inclusion 1,274 2.8 ±0.1 17,057 3.7 ±0.0 -0.91 (L)

Organizational Politics 1,242 3.5 ±0.0 16,857 2.8 ±0.0 0.86 (L)

Leadership Intolerance 1,263 0.32 ±0.02 16,930 0.64 ±0.01 -0.74 (M)

General Intolerance 1,261 2.7 ±0.0 16,876 3.6 ±0.0 -0.97 (L)

Bystander Experiences 627 50.9% ±2.8 806 4.8% ±0.3 1.15 (L)*

Sexual Orientation

Supervisor Support 796 3.1 ±0.1 17,108 3.8 ±0.0 -0.63 (M)

Organizational Trust 826 2.7 ±0.1 17,525 3.3 ±0.0 -0.70 (M)

Organizational Inclusion 826 3.0 ±0.1 17,620 3.7 ±0.0 -0.73 (M)

Organizational Politics 824 3.3 ±0.1 17,390 2.8 ±0.0 0.65 (M)

Leadership Intolerance 817 0.36 ±0.03 17,478 0.63 ±0.01 -0.63 (M)

General Intolerance 828 2.7 ±0.1 17,426 3.6 ±0.0 -0.91 (L)

Bystander Experiences 317 39.1% ±3.4 860 5.0% ±0.3 0.90 (L)*

Note. Scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) for scales measuring supervisor support, 

organizational trust, inclusion, politics, and general intolerance. Leadership intolerance was measured on a scale 

of yes (1) and no (0). Higher scores indicate greater levels of support, trust, inclusion; more pressure to conform 

to organization norms (Organizational Politics), greater intolerance of harassing behaviors, and greater number of 

employees experiencing bystander harassment. All differences in scores and percentages are statistically 

significant unless otherwise noted (p <.05). *Effect size for Bystander Experiences is Cohen’s h.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

95 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.43 Continued

Experienced harassment Did not experience harassment Effect size

N Mean MoE N Mean MoE Hedges' g

Gender Harassment

Supervisor Support 3,472 3.4 ±0.0 14,510 3.8 ±0.0 -0.43 (S)

Organizational Trust 3,559 2.9 ±0.0 14,875 3.4 ±0.0 -0.56 (M)

Organizational Inclusion 3,568 3.2 ±0.0 14,960 3.7 ±0.0 -0.61 (M)

Organizational Politics 3,528 3.2 ±0.0 14,767 2.7 ±0.0 0.52 (M)

Leadership Intolerance 3,516 0.45 ±0.01 14,859 0.65 ±0.01 -0.47 (S)

General Intolerance 3,557 3.0 ±0.0 14,781 3.6 ±0.0 -0.78 (M)

Bystander Experiences 1,847 53.0% ±1.7 949 6.4% ±0.4 1.12 (L)*

Sexual Harassment

Supervisor Support 1,841 3.2 ±0.1 16,073 3.8 ±0.0 -0.58 (M)

Organizational Trust 1,912 2.7 ±0.0 16,454 3.4 ±0.0 -0.73 (M)

Organizational Inclusion 1,909 3.0 ±0.1 16,552 3.7 ±0.0 -0.75 (M)

Organizational Politics 1,904 3.2 ±0.0 16,323 2.8 ±0.0 0.57 (M)

Leadership Intolerance 1,868 0.40 ±0.02 16,449 0.64 ±0.01 -0.58 (M)

General Intolerance 1,903 2.8 ±0.0 16,366 3.6 ±0.0 -0.97 (L)

Bystander Experiences 1,105 59.9% ±2.3 1,687 10.4% ±0.5 1.11 (L)*

Sexual Assault 

Related Behaviors

Supervisor Support 172 3.0 ±0.2 17,794 3.7 ±0.0 -0.71 (M)

Organizational Trust 175 2.6 ±0.2 18,242 3.3 ±0.0 -0.81 (L)

Organizational Inclusion 175 3.0 ±0.2 18,336 3.6 ±0.0 -0.61 (M)

Organizational Politics 172 3.5 ±0.1 18,106 2.8 ±0.0 0.77 (M)

Leadership Intolerance 174 0.37 ±0.06 18,188 0.62 ±0.01 -0.58 (M)

General Intolerance 174 2.6 ±0.2 18,146 3.5 ±0.0 -0.98 (L)

Bystander Experiences 119 70.5% ±7.4 2,674 14.8% ±0.5 1.20 (L)*

Note. Scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) for scales measuring supervisor support, 

organizational trust, inclusion, politics, and general intolerance. Leadership intolerance was measured on a scale 

of yes (1) and no (0). Higher scores indicate greater levels of support, trust, inclusion; more pressure to conform 

to organization norms (Organizational Politics), greater intolerance of harassing behaviors, and greater number of 

employees experiencing bystander harassment. All differences in scores and percentages are statistically 

significant unless otherwise noted (p <.05). *Effect size for Bystander Experiences is Cohen’s h.

Results of comparative analyses involving organizational characteristics are summarized 

in Table 3.43 and fully documented in the Supplemental Statistical Report. As can be seen in 

Table 3.43, these analyses reveal that, regardless of the particular behavior involved, or the 

demographic or occupational characteristics we considered, employees who experienced some 

form of harassment and/or assault behavior gave consistently lower ratings to scales measuring 

supervisory support, organizational trust, organizational inclusion, organizational politics, 

general and leadership intolerance of harassment in the work unit, and higher ratings for 

bystander harassing and/or assault behaviors than employees who did not. The magnitudes of 

these effects (see Hedges’ g statistics in Table 3.43) were in the medium to large range (Cohen, 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

96 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

1992), highlighting that the significant associations observed among organizational factors and 

harassing and/or assault behaviors.

Specifically, employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were less 

likely to report supervisory support than employees who were not harassed. Average ratings for 

supervisory support on a 5-point scale (with higher ratings indicating greater levels of support) 

were 3.2 vs. 3.9, respectively, for harassment based on age; 3.1 vs. 3.8, respectively, for 

harassment based on racial/ethnic background; 3.2 vs. 3.8, respectively, for harassment based on 

religious beliefs; 3.0 vs. 3.8, respectively, for harassment based on an actual or perceived 

disability; 3.1 vs. 3.8, respectively, for harassment based on sexual orientation; 3.4 vs. 3.8, 

respectively, for gender harassment; 3.2 vs. 3.8, respectively, for sexual harassment; and 3.0 vs. 

3.7, respectively, for sexual assault related behaviors.

Employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were less likely to trust 

the organization than employees who were not harassed. Average ratings of trust in the 

organization on a 5-point scale (with higher ratings indicating greater levels of trust) were 2.8 vs. 

3.5, respectively, for harassment based on age; 2.7 vs. 3.4, respectively, for harassment based on 

racial/ethnic background; 2.8 vs. 3.3, respectively, for harassment based on religious beliefs; 2.5

vs. 3.4, respectively, for harassment based on an actual or perceived disability; 2.7 vs. 3.3, 

respectively, for harassment based on sexual orientation; 2.9 vs. 3.4, respectively, for gender 

harassment; 2.7 vs. 3.4, respectively, for sexual harassment; and 2.6 vs. 3.3, respectively, for 

sexual assault related behaviors.

Employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were less likely to view 

the organization as more inclusive than employees who were not harassed. Average ratings of 

the inclusiveness of the organization on a 5-point scale (with higher ratings indicating greater 

levels of inclusion) were 3.1 vs. 3.8, respectively, for harassment based on age; 2.9 vs. 3.7, 

respectively, for harassment based on racial/ethnic background; 3.1 vs. 3.7, respectively, for 

harassment based on religious beliefs; 2.8 vs. 3.7, respectively, for harassment based on an actual 

or perceived disability; 3.0 vs. 3.7, respectively, for harassment based on sexual orientation; 3.2 

vs. 3.7, respectively, for gender harassment; 3.0 vs. 3.7, respectively, for sexual harassment; and 

3.0 vs. 3.6, respectively, for sexual assault related behaviors.

Employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were more likely to 

perceive greater pressure to conform to organizational norms (e.g., going along to get along) than 

employees who were not harassed. Average ratings of the perceived pressure to conform to 

organizational norms on a 5-point scale (with higher ratings indicating greater pressure to 

conform to organization norms) were 3.2 vs. 2.7, respectively, for harassment based on age; 3.3 

vs. 2.8, respectively, for harassment based on racial/ethnic background; 3.2 vs. 2.8, respectively,

for harassment based on religious beliefs; 3.5 vs. 2.8, respectively, for harassment based on an 

actual or perceived disability; 3.3 vs. 2.8, respectively, for harassment based on sexual 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

97 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

orientation; 3.2 vs. 2.7, respectively, for gender harassment; 3.2 vs. 2.8, respectively, for sexual 

harassment; and 3.5 vs. 2.8, respectively, for sexual assault related behaviors.

Employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were more likely to 

perceive the organizational climate with regard to harassing behaviors as being more tolerant of 

harassing behaviors than employees who were not harassed (i.e., higher scores indicate that 

members of one’s work unit are more intolerant of harassment). Average ratings of the perceived 

levels of organizational tolerance for harassing behaviors on a 5-point scale (with higher ratings 

indicating an organizational climate more intolerant of harassment) were 3.0 vs. 3.7, 

respectively, for harassment based on age; 2.8 vs. 3.6, respectively, for harassment based on 

racial/ethnic background; 3.0 vs. 3.6, respectively, for harassment based on religious beliefs; 2.7 

vs. 3.6, respectively, for harassment based on an actual or perceived disability; 2.7 vs. 3.6, 

respectively, for harassment based on sexual orientation; 3.0 vs. 3.6, respectively, for gender 

harassment; 2.8 vs. 3.6, respectively, for sexual harassment; and 2.6 vs. 3.5, respectively, for 

sexual assault related behaviors.

Employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were more likely to 

perceive the leadership climate with regard to harassing behaviors as being more tolerant of 

harassing behaviors than employees who were not harassed (i.e., higher scores indicate that 

leaders within one’s work unit are more intolerant of harassment). Average ratings of leadership 

intolerance for harassing behaviors on a “yes,” “no,” and “don’t know” scale (with higher ratings 

indicating greater intolerance of harassment among leaders) were .47 vs. .66, respectively, for 

harassment based on age; .41 vs. .64, respectively, for harassment based on racial/ethnic 

background; .48 vs. .63, respectively, for harassment based on religious beliefs; .32 vs. .64, 

respectively, for harassment based on an actual or perceived disability; .36 vs. .63, respectively, 

for harassment based on sexual orientation; .45 vs. .65, respectively, for gender harassment; .40 

vs. .64, respectively, for sexual harassment; and .37 vs. .62, respectively, for sexual assault 

related behaviors.

Employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors themselves were more 

likely to witness the corresponding type of harassment against others than employees who were 

not harassed (e.g., those who experienced age harassment were more likely to witness age 

harassment against other employees). The percentage of employees who witnessed the 

corresponding type of harassment against others was 46.2% vs. 5.9%, respectively, for 

harassment based on age; 45.4% vs. 5.7%, respectively, for harassment based on racial/ethnic 

background; 37.7% vs. 3.2%, respectively, for harassment based on religious beliefs; 50.9% vs. 

4.8%, respectively, for harassment based on an actual or perceived disability; 39.1% vs. 5.0%, 

respectively, for harassment based on sexual orientation; 53.0% vs. 6.4%, respectively, for 

gender harassment; 59.9% vs. 10.4%, respectively, for sexual harassment; and 70.5% vs. 14.8%, 

respectively, for sexual assault related behaviors.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

98 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.44 Scale Distributions of Organizational Factors for Any Form of Harassment 

Experienced

Organizational factor N

Average 

rating

Strongly 

disagree

(1)

Disagree

(2)

Neither agree 

nor disagree

(3)

Agree

(4)

Strongly 

agree

(5)

Supervisor Support 6,918 3.3

(±0.0)

9.5%

(±0.7)

14.5%

(±0.9)

21.3%

(±1.0)

32.3%

(±1.1)

22.3%

(±1.0)

Organizational Trust 7,168 2.9

(±0.0)

7.3%

(±0.6)

24.1%

(±1.0)

34.3%

(±1.1)

29.6%

(±1.1)

4.7%

(±0.5)

Organizational Inclusion 7,177 3.2 

(±0.0)

8.0%

(±0.6)

17.8%

(±0.9)

27.7%

(±1.0)

37.9%

(±1.1)

8.7%

(±0.7)

Organizational Politics 7,115 3.1

(±0.0)

2.4%

(±0.4)

24.2%

(±1.0)

39.2%

(±1.1)

27.0%

(±1.0)

7.2%

(±0.6)

General Intolerance 7,103 3.0

(±0.0)

7.3%

(±0.6)

19.1%

(±0.9)

39.8%

(±1.1)

28.4%

(±1.1)

5.4%

(±0.6)

Note. Scale distributions shown are for a multi-item construct. Responses to individual scale items were averaged and 

grouped as follows: Strongly Disagree = 1 - <1.5, Disagree = 1.5 - <2.5, Neither Agree nor Disagree = 2.5 - <3.5, Agree 

= 3.5 - <4.5, Strongly Agree = 4.5 - 5. Higher scores indicate greater levels of support, trust, inclusion; more 

pressure to conform to organization norms (Organizational Politics), and greater intolerance of harassing 

behaviors.

Table 3.44 shows the average and distribution of ratings for each of the organizational 

factor assessed in the WES for those employees who experienced some form of harassing 

behavior.

3.5.1 Summary of Demographic, Occupational, and Organizational Factors 

Correlated with Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced

To summarize, analyses of demographic, occupational, and organizational factors 

influencing harassing and/or assault behaviors revealed that organizational factors were among 

the most important variables to understand employees’ harassment and/or assault related 

behaviors experienced. Harassment based on age was more common in work environments that 

are perceived to be tolerant of these behaviors and where employees witnessed harassment by 

other employees. Harassment based on race/ethnicity was more common in work environments 

that were perceived to be less inclusive and where employees witnessed harassment by other 

employees. Harassment based on religious beliefs was more common in work environments 

where employees witnessed harassment by other employees. Harassment based on a disability 

status or condition was more common for employees with a documented disability and in 

environments where employees witnessed harassment by other employees. Harassment based on 

sexual orientation was more common where employees witnessed harassment by other 

employees. Gender harassment was more common for women than men, among college 

educated than noncollege educated employees, and in environments that were perceived as being 

tolerant of these behaviors and where employees witnessed harassment by other employees. 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

99 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Sexual harassment was more common for women than men, and in environments that were 

perceived as being tolerant of these behaviors and where employees witnessed harassment by 

other employees. None of the demographic, occupational, and organizational variables we 

examined informed our understanding of sexual assault related behaviors. Moreover, employees 

who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were less likely to report supervisory 

support, to trust the organization, and to view the organization as inclusive; they also perceived

greater pressure to conform to organizational norms; rated the organization and the leadership as 

being more tolerant of harassing behaviors; and were more likely to witness harassment by other 

employees than employees who were not harassed.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

100 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3.6 Job-Related Consequences of Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors Experienced

To understand the impact of harassment and/or assault related behaviors on employees’ 

job-related attitudes, we examined relationships among harassment and/or assault behaviors and 

the various job outcomes measured in the WES. Separate regression analyses were performed for 

each outcome variable (i.e., job satisfaction, job engagement, and organizational commitment). 

All harassment and/or assault variables were entered simultaneously into separate equations for 

each of the job outcomes we modeled. Statistical findings for these analyses are summarized in 

Table 3.45 and are also documented in the Supplemental Statistical Report.

Table 3.45 Linear Regression of Harassment and Job-Related Outcomes

Job Satisfaction Job Engagement Organizational Commitment

Type of Harassment B

Semi 

Partial r B

Semi 

Partial r B

Semi 

Partial r

Age -0.155 -0.136 -0.070 -0.062 -0.132 -0.117

Race/Ethnicity -0.085 -0.077 -0.064 -0.058 -0.094 -0.085

Religious Beliefs -0.030 -0.028 -0.014NS-0.013 -0.030 -0.028

Disability -0.149 -0.139 -0.077 -0.072 -0.094 -0.088

Sexual Orientation -0.018 -0.017 0.023 0.021 0.007 0.006

Gender Harassment -0.060 -0.050 -0.081 -0.067 -0.042 -0.035

Sexual Harassment -0.076 -0.064 -0.020 -0.017 -0.056 -0.047

Sexual Assault 0.012NS 0.012 0.020 NS 0.019 -0.009NS-0.009

Note. All coefficients are statistically significant, p < .05, unless noted by NS.

As shown in Table 3.45 harassment and/or assault experiences were significantly 

associated with each of the outcome variables examined in our models. Though the variance 

accounted for by these variables is small (R Squared values ranged from 0.041 - 0.131; Cohen, 

1992), the pattern of associations among harassment and/or assault variables was negative, 

indicating that employees who experienced harassment and/or assault behaviors were less 

satisfied and engaged with their jobs and were less likely to remain committed to the 

organization.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

101 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.46 Differences in Ratings of Job-Related Outcomes by Harassment Experienced

Experienced Harassment Did Not Experience 

Harassment

Effect 

Size

N Mean MoE N Mean MoE Hedges' g

Age

Job Satisfaction 4,244 3.4 ±0.0 14,286 3.8 ±0.0 -0.67 (M)

Job Engagement 4,243 5.2 ±0.0 14,283 5.6 ±0.0 -0.33 (S)

Organizational 

Commitment 4,244 3.1 ±0.0 14,285 3.6 ±0.0 -0.54 (M)

Racial/Ethnic Background

Job Satisfaction 1,766 3.2 ±0.0 16,738 3.8 ±0.0 -0.75 (M)

Job Engagement 1,766 5.1 ±0.1 16,734 5.6 ±0.0 -0.43 (S)

Organizational 

Commitment 1,766 2.9 ±0.0 16,736 3.6 ±0.0 -0.66 (M)

Religious Beliefs

Job Satisfaction 1,325 3.3 ±0.0 17,141 3.7 ±0.0 -0.57 (M)

Job Engagement 1,325 5.2 ±0.1 17,136 5.6 ±0.0 -0.31 (S)

Organizational 

Commitment 1,325 3.1 ±0.1 17,138 3.5 ±0.0 -0.46 (S)

Disability Status

Job Satisfaction 1,275 3.1 ±0.0 17,074 3.8 ±0.0 -0.99 (L)

Job Engagement 1,275 5.0 ±0.1 17,069 5.6 ±0.0 -0.51 (M)

Organizational 

Commitment 1,275 2.9 ±0.1 17,071 3.5 ±0.0 -0.71 (M)

Sexual Orientation

Job Satisfaction 828 3.2 ±0.1 17,636 3.7 ±0.0 -0.72 (M)

Job Engagement 828 5.2 ±0.1 17,632 5.5 ±0.0 -0.26 (S)

Organizational 

Commitment 827 3.0 ±0.1 17,634 3.5 ±0.0 -0.49 (S)

Gender Harassment

Job Satisfaction 3,570 3.4 ±0.0 14,976 3.8 ±0.0 -0.54 (M)

Job Engagement 3,567 5.2 ±0.0 14,974 5.6 ±0.0 -0.36 (S)

Organizational 

Commitment 3,568 3.2 ±0.0 14,976 3.6 ±0.0 -0.42 (S)

Note. Scores ranged from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5) for the satisfaction scale. Scores ranged from 

never (1) to always or every day (7) for the job engagement scale. Scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to 

strongly agree (5) for the organizational commitment scale. Higher scores indicate greater levels of job 

satisfaction, job engagement, and commitment to the organization. All differences in scores and percentages are 

statistically significant unless otherwise noted (p <.05).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

102 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.46 Continued

Experienced Harassment Did Not Experience Harassment Effect 

Size

N Mean MoE N Mean MoE

Hedges' 

g

Sexual Harassment

Job Satisfaction 1,913 3.3 ±0.0 16,566 3.8 ±0.0 -0.68 

(M)

Job Engagement 1,912 5.2 ±0.1 16,563 5.6 ±0.0 -0.32 (S)

Organizational 

Commitment 1,912 3.0 ±0.0 16,564 3.5 ±0.0 -0.52 (M)

Sexual Assault Behaviors

Job Satisfaction 175 3.3 ±0.1 18,354 3.7 ±0.0 -0.57 

(M)

Job Engagement 175 5.4(NS) ±0.2 18,350 5.5(NS) ±0.0 -0.14

Organizational 

Commitment 175 2.9 ±0.2 18,352 3.5 ±0.0 -0.61 (M)

Note. Scores ranged from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5) for the satisfaction scale. Scores ranged from 

never (1) to always or every day (7) for the job engagement scale. Scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to 

strongly agree (5) for the organizational commitment scale. Higher scores indicate greater levels of job 

satisfaction, job engagement, and commitment to the organization. All differences in scores and percentages are 

statistically significant unless otherwise noted (p <.05).

To further examine these findings, we compared differences between employees who 

experienced harassing and/or assault behaviors and each of the outcome variables included in the 

WES. Results of these analyses are summarized in Table 3.46 and fully documented in the 

Supplemental Statistical Report. Importantly, these analyses reveal that regardless of the 

particular behavior involved, or the pay grade, years of service, appointment type and work 

schedule, and/or matched demographic characteristic for the specific type of harassing and/or 

assault behavior involved, employees who experienced some form of harassment and/or assault 

behavior gave consistently lower ratings for job satisfaction, job engagement, and organizational 

commitment. The magnitudes of these effects (see Hedges’ g statistics in Table 3.46) were in the 

medium to large range for ratings of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and within 

the small range for job engagement (Cohen, 1992). These results point to the significant negative 

associations that can be observed between harassment and/or assault behaviors and important 

job-related outcomes among members of the NPS workforce. 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

103 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.47 Scale Distributions of Job-Related Consequences for Any Form of Harassment 

Experienced

N Percent MoE

Job Satisfaction (average rating = 3.4, ±0.0)

(1) Very Dissatisfied 34 0.5% ±0.2

(2) Dissatisfied 910 12.7% ±0.8

(3) Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied 2,680 37.3% ±1.1

(4) Satisfied 3,128 43.5% ±1.2

(5) Very Satisfied 431 6.0% ±0.6

Job Engagement (average rating = 5.3, ±0.0)

(1) Never 86 1.2% ±0.3

(2) Almost Never or a Few Times a Year or Less 103 1.4% ±0.3

(3) Rarely or Once a Month or Less 510 7.1% ±0.6

(4) Sometimes or a Few Times a Month 1,135 15.8% ±0.9

(5) Often or Once a Week 1,814 25.3% ±1.0

(6) Very Often or a Few Times a Week 2,417 33.7% ±1.1

(7) Always or Every Day 1,112 15.5% ±0.9

Organizational Commitment (average rating = 3.2, ±0.0)

(1) Strongly Disagree 504 7.0% ±0.6

(2) Disagree 1,307 18.2% ±0.9

(3) Neither Agree nor Disagree 2,016 28.1% ±1.1

(4) Agree 2,501 34.8% ±1.1

(5) Strongly Agree 853 11.9% ±0.8

Note. Scale distributions shown are for a multi-item construct. Responses to individual scale items were averaged 

and grouped as follows: Satisfaction Scale: Very Dissatisfied = 1 - <1.5, Dissatisfied = 1.5 - <2.5, Neither 

Dissatisfied nor Satisfied = 2.5 - <3.5, Satisfied = 3.5 - <4.5, Very Satisfied = 4.5 – 5; Frequency Scale: Never = 

1 - <1.5, Almost Never or a Few Times a Year or Less = 1.5 - <2.5, Rarely or Once a Month or Less = 2.5 - <3.5, 

Sometimes or a Few Times a Month = 3.5 - <4.5, Often or Once a Week = 4.5 - <5.5, Very Often or a Few Times 

a Week = 5.5 - <6.5, Always or Every Day = 6.5 – 7; Agreement Scale: Strongly Disagree = 1 - <1.5, Disagree = 

1.5 - <2.5, Neither Agree nor Disagree = 2.5 - <3.5, Agree = 3.5 - <4.5, Strongly Agree = 4.5 - 5.

Table 3.47 shows the average and distribution of ratings for each of the job-related 

outcome variables assessed in the WES for those respondents who experienced some form of 

harassing behavior.

3.6.1 Summary of Job-Related Consequences of Harassing and/or Assault 

Behaviors Experienced

Regression analyses revealed statistically significant associations of harassment and/or 

assault behaviors to job-related outcomes. While the magnitude of the effects were small, the 

pattern of associations indicating that employees who experienced harassment and/or assault 

behaviors were less satisfied and engaged with their jobs and were less likely to remain 

committed to the organization.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

104 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

3.7 Additional Findings

We included a multi-item scale to examine employees’ experiences with bystander 

harassment within the NPS working environment. As noted earlier, bystander experiences 

involve situations where an employee witnesses another employee being subjected to harassing/

discriminating and/or assault behaviors. We estimated the number, percentage, and frequency of 

these experiences for each of six forms of bystander harassment. Results of the analyses are 

presented in Table 3.48 and Table 3.49. Complete results for these analyses are fully documented 

in the Supplemental Statistical Report. It should be noted the percentages reported are not 

experience rates because multiple employees might have witnessed the same event.

Table 3.48 Number and Percentage of Employees Witnessing Bystander Harassment

Percent witnessing

N Percent MoE

Any Form 4,653 25.4% ±0.6

Age 2,726 14.9% ±0.5

Racial/Ethnic 1,703 9.3% ±0.4

Religious 1,026 5.6% ±0.3

Disability 1,440 7.9% ±0.4

Sexual Orientation 1,187 6.5% ±0.4

Sex/Gender 2,797 15.4% ±0.5

As shown in Table 3.48 and in Figure 3.23, an estimated 25.4% of employees witnessed a 

harassing and/or assault behavior against another employee in the 12 months preceding the 

survey. Specifically, 14.9% indicated the bystander harassment experience was based on the 

person’s age; 9.3% indicated the bystander harassment experience was based on the person’s 

racial/ethnic background; 5.6% indicated the bystander harassment experience was based on the 

person’s religious beliefs; 7.9% indicated bystander harassment experience was based on the 

person’s disability status or condition; 6.5% indicated the bystander harassment experience was 

based on the person’s sexual orientation; and 15.4% indicated the bystander harassment 

experience was based on the person’s sex/gender. In a majority of these situations, employees 

witnessed these behaviors once a month or less.

Figure 3.23 Estimated Bystander Harassment Witnessing Rates
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

105 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.49 Estimated Average Frequency and Distribution of Bystander Harassment in Past 12 

Months

Type of Bystander 

Harassment N

Average 

frequency Once

Once a 

month or 

less

Two-three 

times a 

month

Once a 

week or 

more

One or 

more times 

a day

Any Form 4,653 3.1

(±0.0)

36.0%

(±0.9)

37.7%

(±0.9)

13.4%

(±0.7)

8.2%

(±0.5)

4.8%

(±0.4)

Age 2,726 3.0

(±0.0)

38.6%

(±1.8)

36.6%

(±1.8)

12.4%

(±1.3)

7.8%

(±1.1)

4.5%

(±0.8)

Racial/Ethnic 1,703 3.2

(±0.1)

36.1%

(±2.3)

34.5%

(±2.3)

12.3%

(±1.6)

10.1%

(±1.5)

7.0%

(±1.3)

Religious 1,026 2.9

(±0.1)

40.7%

(±3.0)

41.5%

(±3.0)

8.2%

(±1.8)

5.2%

(±1.5)

4.3

(±1.4)

Disability 1,440 3.1

(±0.1)

37.0%

(±2.5)

35.8%

(±2.5)

16.0%

(±2.0)

6.6%

(±1.4)

4.5%

(±1.2)

Sexual Orientation 1,187 2.9

(±0.1)

40.8%

(±2.8)

38.0%

(±2.8)

12.4%

(±2.0)

5.4%

(±1.4)

3.4%

(±1.2)

Sex/Gender 2,797 3.2

(±0.0)

28.9%

(±1.7)

40.2%

(±1.8)

15.8%

(±1.4)

10.4%

(±1.2)

4.7%

(±0.8)

Note. Frequency scale scores ranged from once to one or more times per day for respondents who reported 

experiencing harassing and/or assault behaviors. A value of 3 corresponds to once a month or less.

Table 3.49 presents the means and distribution of the frequencies of bystander 

harassment experiences reported by employees. As can be seen in Table 3.49, the average 

frequency ratings were within a score of 3, on a scale ranging from once (2) to one or more times 

a day (6), with once a month or less representing a value of 3. The complete distribution of each 

type of bystander harassment is also shown in Table 3.49.

Figure 3.24 Estimated Frequency of Witnessing Bystander Harassment

Examination of the distribution of these experiences clearly show that most employees 

witnessed a harassing and/or assault behavior more than once (see Table 3.48). Figure 3.24
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

106 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

displays the distribution of these experiences for all forms of bystander harassment measured in 

the WES. As shown in Figure 3.24, regardless of the particular form of bystander harassment 

involved, 64.0% of employees witnessed a harassing situation more than once. This pattern is 

observed for all other specific forms of bystander harassment measured in the WES. The pattern 

of findings suggests that a sizable number of employees may witness harassing behaviors among 

other employees within the NPS working environment.

To further examine employees’ bystander experiences, we compared rates by key 

demographic and occupational characteristics. We found some variation in these rates but most 

of these differences did not meet criteria for statistical and practical significance. Exceptions to 

this trend involved employees 39 and under who were more likely to witness both age 

harassment and sex/gender harassment than those 40 and older; minority employees who were 

more likely to witness racial/ethnic harassment than non-minorities; employees with a 

documented disability were more likely to have witnessed age harassment, racial/ethnic 

harassment, and disability harassment than those employees without a documented disability; 

women were more likely to have witnessed sex/gender harassment than men; sexual minorities 

were more likely to have witnessed age harassment, racial/ethnic harassment, religious 

harassment, disability harassment, sexual orientation harassment, and sex/gender harassment 

then heterosexuals; and seasonal employees were more likely to have witnessed age harassment, 

sexual orientation harassment, and sex/gender harassment than non-seasonal employees. 

Importantly, the largest of these differences were observed for the matched demographics 

characteristic involved with the specific form of bystander harassment employees witnessed.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

107 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

A follow-up item exploring actions taken in response to the bystander harassment 

situation was asked of those who responded affirmatively to items experiencing bystander 

harassment. Table 3.50 shows the type of action(s) typically taken as a result of a bystander 

harassment situation.

Table 3.50 Actions Taken in Response to Bystander Harassment

N Percent MoE

Q54 Which of the following actions best describes your most typical response(s) to 

the situation you witnessed?

I did not take any action 998 21.4% ±1.2

I asked the person who was experiencing the behavior if he/she needed help 1,549 33.3% ±1.4

I pointed out to person who appeared to be causing the situation that he/she 

“crossed the line” with comments/behaviors 1,015 21.8% ±1.2

I stepped in with the intent of diffusing/stopping the situation 676 14.5% ±1.0

I asked others to step in as a group and diffuse the situation 210 4.5% ±0.6

I told someone in a position of authority about the situation 1,054 22.7% ±1.2

I considered intervening but I feared I would experience negative consequences 856 18.4% ±1.1

I considered intervening but did not feel I had the authority to do so 711 15.3% ±1.1

I stepped in but then was discouraged or criticized by others for doing so 244 5.2% ±0.7

I stepped in but then was harassed myself by the person(s) I was trying to stop 247 5.3% ±0.7

None selected 125 2.7% ±0.5

As can be seen in Table 3.50 and displayed in Figure 3.25, of the specific form of 

bystander harassment, the majority of employees took some action in response to behaviors they 

witnessed; 75.9% took some action and 21.4% did not take any action (2.7% did not make a 

selection). Among employees who took some action, the most frequent actions included helping 

the person [who was subject to the behavior] (33.3%); telling someone in a position of authority 

about the situation (22.7%); and pointing out to the person [who engaged in the harassing 

behavior] that s/he “crossed the line” (21.8%). Some employees contemplated an action but did 

not act for fear of negative consequences (18.4%), or because they felt they lacked the authority 

to do so (15.3%).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

108 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.25 Actions Taken in Response to Bystander Harassment

We also included a series of single item measures to assess employees’ harassing and/or 

assault experiences in the period before the past 12 months. Employees were asked if they had 

experienced any of the behaviors listed in the earlier sections in the period before the past 12 

months using a “yes” and “no” response format. Employees who responded in the affirmative 

were counted as having experienced harassment in the period before the past 12 months. Table 

3.51 presents results for these single item measures for each of the harassing behaviors assessed 

in the WES. Within this section of the survey, responses to questions involving gender and 

sexual harassment were presented together and a single item was used to assess gender and 

sexual harassment experiences in the period before the past 12 months to minimize response 

burden and optimize survey completion. Caution should be exercised in attempting to draw 

inferences about trends between rates of experience in the past 12 months and rates of experience 

prior to the past 12 months as these measures are not comparable (see Appendix C, Section C.5.1 

for additional details).

Table 3.51 Harassment and/or Assault Experienced Before the Past 12 Months

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Any form 6,352 36.6% ±0.7

Age 3,404 19.7% ±0.6

Racial/Ethnic Background 1,689 9.8% ±0.5
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

109 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Experience rate

N Percent MoE

Religious Belief 1,092 6.4% ±0.4

Disability Status 1,128 6.6% ±0.4

Sexual Orientation 807 4.7% ±0.3

Sexual Harassment 2,920 16.9% ±0.6

Sexual Assault Related Behaviors 490 2.83% ±0.26

As shown in Table 3.51 and in Figure 3.26, an estimated 36.6% of employees 

experienced some form of harassing and/or assault behaviors before the past 12 months; 19.7% 

experienced harassing behaviors based on their age; 9.8% experienced harassing behaviors based 

on their racial/ethnic background; 6.4% experienced harassing behaviors based on their religious 

beliefs; 6.6% experienced harassing behaviors based on a perceived or actual disability; 4.7% 

experienced harassing behaviors based on their sexual orientation; 16.9% experienced sexually 

harassing behaviors; and 2.83% of experienced sexual assault related behaviors.

Figure 3.26 Harassment and/or Assault Experienced Before the Past 12 Months
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

110 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.52 Pay Plan or Grade at Which Harassment First Occurred

Pay grade at first occurrence Pay grade at first occurrence

Age Sexual Orientation

N Percent MoE N Percent MoE

Junior Grade 1,044 30.7% ±1.6 256 31.8% ±3.3

Middle Grade 1,593 46.9% ±1.7 389 48.2% ±3.5

Senior Grade 638 18.8% ±1.3 135 16.7% ±2.7

Executive Grade NR NR NR NR NR NR

Other 119 3.5% ±0.7 25 3.1% ±1.4

Racial/Ethnic Sexual Harassment

N Percent MoE N Percent MoE

Junior Grade 437 25.9% ±2.1 1,205 41.4% ±1.8

Middle Grade 788 46.8% ±242 1,134 38.9% ±1.8

Senior Grade 384 22.8% ±2.1 444 15.2% ±1.4

Executive Grade 0 0.0% NA 0 0.0% NA

Other 77 4.6% ±1.1 130 4.5% ±0.8

Religious Beliefs Sexual Assault Related Behaviors

N Percent MoE N Percent MoE

Junior Grade 322 29.5% ±2.8 205 41.9% ±4.4

Middle Grade 534 48.9% ±3.0 204 41.6% ±4.4

Senior Grade 202 18.5% ±2.4 49 10.1% ±3.0

Executive Grade NR NR NR NR NR NR

Other 33 3.1% ±1.2 30 6.2% ±2.5

Disability

N Percent MoE

Junior Grade 312 27.7% ±2.7

Middle Grade 562 49.9% ±2.9

Senior Grade 208 18.5% ±2.4

Executive Grade 0 0.0% NA

Other 44 3.9% ±1.3

Note. Junior Grade includes WG 1-4 and GS 1-6; Middle Grade includes WG 5-16 and GS 7-10; Senior Grade

includes GS 11-15; and Executive Grade includes Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, and Senior Executive 

Service.

An item asking about the employee’s pay category or grade when the behaviors were first 

experienced was presented to those who responded affirmatively to the question regarding 

harassment in the period before the past 12 months. Table 3.52 presents the distribution of 

responses for each of the harassment and/or assault behaviors included in the WES. For ease of 

comparison between Wage Grade and General Schedule pay grades, the two pay scales have 

been merged into Junior Grade (WG 1-4; GS 1-6), Middle Grade (WG 5-16; GS 7-10), Senior 

Grade (GS 11-15), and Executive Grade (Senior Level, Scientific or Professional, Senior 

Executive Service). The Supplemental Statistical Report contains the fully documented 

responses to this item. As can be seen in Table 3.52, the pattern that emerged was for middle 

grade employees to report the highest experience rates, followed by junior and senior grade 

employees. While some variation in the pattern was observed for sexual harassment and sexual 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

111 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

assault related behaviors, interpretation of these descriptive data must be made with caution 

given the small number of estimated employees involved.

Table 3.53 Future Use of Resources to Make a Complaint/Grievance/Report

Q55 If you were to make an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report about a harassment 

experience involving someone at work, which of the 

following options would you be most likely to use?

Yes

Percent

MoE

N

No

Percent

MoE

N

DK 

Percent

MoE

N

Helpfulness 

Mean

MoE

Supervisor or Manager 77.7% 13.0% 9.3% 3.7

±0.6 ±0.5 ±0.4 ±0.0

14,008 2,336 1,677

Employee Assistance Program (EAP) 48.1% 28.0% 23.9% 3.4

±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.6 ±0.0

8,407 4,890 4,181

Ombudsman (if applicable) 24.7% 26.5% 48.9% 3.4

±0.6 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

4,242 4,557 8,405

CADR Office, CORE PLUS 15.4% 33.8% 50.8% 3.5

±0.5 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

2,636 5,793 8,700

Employee & Labor Relations (Human Resources) 40.9% 29.4% 29.7% 3.6

±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

7,083 5,084 5,152

Union (if applicable) 18.0% 46.2% 35.9% 3.5

±0.6 ±0.8 ±0.7 ±0.0

2,958 7,602 5,902

Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor 42.8% 27.6% 29.6% 3.6

±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

7,374 4,761 5,111

Equal Employment Opportunity Office 37.7% 29.8% 32.5% 3.5

±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

6,469 5,114 5,588

Office of Inspector General Hotline 22.4% 38.3% 39.3% 3.5

±0.6 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

3,803 6,513 6,678

Office of Inspector General 20.9% 39.2% 39.9% 3.5

±0.6 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

3,546 6,664 6,792

Other Law Enforcement/ 19.6% 46.3% 34.1% 3.6

Civil Authority not in the bureau ±0.6 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

3,344 7,886 5,804

Department of Interior Ethics/Bureau Ethics Office 30.3% 34.2% 35.4% 3.6

±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

5,200 5,867 6,074

Note. Scale values range from Not at all Helpful (1) to Extremely Helpful (5), with a value of 3 representing 

Moderately Helpful. The mean for the helpfulness score is based on responses received.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

112 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table 3.53 Continued

Q55 If you were to make an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report about a harassment 

experience involving someone at work, which of 

the following options would you be most likely to 

use?

Yes

Percent

MoE

N

No

Percent

MoE

N

DK Percent

MoE

N

Helpfulness 

Mean

MoE

NPS Law Enforcement/Park Police 34.7% 37.8% 27.4% 3.8

±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.7 ±0.0

5,968 6,503 4,711

Other 11.2% 28.9% 60.0% 3.5

±0.5 ±0.7 ±0.8 ±0.1

1,655 4,280 8,896

Note. Scale values range from Not at all Helpful (1) to Extremely Helpful (5), with a value of 3 representing 

Moderately Helpful. The mean for the helpfulness score is based on responses received.

We included an item to ask if employees would use any NPS resources to make a 

complaint/grievance/report if they were to experience a harassing and/or assault behavior in the 

future and to rate the expected helpfulness of the resource.35 Table 3.53 presents the results for 

these questions. Regardless of whether the employee did or did not experience and/or witness a 

specific form of harassment or assault behavior, the majority of employees would use a 

supervisor or manager; 77.7% would make a complaint/grievance/report to a supervisor or 

manager, but they would also consider using other NPS resources. Among the most common 

NPS resources were: 48.1% would use the Employee Assistance Program, 42.8% would use the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor, 40.9% would use Employee and Labor Relations, 

and 37.7% would use the Equal Employment Opportunity Office. Regardless of the particular 

resource involved, employees rated the majority of resources as moderately helpful. The scale 

values ranged from not at all helpful (1) to extremely helpful (5), with a value of 3 representing 

moderately helpful.

36

 

35 Ombudsman was only in existence about 1.5 months before the survey opened.

36 There is a disparity between the reported use of these resources (see Table 3.24) and the reported future use of the 

same. However, research shows that past behavior does not always predict future behavior (Oullette & Wood, 

1998).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

113 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

4 Conclusions

4.1 Overview

The purpose of the WES was to assess employees’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors 

with regard to harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced within the NPS work environment. 

Specifically, the WES was designed to ascertain the character of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors experienced; identify contextual factors influencing specific behaviors or sets of 

experiences; examine the relative importance of demographic, occupational, and organizational 

correlates of harassing and/or assault behaviors; examine job-related consequences associated 

with harassing and/or assault behaviors; and explore additional findings uncovered with regard to 

employees’ harassment and/or assault experiences. Analysis of data from 9,156 employees 

enabled us to estimate the experience rates of harassment/assault behaviors; describe situational 

characteristics surrounding specific behaviors or set of experiences; identify the relative 

importance of demographic, occupational, and organizational correlates of these behaviors; and 

examine the impact of harassment/assault behaviors on employee’s job satisfaction, job 

engagement, and organizational commitment. Results of descriptive and inferential analyses 

performed on these data reveal that harassment and/or assault behaviors experiences of 

employees are both prevalent and problematic for individual employees as well as for the 

organization. We summarize the main findings in the sections below.

4.2 Summary of Main Findings

Harassment is experienced by many employees. Analyses reveal that harassment and/or 

assault behaviors are experienced by a sizable portion of the NPS workforce. An estimated 

38.7% of employees experienced some form of harassment and/or assault behavior in the 12 

months preceding the survey. Specifically, the estimated percentages of employees who 

experience various forms of harassment or sexual assault related behaviors measured in the WES 

(i.e., harassment based on age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, disability status or 

condition, sexual orientation, gender harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual assault related 

behaviors) range from 0.95% to 22.9%. These proportions amount to approximately 150 to 

nearly 7,300 employees who were subject to such experiences. Further examinations of these 

findings reveal that members of underrepresented groups appear to be affected more by 

experiences of harassment and/or assault that are associated with their underrepresented 

characteristic. Ethnic minority employees were more likely to experience harassment based on 

their racial/ethnic background than their non-ethnic minority counterparts; disabled employees 

were more likely to experience harassment based on a disability status or condition than their 

nondisabled counterparts; women and sexual minority employees were more likely to experience 

harassment and/or assault behaviors based on their sexual orientation, as well as gender and 

sexual harassment, than either men or heterosexual counterparts; and both younger (39 and 

younger) and older (50 and older) employees experienced more harassment and/or assault 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

114 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

behaviors based on age than their middle age counterparts (40-49). The totality of this evidence 

points to a systemic problem that touches many employees irrespective of their age, racial/ethnic 

background, religious beliefs, disability status or condition, sex, gender identity, or sexual 

orientation. Harassment and/or assault behaviors appear to be broad ranging, affecting many 

members of the NPS workforce. Harassment is clearly not limited to specific demographic or 

occupational subgroups of employees.37

Harassment is experienced at work, with some regularity, and over a period of time. 

Analyses indicate that employees’ experiences occur during working hours, at a work location or 

site that is most frequently characterized as an indoor location, like an office setting. Moreover, 

employees experience these behaviors more than once. Hence, harassment is not typically an

isolated event or unitary experience that occurs in far off places, rather, it occurs within the 

confines of an employee’s usual place of work and over a period of time.

Harassment is experienced from others at work and is persistent in nature. Harassment

and/or assault experiences most typically involve person(s) that are internal rather than external 

to the NPS workforce; hence it represents more of an “insider threat” among fellow members of 

the workforce than from partners, volunteers, or people in the community or employees’ 

families/social spheres. The person(s) involved are most often older and male employees, who 

may be peer(s)/coworker(s), or serve as supervisor(s) or manager(s) of employees experiencing 

the harassing and/or assault behaviors. Moreover, most employees who experience harassing 

and/or assault behaviors must continue to interact with the person(s) involved. Hence, 

harassment is best considered as an “insider threat” given that it involves other members of the 

NPS workforce.

Harassed individuals usually talk to someone at work but do not tend use NPS resources 

- except for supervisors and/or managers. Employees experiencing harassing and/or assault 

behaviors at work discuss their experiences with coworkers and/or other employees, as well as 

their supervisors/managers and even senior leaders. Employees experiencing these behaviors at 

work may even discuss the experience with the person(s) involved. Importantly, employees tend 

not to make a written or oral complaint/grievance/report. The notable exception to this 

observation involves supervisor(s)/manager(s), where the data indicate that some employees 

appear to make complaints/grievances/reports to a supervisor or manager. Hence, employees 

who experience harassing and/or assault behaviors talk to others at work but seldom engage the 

system or its resources to deal with such situations.

 

37 Meta-analytic results suggest that anywhere between 24%-84% of women report having experienced sexually

harassment in the workplace; among private sector organizations these rates range from 24%-58%; and within 

governmental organizations their rates range from 31%-43% (Ilies et al., 2003). Direct comparison involving rates 

of harassment and/or assault behaviors to other studies and organizations must be made with due considerations to 

methodological (e.g., assessment approach – direct vs. indirect assessment of harassing and/or assault behaviors; 

sampling strategies and weighting procedures used to estimate rates), and contextual/organizational factors (e.g., 

academic, private, military and government organizations).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

115 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Evidence regarding the utility of NPS resources, and associated actions and outcomes of 

making a complaint/grievance/report, suggests that NPS resources may not be particularly 

effective for either the individual or the organization. While some employees who experience 

harassing and/or assault behavior indicated that some action was taken in response to a 

complaint/grievance/report, these actions had a limited impact on the person(s) involved or the 

organization as a whole, and they were not particularly supportive of the employee subject to the 

harassing and/or assault behavior. Evidence regarding the utility of NPS resources indicates that 

resources were somewhat helpful for employees. But, employees were generally dissatisfied with 

the availability of information, the treatment received by personnel, actions and time required to 

resolve issues, and information about the status of the complaint/grievance/report. Among 

employees not making a complaint/grievance/report, dismissing, discounting, and downplaying 

the behavior were among the most common reasons noted for not opting to make a complaint/

grievance/report. Some employees also felt that nothing would be done. Hence, the efficacy and 

utility of NPS resources appears limited and may not provide adequate means to address 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced by members of the NPS workforce.

Harassment/assault behaviors impact employees differently - some employees have 

negative experiences and some do not. Though many employees indicated their experiences did 

not have a negative influence on them, for some employees these experiences had a deleterious 

effect on their interpersonal relationships, their physical or emotional well-being, their job 

performance, and their willingness to remain a part of the organization. Some employees 

indicated the experience led to arguments or damaged interpersonal relations at work to include 

relationships with coworkers, supervisors, or managers. Other employees indicated the 

experience caused them to call in sick or take leave, or seek medical attention or counseling. 

And, other employees found it harder to complete their work, or felt that the experience had a 

negative impact on their performance evaluation and promotion potential or renewal/permanent 

employment.38 Ultimately, the net effect of these experiences is that it influenced employees’ 

willingness to remain a part of the organization. Collectively, the evidence reveals a pattern of 

negative effects that harassing and/or assault behaviors can have on members of the NPS 

workforce and on the organization as a whole.

Harassment and/or assault experiences are related to demographic, occupational, and 

organizational factors, but the most important of these factors involve organizationally focused 

variables. While we found that demographic and occupational factors were related to harassing 

and/or assault experiences of employees, organizational factors were by far the most important 

variables to understand the nature of these experiences. Organizational factors like perceptions of 

supervisor support, organizational trust and inclusion, politics within the organization, as well as 

 

38 The ending for this question varied for permanent and temporary employees. Permanent employees were asked 

about the negative effects of the experience in reference to performance evaluation or promotion potential. Term or 

Temporary employees were asked about the negative effect of the experience in reference to their performance 

evaluation or chance for renewal or permanent employment.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

116 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

the perceived general and leadership tolerance of harassing behaviors, and bystander experiences 

were rated consistently lower among employees who experienced harassing and/or assault 

behaviors than those who did not. Hence, when we consider the multitude of variables that are 

associated with harassing and/or assault experiences at work, it appears that certain demographic 

factors (e.g., age, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, disability) together 

with organizational factors matter more than other variables. In particular, the importance of 

organizational variables points to a consistent set of environmental factors that may produce 

conditions that are conducive to the manifestation of harassing and/or assault behaviors within 

the NPS work environment.

Harassing and/or assault behaviors appear to have a negative effect on job-related 

outcomes like job satisfaction, job engagement, and organizational commitment. While the 

associations among harassing and/or assault behaviors and these outcomes varied in terms of its 

strength, the patterns of associations were negative, indicating that employees who experienced 

harassing and/or assault behaviors were more likely to report lower levels of job satisfaction, job 

engagement, and organizational commitment than those who did not. The observed pattern was 

consistent even when considering demographic and occupational characteristics of employees 

who experienced harassing and/or assault behaviors and those who did not. Hence, these data 

clearly point to the negative impact that harassment and/or assault behaviors can have not only 

on the members of the NPS workforce but also on the productivity and effectiveness of the entire 

organization.

Employees not only experience but may also bear witness and respond to other’s 

harassing and/or assault behaviors. An estimated 25.4% of employees witnessed a harassing 

and/or assault behavior in the 12 months preceding the survey. Employees experienced the 

majority of these behaviors once, and/or, once a month or less. Not all employees reacted to the 

bystander harassing and/or assault experience in a similar manner. Some employees took action, 

while others did not, in response to behaviors they witnessed. Among employees taking some 

action, the most frequent action taken was to help the person experiencing the behavior; to tell 

the person doing the behavior that they “crossed the line;” or to tell someone in a position of 

authority. Among employees who did not take any action, the most frequent reasons for not 

taking any action involved fear of negative consequences or a perceived lack of authority to take 

action. These findings point to the pervasive nature of harassing and/or assault behaviors within 

the broader NPS work environment. Harassment and/or assault behaviors not only affect the 

person(s) involved but may also affect others who witness such behaviors when they occur. 

Retrospective data on harassing and/or assault experiences occurring prior to the 12 

months preceding the survey suggests that these behaviors may have a longer past than the most 

recent 12 months. An estimated 36.6% of employees indicated they experienced some form of 

harassing and/or assault behaviors before the past 12 months while being employed at NPS. 

Though these findings must be cautiously interpreted given their retrospective nature, and their 

susceptibility to memory distortion and bias, they do provide evidence of the prevalent and 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

117 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

persistent nature of harassing and/or assault behaviors manifested within the NPS work 

environment. That employees can recall instances that date well before the past 12 months also 

attests to the harmful nature of these experiences on employees’ personal and professional lives. 

Harassment and/or assault experiences are not a new phenomenon within the NPS workforce. 

4.3 Conclusions

The goals of this project were met in terms of enhancing our collective understanding of 

the nature, extent and impact of harassing and/or assault behaviors within the NPS workforce. 

Employees at all levels are either directly (through their own personal experiences) or indirectly 

(through the witnessing or hearing about other employees’ experiences) affected by harassing 

and/or assault situations both personally and professionally. The findings shed light on the 

dynamics that underlie these behaviors and affirm the need for comprehensive responses to these

problems.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

118 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

References

Arvey, R. D., & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual 

harassment: Some methodological problems. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 39–52.

Bastian, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E. (1996). Department of Defense 1995 sexual 

harassment survey (Report No. 96-014). Arlington, VA. Defense Manpower Data Center.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A 

theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.

Chan, D. K-S., Lam, C. B., Chow, S. Y., & Cheung, S. F. (2008). Examining the job related, 

psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A meta-analytic 

review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 362-376.

Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): 

Development and validation. In RM Kramer & TR Tyler, (Eds.), Trust in organizations

(pp. 302-330), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dansky, B. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1997). Effects of sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), 

Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 162-174). Boston, MA: Allyn 

and Bacon.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). 

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and 

employee retention, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.

Estrada, A.X., & Laurence, J.H. (2009). The impact of training on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 

Don’t Pursue policy. Military Psychology, 21, 62-80.

Estrada, A.X., Olson, K.J., Harbke, C.R., & Berggren, A.W. (2011). Evaluating a brief scale 

measuring psychological climate for sexual harassment. Military Psychology, 23, 410-

432.

Feldblum, C.R., & Lipnic, V.A. (2016) Select task force on the study of harassment in the 

workplace. Washington, DC. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Gruber, J.E. (1990). Methodological problems and policy implications in sexual harassment 

research. Population Research and Policy Review, 9, 235-254.

Gutek, B. A., Murphy, R. O., & Douma, B. (2004). A review and critique of the Sexual 

Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ). Law and Human Behavior, 28, 457-482.

Hershcovis, M.S., & Barling, J. (2010, August 16). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes 

for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 

874–888.

Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of workrelated sexual harassment in United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate 

disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607-631.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale 

(POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of management, 23(5), 627-658.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

119 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Krieger, N., Chen, J. T., Waterman, P. D., Hartman, C., Stoddard, A. M., Quinn, M. M., 

Langhout, R. D., Bergman, M. E., Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & 

Williams, J. H. (2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal 

determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 975-1007.

Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual workplace 

aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of 

Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 155-169.

Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1995). Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel 

Psychology, 48, 841-864.

Lighthouse Associates. (1999). U.S. Park Police gender equity study. Springfield, VA. 

Lighthouse Associates. (2000). U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service women in law 

enforcement study. Burke, VA. Author.

Mazzeo, S. E., Bergman, M. E., Buchanan, N. T., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. (2001). 

Situation-specific assessment of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 

120–131.

Murray, B. (1998). Psychology’s voice in sexual harassment law. American Psychological

O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Bowes-Sperry, L., Arens Bates, C., & Lean, E.R. (2009). Sexual 

Harassment at Work: A Decade (Plus) of Progress. Journal of Management, 35, 503-536

Oullette, J.A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes 

by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54-74.

Pascoe, E., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic 

review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554.

Pina, A., Gannon, T. A., & Saunders, B. (2009). An overview of the literature on sexual 

harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 

14, 126-138.

Raver, J. L. & Nishii, L.H. (2010). Once, twice, three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, 

gender harassment, and general workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 

95, 236-254.

Reynolds, M. (2016). Statement of Michael Reynolds, Deputy Director, National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior, before the house committee on oversight and government 

reform, on the National Park Service response to incidents of employee misconduct.

Retrieved from https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ReynoldsStatement-NPS-9-22.pdf.

Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. 2001. A meta-analytic review of gender 

differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914-

922.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing 

clarity to the concept. In A.B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A 

handbook for essential theory and research (pp. 10-24). New York. Psychology Press.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

120 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of 

sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal 

of Applied Psychology, 85, 401-415.

Severt, J., & Estrada, A. (2016, August). Validating an inclusion scale for use in military 

contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological 

Association in Denver, CO.

Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., & Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women’s 

occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 10-40.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 

43, 178–190.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2016a). Investigative report of the misconduct at the Grand 

Canyon River District. Washington, DC. Office of the Inspector General. Retrieved from 

https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investigative-report-misconduct-grand-canyon-riverdistrict.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2016b). Investigative report of sexual misconduct by chief 

ranger at the Canaveral National Seashore. Washington, DC. Office of the Inspector 

General. Retrieved from 

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/SexualMisconduct_ChiefRanger_Canavera

lNationalSeashore_Public.pdf.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2015). Federal employee viewpoint survey results:

National Park Service: Washington DC. Author. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Federal employee viewpoint survey

Governmentwide management report. Washington DC. Author. Retrieved from 

https://www.fedview.opm.gov/2016FILES/2016_FEVS_Gwide_Final_Report.PDF

Willness, C.R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences 

of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

121 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Appendix A Glossary of Terms
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

122 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Glossary of Terms

Attempted sex – A specific behavior within the measure of sexual assault related behaviors 

defined in the question as an intentional sexual contact against one’s will or without one’s 

consent asking “Attempted to make you have sexual intercourse, but was not successful?” and/or 

“Attempted to make you perform or receive oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or 

object, but was not successful?” May or may not be accompanied by sexual touching.

Behaviors – In the context of the survey, behaviors are actions, physical or verbal, experienced 

by the person answering the survey question. Behaviors are specific to the person answering the 

survey questions and not behaviors observed between two other people (with the exception of 

bystander harassment experiences).

Bystander harassment experiences – A scale/construct in the survey measuring how often 

someone witnessed a situation where another employee was harassed or discriminated based on 

their age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, disability status or condition, and 

sex/gender in the past 12 months. Does not include personal experiences of harassment or imply 

any form of group harassment against the person responding to the survey.

CFI Group – CFI Group measures customer, citizen, and employee satisfaction using its 

patented, cause-and-effect methodology that is recognized for its superior precision, diagnostic 

approach, and linkage to financial results. CFI Group holds a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) 

with FCG.

Completed sex – A specific behavior within the measure of sexual assault related behaviors 

defined in the question as an intentional sexual contact against one’s will or without one’s 

consent asking “Made you have sexual intercourse?” and/or “Made you perform or receive oral 

sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or object?” Maybe or may not be accompanied by sexual 

touching or attempted sex.

Concessioner – A person or entity who operates a business within federal premises, usually as 

the only seller of certain goods or services.

Contractor – A person or entity who contracts with the federal government to provide services, 

supplies, or other work.

Coworker – Individuals who one works with at the same or adjacent pay grade level.

Crude and offensive behavior – A scale/construct in the survey measuring experiences with 

verbal/nonverbal behaviors of a sexual nature that were offensive or embarrassing to the person 

experiencing them (e.g., “repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you?”).

Demographic characteristics – Variables measuring employees’ age, sex, level of education, 

racial/ethnic background, and relationship status.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

123 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Disability – A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life 

activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarding as having such 

an impairment (Source: The Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12102).

Documented disability – A disability on record with the Bureau/Office Human Resources (HR) 

function.

DOI – Department of the Interior

Duties – In the context of the survey, “duties” refers to activities employees perform on a regular 

basis as part of their job. These are activities they are expected to perform and have been 

established by their supervisor and job description.

Effect size – A statistical annotation of the size of a difference between two or more groups. 

Annotations of statistical significance of means or proportions among groups are indicators of 

the probability that any differences would occur by chance – effect size is a measure of the 

magnitude of those differences.

Employee – An individual appointed in the civil service, does not include contractors, non-paid 

interns, or volunteers.

Estimated population – Proportions and means calculated with statistical weighting techniques 

to represent values in the population (i.e., takes into account differential response rates by groups 

within the population) and has an associated margin of error.

Experience rate – The estimated percentage of people in the workforce who experienced a form 

of harassing and/or assault related behaviors (e.g., how many people experienced something one 

or more times).

FCG – The Federal Consulting Group (FCG) collaborates with government organizations to 

effectively track the metrics and develop strategies to measure customer and employee 

satisfaction, communications initiatives, performance improvement strategies, and internal 

strategic planning results. As a government organization, FCG partners with federal agencies via 

an interagency agreement.

Gender context – A scale/construct in the survey measuring gender mix of employees’ 

coworkers, leaders, and individuals in their occupation or career field.

Gender harassment – A scale/construct in the survey measuring verbal/nonverbal behaviors 

that convey insulting, offensive, or condescending attitudes based on the sex of the person 

experiencing them (e.g., “put you down or was condescending to you because of your sex?”).

General intolerance for harassment – A scale/construct in the survey measuring perceived 

climate for harassment within one’s work unit (e.g., “At your current work unit, it would be very 

risky to file a harassment complaint”).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

124 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

GS – The General Schedule, a Federal Government pay scale typically used for salaried 

employees.

Item/subitem – Individual questions or choices within a survey question.

Job engagement – A scale/construct in the survey measuring employees’ engagement with their 

job (e.g., “I am immersed in my work”).

Job outcomes – Scales/constructs measuring perceptions about employees’ job satisfaction, job 

engagement, and commitment to their organization.

Job satisfaction – A scale/construct in the survey measuring employees’ satisfaction with 

various facets of their jobs (e.g., security, promotion opportunities, coworkers, job as a whole).

Logistic regression – A statistical approach analogous to linear regression for modeling the 

relationship between a categorical dependent variable and one or more continuous independent 

variables.

Leadership intolerance for harassment – A scale/construct in the survey measuring perceived 

intolerance for harassment within one’s work unit (e.g., “Do your team leaders, supervisors, 

and/or managers tolerate harassment?”).

Linear regression – A statistical approach for modeling the relationship between a continuous 

dependent variable and one or more continuous independent variables.

Manager – Those in management positions who typically supervise one or more supervisors.

Median – A value or quantity lying at the midpoint of a frequency distribution of values or 

quantities (i.e., half of the response choices fall above the median and half fall below it).

Mode – The number which appears most often in a set of numbers (i.e., the most frequently 

selected response choice).

MoE/Margin of error – A confidence interval around an estimated value (i.e., the precision of 

the estimate and the confidence interval coincides with how confident one is that the interval 

contains the true population value being estimated).

NPS – National Park Service

NA/Not applicable/Not available – “NA” has two uses. First, “NA” stands for “Not available” 

when information, such as demographic data from DOI Human Resources, was not available. 

Second, “NA” stands for “Not Applicable” in situations where a result does not apply.

NR/Not Reportable – “NR” indicates that a result is not reportable due to low reliability of the 

estimate; a caution that a result is not stable and reliable enough to be interpreted and could be 

misleading if it were displayed.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

125 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Occupational characteristics – Variables measuring employees’ pay grade, tenure in the 

organization, employment classification, and type of work unit. 

One behavior or experience – A survey technique using a series of follow-up questions to 

examine situational characteristics of harassing and assault experiences, such as location and 

duration, characteristics of the offender(s), and actions taken in response to the situation (such as 

reporting and subsequent experiences).

Organizational characteristics – Variables measuring employees’ levels of supervisor support, 

perceptions of trust, political dynamics and inclusion within the unit, bystander experiences with 

harassment and/or assault behaviors, perceptions of both general and leaders’ intolerance of 

harassing and/or assault behaviors, and gender context.

Organizational commitment– A scale/construct in the survey measuring employees’ 

identification, involvement, and emotional attachment to the work unit (e.g., “I would be very 

happy to remain with this organization for the rest of my career”).

Organizational inclusion – A scale/construct in the survey measuring perceived inclusion 

within one’s work unit (e.g., “Members of my work unit value each other's perspective and 

contribution”).

Organizational intolerance for harassment – A scale/construct in the survey measuring 

perceived intolerance for harassment within one’s work unit (e.g., “Harassment is not tolerated in 

my work unit”).

Organization politics – A scale/construct in the survey measuring perceived pressure to 

conform to organizational norms (e.g., “Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative in 

my work unit”).

Organizational trust – A scale/construct in the survey measuring perceived trust in one’s work 

unit (e.g., “I feel my work unit will keep its word”).

Partner – A person, volunteer, or entity who has some degree of involvement with NPS’s

mission through agreement or memorandum of understanding.

Permanent employee – An employee hired without time limitations.

Scale – A series of questions (items/subitems) on a related topic; typically, a single score is 

calculated for a scale and specific results for items/subitems are not reported.

Seasonal employment – A work schedule with annually recurring periods of work of less than 

12 months.

Sexual assault related behaviors – A scale/construct in the survey measuring five behaviors 

related to sexual assault (e.g., “Sexually touched you,” “Attempted to have sexual intercourse”). 

The five behaviors are indicative of sexual assault but do not constitute a legal definition.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

126 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Sexual coercion – A scale/construct in the survey measuring instances of specific treatment or 

favoritism conditioned on sexual cooperation (e.g., “Treated you badly for refusing to have 

sex?”).

Sexual harassment – A scale/construct in the survey measuring three general categories of 

sexually harassing behaviors: crude or offensive behaviors, unwanted sexual attention, and 

sexual coercion. Experiences of sexual harassment were conditional on the person perceiving the 

behaviors to be harassing.

Sexual minority – Items in the survey assessing the sexual orientation of the survey respondent 

which included: heterosexual or straight; lesbian; gay; bisexual; other (e.g. questioning, asexual, 

undecided, self-identified, or intersex); and prefer not to say.

Sexual touching – A specific behavior within the measure of sexual assault related behaviors 

defined in the question as an intentional sexual contact against one’s will or without one’s 

consent asking “Sexually touched you (e.g., intentional touching of genitalia, breasts, or 

buttocks) or made you sexually touch him/her?”

Supervisor – First-line supervisors are typically responsible for employees’ performance 

appraisals and leave approval.

Supervisor support – A scale/construct in the survey measuring perceived supervisor support 

(e.g., “The supervisor of your work unit cares about your opinions”).

Senior Leader – The heads of departments/agencies and their immediate leadership team, 

responsible for directing the policies of NPS. May hold either a political or career appointment, 

and typically a member of the Senior Executive Service or equivalent.

Team Lead – Team leaders are not official supervisors; those who provide employees with dayto-day guidance in work projects, but do not have supervisory responsibilities or conduct 

performance appraisals.

Temporary employee – An employee who is appointed for less than one year.

Term employee – An employee who is appointed for no less than one year but not to exceed 

four years.

Unwanted sexual attention – A scale/construct in the survey measuring unwanted attempts to 

establish a sexual relationship (e.g., “Made unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle or kiss you?”).

Weighting – A statistical technique to estimate results as though all employees completed a 

survey, reflecting population estimates and reducing non-response bias.

WES – Work Environment Survey
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

127 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

WG – The Wage Grade, a Federal Government pay scale typically used for employees paid on 

an hourly basis.

Workplace – Any location where one typically performs his or her job duties; distinguished 

from locations where one engages in personal, non-job-related activities.

Work unit – A unit or team of employees that have been assigned to accomplish specific tasks.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

128 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Appendix B Survey Communications
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

129 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

NPS Survey Announcement

Sent: 01/06/2017 

From: Acting Director, Michael T. Reynolds 

Subject Line: NPS Work Environment Survey

Last year, the centennial gave the National Park Service the opportunity to showcase our 

accomplishments, highlight America’s greatest treasures, and begin a robust dialogue about our 

next century of service. Americans reaffirmed how much they value their parks and natural and 

cultural resources – and how much they value the employees of the National Park Service. 

We also heard some disturbing and disappointing news about how employee misconduct 

involving sexual harassment, all other forms of harassment, and retaliation threaten our 

workplace culture and erode public confidence in the NPS. The bottom line is these types of 

misconduct are not only unlawful but also diminish the respect we hold for each other and 

undermine the good work that we do every day. They cannot be tolerated. And so, our goal is 

simple when it comes to addressing sexual harassment, all other forms of harassment, and 

retaliation: we want to know about it; we want help those who have experienced it; and we want 

to eradicate it from our workplace.

On January 9-10, you will receive an invitation to participate in the NPS Work Environment 

Survey, which is designed to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment and other forms of 

harassment and retaliation in our workforce, as well as the environment in which these behaviors 

occur. The survey is being conducted by an objective, independent, third-party expert, CFI 

Group. You will receive the email invitation from GovDelivery, a FEDRamp-certified 

organization, on behalf of CFI Group and the National Park Service.

The invitation will include instructions for taking the survey online, and information about how 

to request a paper copy of the survey, if that is more convenient for you. Survey participation is 

voluntary, and you will be free to discontinue your participation at any time. Additionally, your 

responses will remain completely confidential and anonymous, and at no time will your 

responses be linked back to you or result in any formal complaints related to experiences you 

share.

Whether or not you have personally experienced any form of harassment or retaliation, we 

encourage every NPS employee to take the survey. It is important to note that if you believe you 

have been a victim of sexual harassment or any other form of harassment or retaliation, the 

survey is not a substitute for officially reporting such incidents. Employees who believe they 

have been a victim of any of these forms of misconduct and wish to report it now should visit the 

employee support resource page on Inside NPS for help and guidance.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

130 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

We are committed to providing a safe and productive workplace for every employee, and in 

order to do so, your participation is critical. We must ensure that all NPS employees and every 

NPS work site share the values of respect for others, teamwork, fairness, civility, responsibility 

and accountability. We want a workplace where employees are comfortable and feel safe enough 

to speak out when these values are transgressed. This survey is an important first step along this 

journey.

If you have any questions, please email harassment_response@nps.gov.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

131 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

InsideNPS News Blurb

Posted date: 01/09/2017

NPS Work Environment Survey Launched through February 15

In recent months we have seen how employee misconduct involving sexual harassment and other 

forms of harassment and retaliation threaten our culture and erode public confidence in our 

Service. These types of misconduct are not only against the law but also diminish the respect we 

hold for each other and our good work.

We are committed at all levels of the NPS to transform our organizational culture into a safe, 

inclusive and respectful environment for all employees. To do that, we need to have an objective, 

thorough understanding of acts of misconduct that prevent us from building the Service our 

employees deserve.

Accordingly, today, we are launching the NPS Work Environment Survey – a voluntary,

confidential, survey available to every NPS employee now through February 15, 2017.

Between today and tomorrow you will receive an email invitation from GovDelivery, a

FEDRamp-certified organization, on behalf of CFI Group and the National Park Service. The

email will come from CFIGroup@public.govdelivery.com, so please check your spam inbox to 

be sure you get the link.

The survey will give us a comprehensive assessment of the nature, scope, and consequences of 

sexual harassment, as well as all other forms of harassment and retaliation activities taking place 

among our employees and at NPS work sites. The survey and its results will be administered, 

tabulated, and analyzed by an objective, independent third party. The survey results will be 

shared and will help inform how and where we should focus our response efforts.

Whether or not you have personally experienced any form of harassment or retaliation, we

encourage every NPS employee to take the survey. The survey responses are anonymous and 

will not be identified with any personally identifiable information.

We can’t eliminate these behaviors without information from you and that is why your input

through the survey is crucial. We must ensure that all NPS employees and every NPS work site 

embodies the values of respect for others, teamwork, fairness, civility, responsibility and

accountability. This survey is an important first step along this journey.

Superintendents and managers have been asked to conduct meetings or host a facilitated dialogue 

around the survey and provide employees with an opportunity to discuss what a safe and 

inclusive work environment looks like.

• Visit InsideNPS Employee Support Tools for more information.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

132 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• Visit the Common Learning Portal for educational resources such as mandatory training 

courses, NPS guides to understanding, preventing and reporting harassment, and 

collaborative discussions in the CLP Commons.

General questions or technical issues about the survey can be directed to [PHONE] or [EMAIL].

Any other questions about our efforts to eradicate harassment can be directed to 

Harassment_Response@nps.gov.

The survey closes on February 15. Don’t delay. Please take a moment now to complete it

online or obtain a paper copy.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

133 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

NPS WES Survey Invitation Email

Sent: 01/09/2017 and 01/10/2017

From: GovDelivery, on behalf of CFI Group and the National Park Service 

From Address: CFIGroup@public.govdelivery.com

Subject Line: The National Park Service Work Environment Survey

I am inviti ng you on behalf of the N ati onal Par k Ser vice leadership and the Secretar y of the Interior 

We are inviting you on behalf of the National Park Service leadership and the 

Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Work Environment Survey, which is 

designed to assess the prevalence of harassment in our workforce and the 

environment within which harassment occurs. The survey is being conducted by our 

third-party survey expert, CFI Group, to ensure the process is objective and 

professional.

Please be informed that participation in the survey is completely optional. Additionally, 

your responses to survey questions will remain completely confidential and 

anonymous. Responses will not be linked back to any individual at any time.

We are committed to eliminating harassment in your workplace and making it the 

safest, most productive work environment possible. To that end we need your input to 

understand the breadth of the problem and develop potential solutions. Issues like 

harassment affect everyone, either directly or indirectly, so everyone has valuable 

input if you are willing to share it. Your perspective is critical to this endeavor.

To take the survey, please click on the link below. 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

134 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• This survey will close on February 15, 2017.

• Click the drop down in the top right corner of the first survey page to choose to 

take the survey in Spanish.

• The survey is mobile compatible, Section 508 compliant, and accessible with 

screen readers.

• Forward this survey to your personal email account if you would like to take the 

survey at home or on your personal computer or mobile device.

• If you need to pause the survey at any point, clicking on the link above will 

return you to where you left off. If you are taking the survey on a public 

computer, close the internet browser if you step away from the computer.

• If you prefer to take this survey on paper, please click here or call [PHONE] 

and leave a message to request a copy be mailed to you.

• If you require technical assistance, you may contact CFI Group at [EMAIL] or 

leave a message at [PHONE] with a brief description of your question and your 

call will be returned as quickly as possible.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Michael Reynolds

Director (Acting), National Park Service

Lena McDowall

Deputy Director, Management and Administration, National Park Service
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

135 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

InsideNPS Article

Posted date: 01/17/2017

Title: NPS Employees Encouraged to Take Workplace Harassment Survey

Embedded video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIZtpdelT9g&feature=youtu.be

On Tuesday, January 10th, the NPS workforce including temporary, term, and permanent 

employees received the NPS Work Environment Survey. This important tool will provide NPS 

leadership a better assessment of the prevalence of sexual harassment and other forms of 

harassment and retaliation in our workforce, as well as the environment in which these 

inexcusable behaviors occur.

The survey is open until Wednesday, February 15th and results will be shared with the 

workforce as soon as they become available this summer. If you have not taken the survey yet, 

check your inbox for an email from CFIGroup@public.govdelivery.com with the subject line 

“The National Park Service Work Environment Survey”. Watch the video to hear more about 

this important effort and how you can make a difference by taking 30 minutes to fill out the 

survey.

A significant percentage of our workforce has already taken the survey since its launch last 

week. We hope to see continued strong participation to truly reflect you--our workforce—which 

will ultimately make the survey results, and our response, more effective.

Here are a few things to note about the survey:

1. Who may take the survey? The survey is open to all employees of the National Park 

Service. This includes all temporary, term and permanent employees.

2. Who do I contact if I have not received a survey? Contact 

harassment_response@nps.gov

3. What if I have another question regarding the survey? Contact [EMAIL] and they 

will direct your question to the appropriate person.

4. What if I have a question or concern related to the NPS response to workplace 

harassment? Contact harassment_response@nps.gov.

5. Where can I find information on employee resources and support? Click on 

Employee Support Options located on the Employee Center homepage and choose 

Preventing Workplace Harassment.

6. As a supervisor, where can I find tools and resources to help me discuss workplace

harassment issues with my staff? Go to the Common Learning Portal and join the NPS 

LEADERSHIP: HARASSMENT RESPONSE DISCUSSION GROUP.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

136 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Cover Letter for Paper Survey Recipients Without an NPS Email Address

Sent: 01/19/2017 (postage date)

Dear National Park Service Employee,

You are invited by the National Park Service (NPS) leadership and the Secretary of the Interior 

to participate in the Work Environment Survey, which is designed to assess the prevalence of 

harassment in the workforce and the environment within which harassment occurs. The survey is 

being conducted by NPS' third-party survey expert, CFI Group, to ensure the process is objective 

and professional.

According to National Park Service records, you do not have an official National Park Service 

email address. Therefore, in order to facilitate your participation, a paper copy of the survey is 

being mailed to your work address. You can expect to receive the paper survey within the next 

few days if you have not received it already. If you do, in fact, have a National Park Service 

email address and would rather take the survey online you may 

contact harassment_response@nps.gov to request an email invitation.

Please be informed that participation in the survey is completely optional. Additionally, your 

responses to survey questions will remain completely confidential and anonymous. Responses 

will not be linked back to any individual at any time.

Thank you,

CFI Group
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

137 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

NPS WES Survey Reminder Emails

Sent: 01/17/2017 and 01/24/2017

From: GovDelivery, on behalf of CFI Group and the National Park Service 

From Address: CFIGroup@public.govdelivery.com

Subject Line: The National Park Service Work Environment Survey - Reminder

This is a friendl y reminder to a sur vey invi tation sent to you previ ousl y 

This is a friendly reminder to a survey invitation sent to you previously. If you have 

already completed the survey, we thank you for your participation. You can ignore this 

email and any future reminders.

If you have not yet completed the survey, we remind you that the Department of the 

Interior and the National Park Service are committed to eliminating harassment in our 

workplaces and creating the safest, most productive work environment possible. To 

help us achieve this, your input into the breadth of the problem is critical.

To take the survey, please click on the link below.

Please be advised that your window of opportunity to participate is getting 

shorter, as it is closing on February 15, 2017.

• Click the drop down in the top right corner of the first survey page to choose to 

take the survey in Spanish.

• The survey is mobile compatible, Section 508 compliant, and accessible with 

screen readers.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

138 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• Forward this survey to your personal email account if you would like to take the 

survey at home or on your personal computer or mobile device.

• If you need to pause the survey at any point, clicking on the link above will 

return you to where you left off. If you are taking the survey on a public 

computer, close the internet browser if you step away from the computer.

• If you prefer to take this survey on paper, please click here or call [PHONE] 

and leave a message to request a copy be mailed to you.

• If you require technical assistance, you may contact CFI Group at [EMAIL] or 

leave a message at [PHONE] with a brief description of your question and your 

call will be returned as quickly as possible.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Michael Reynolds

Director (Acting), National Park Service

Lena McDowall

Deputy Director, Management and Administration, National Park Service
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

139 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

NPS WES Survey First Final Reminder Email

Sent: 01/31/2017

From: GovDelivery, on behalf of CFI Group and the National Park Service 

From Address: CFIGroup@public.govdelivery.com

Subject Line: The National Park Service Work Environment Survey – Final Reminder

This is a final remi nder to a sur vey i nvitation sent to you pr eviousl y 

This is a final reminder to a survey invitation sent to you previously. If you have already 

completed the survey, we thank you for your participation.

If you have not yet completed the survey, we remind you that the Department of the 

Interior and the National Park Service are committed to eliminating harassment in our 

workplaces and creating the safest, most productive work environment possible. To 

help us achieve this, your input into the breadth of the problem is critical.

To take the survey, please click on the link below.

Please be advised that this is your final opportunity to participate in the survey, 

as it is closing on February 15, 2017.

• Click the drop down in the top right corner of the first survey page to choose to 

take the survey in Spanish. 

• The survey is mobile compatible, Section 508 compliant, and accessible with 

screen readers.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

140 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• Forward this survey to your personal email account if you would like to take the 

survey at home or on your personal computer or mobile device.

• If you need to pause the survey at any point, clicking on the link above will 

return you to where you left off. If you are taking the survey on a public 

computer, close the internet browser if you step away from the computer.

• If you prefer to take this survey on paper, please click here or call [PHONE] 

and leave a message to request a copy be mailed to you.

• If you require technical assistance, you may contact CFI Group at [EMAIL] or 

leave a message at [PHONE] with a brief description of your question and your 

call will be returned as quickly as possible.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Michael Reynolds

Director (Acting), National Park Service

Lena McDowall

Deputy Director, Management and Administration, National Park Service
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

141 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

NPS WES Survey First Additional Reminder Email

Sent: 02/16/2017

From: GovDelivery, on behalf of CFI Group and the National Park Service 

From Address: CFIGroup@public.govdelivery.com

Subject Line: The National Park Service Work Environment Survey – Extended Through March 

5, 2017

The Wor k Environment Sur vey is bei ng admi nister ed to all bureaus withi n the Department of the Interior. 

The Work Environment Survey is being administered to all bureaus within the 

Department of the Interior. To ensure all Department of the Interior employees 

have an adequate amount of time to participate in the Work Environment Survey 

the last day to complete the survey has been extended to March 5, 2017.

If you have already completed the survey, we thank you for your participation. If you 

have not yet completed the survey, we remind you that the Department of the Interior 

and the National Park Service are committed to eliminating harassment in our 

workplaces and creating the safest, most productive work environment possible. To 

help us achieve this, your input into the breadth of the problem is critical. 

To take the survey, please click on the link below.

Please be advised that your window of opportunity to participate closes on 

March 5, 2017.

• Click the drop down in the top right corner of the first survey page to choose to 

take the survey in Spanish.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

142 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• The survey is mobile compatible, Section 508 compliant, and accessible with 

screen readers.

• Forward this survey to your personal email account if you would like to take the 

survey at home or on your personal computer or mobile device. Each survey 

link is unique to help prevent employees from taking the survey more than 

once. Therefore, the link cannot be shared with others.

• If you need to pause the survey at any point, clicking on the link above will 

return you to where you left off. If you are taking the survey on a public 

computer, close the internet browser if you step away from the computer.

• If you prefer to take this survey on paper, please click here or call [PHONE] 

and leave a message to request a copy be mailed to you. The last day to 

request a paper copy of the survey is February 20, 2017. In order for your 

completed paper survey to be included in the survey results it must be mailed 

back to CFI Group by March 4, 2017 (postage date no later than 3/4/2017).

• If you require technical assistance, you may contact CFI Group at [EMAIL] or 

leave a message at [PHONE] with a brief description of your question and your 

call will be returned as quickly as possible.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Michael Reynolds

Director (Acting), National Park Service

Lena McDowall

Deputy Director, Management and Administration, National Park Service
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

143 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

NPS WES Survey Second Additional Reminder Email

Sent: 02/23/2017

From: GovDelivery, on behalf of CFI Group and the National Park Service 

From Address: CFIGroup@public.govdelivery.com

Subject Line: The National Park Service Work Environment Survey – Extended Through March 

5, 2017

This is the final remi nder to the sur vey i nvitations sent to you pr eviousl y. 

This is the final reminder to the survey invitations sent to you previously. If you have 

already completed the survey, we thank you for your participation. If you have not yet 

completed the survey, we remind you that the Department of the Interior and the 

National Park Service are committed to eliminating harassment in our workplaces and 

creating the safest, most productive work environment possible. To help us achieve 

this, your input into the breadth of the problem is critical. 

To take the survey, please click on the link below.

Please be advised that this is your final opportunity to participate in the survey, 

as it is closing on March 5, 2017.

• Click the drop down in the top right corner of the first survey page to choose to 

take the survey in Spanish.

• The survey is mobile compatible, Section 508 compliant, and accessible with 

screen readers.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

144 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

• Forward this survey to your personal email account if you would like to take the 

survey at home or on your personal computer or mobile device. Each survey 

link is unique to help prevent employees from taking the survey more than 

once. Therefore, the link cannot be shared with others.

• If you need to pause the survey at any point, clicking on the link above will 

return you to where you left off. If you are taking the survey on a public 

computer, close the internet browser if you step away from the computer.

• The deadline for requesting a paper copy of the survey has passed. If you 

already requested a paper copy of the survey, in order for your completed 

paper survey to be included in the survey results it must be mailed back to CFI 

Group by March 4, 2017 (postage date no later than 3/4/2017). 

• If you require technical assistance, you may contact CFI Group at [EMAIL] or 

leave a message at [PHONE] with a brief description of your question and your 

call will be returned as quickly as possible.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Michael Reynolds

Director (Acting), National Park Service

Lena McDowall

Deputy Director, Management and Administration, National Park Service
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

145 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Appendix C Survey Methodology
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

146 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Methodology for the Work Environment Survey

This appendix documents the methodology for the Work Environment Survey (WES) 

performed at the request of the National Park Service (NPS) in 2017. The WES was designed to 

assess employee attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors on a wide range of topics related to the 

character – extent of harassment and/or assault behaviors, context – situational characteristics 

involving specific behaviors or set of experiences that significantly affected individuals, 

correlates – demographic, occupational, and organizational factors associated with harassment 

and/or assault behaviors, and consequences – influence of harassment and/or assault behaviors 

on satisfaction and engagement at work, and commitment to the organization – of harassing 

and/or assault behaviors experienced by employees within the work environment.

This appendix is organized into several sections. The first section provides a brief 

overview of the survey development process to include the identification of topics, delineation of 

content, and formatting and structural layout of all measures incorporated into the WES. The 

second section describes data collection procedures to include the sampling of employees, survey 

administration procedures, safeguarding and protection of data, and quality assurance steps taken 

to preserve the integrity of the data. The third section describes procedures used for weighting 

survey responses to estimate population parameters of the workforce. The fourth section 

describes analytical procedures used to test the statistical significance of results to include 

descriptive and inferential statistical analyses performed on the survey data. The final section 

provides a detailed description of all measures included in the WES.

C.1 Development of Survey

Over the course of several meetings with organizational members, our team collaborated 

to establish topics and constructs to inform the development, content, and structure of the WES. 

As part of these efforts, our team reviewed surveys used with employees (e.g., Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); U.S. Office of Personnel Management (USOPM), 2016) and publicly 

available research, studies, and investigative reports pertinent to the topic of harassment within 

the workforce (e.g., Lighthouse Associates, 1999, 2000; U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a, 

2016b). Additionally, we consulted relevant literature on job-related attitudes and behaviors; 

group, and organizational dynamics; and equity and diversity issues within work organizations to 

identify additional topics (e.g., Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Chan, Lam, Chow, & Cheung, 2008; 

Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Hershcovis, & Barling, 2010; Krieger et al., 2005; Lapierre, Spector, 

& Leck, 2005; Mazzeo, Bergman, Buchanan, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2001; O'Leary-Kelly, 

Bowes-Sperry, Arens Bates, & Lean, 2009; Pascoe, & Smart Richman, 2009; Pina, Gannon, & 

Saunders 2009; Raver & Nishii, 2010; Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997; Sojo, Wood, & 

Genat, 2016; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). Based on our review of the literature, and in 

consultation with organizational members, we refined the list of topics, constructs and specific 

content to develop a conceptual framework for the WES (see Figure C.1).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

147 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Figure C.1 Conceptual Framework

As shown in Figure C.1, the WES included measures of employee demographic 

characteristics, occupational characteristics, and organizational factors associated with harassing 

and/or assault related behaviors; various forms of harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced 

in the past 12 months; job-related outcomes and other factors involving situational characteristics 

associated with these types of experiences. Demographic factors included variables measuring 

employees’ age, sex, level of education, racial/ethnic background, and relationship status. 

Occupational factors included variables measuring employees’ pay grade, tenure in the 

organization, employment classification, and type of work unit. Organizational factors included 

variables measuring employees’ levels of supervisor support, perceptions of trust, political 

dynamics and inclusion within the unit, bystander experiences with harassment and/or assault 

behaviors, perceptions of both general and leaders’ intolerance of harassing and/or assault 

behaviors, and gender context. Measures of workplace harassment included variables measuring 

harassment based on age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, disability status, sexual 

orientation, as well as, gender and sexual harassment, and sexual assault related behaviors. Job 

outcomes included variables measuring job satisfaction, job engagement, and organizational 

commitment. Other factors included variables measuring experiences of harassment prior to the 

past 12 months, situational characteristics associated with specific behaviors or set of

experiences, reporting behaviors and outcomes, and questions concerning bystander intervention 

behaviors.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

148 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

The WES was structured to include two preliminary questions assessing respondents’ 

employment classification and their work schedule to appropriately frame certain questions 

within the survey. The remaining questions were structured into six sections, organized to 

minimize response burden and optimize survey completion.

Table C.1 Description of Survey Constructs with Sample Items

Survey Section Construct Sample Item

Part I Your 

Perceptions 

About Your Job

• Job Satisfaction • How satisfied are you with your job?

• Job Engagement • I am immersed in my work.

• Organizational Commitment • I would be happy to spend the rest of my career 

in my work unit.

• Organizational Politics • It is best not to rock the boat in my work unit.

• Organizational Trust • I feel my work unit will keep its word.

• Supervisor Support • My supervisor cares about my opinions.

• Organizational Inclusion • Members of my current work unit feel accepted 

by other members.

Part II Work 

Related 

Experiences

• Harassment based on my age, 

race/ethnicity, religious 

beliefs, disability status, 

sexual orientation

• How often did you hear negative comments or 

remarks based on your...

• Sexual Harassment • How often did someone at work tell offensive 

sexual stories or jokes?

• Gender Harassment • How often did someone at work make 

offensive, sexist remarks?

• Sexual Assault Related 

Behaviors

• How often did you experience any intentional 

sexual contacts that were against your will?

Part III One 

Behavior/ 

Experience with 

the Greatest 

Effect

• Specific Behavior or 

Experience with Greatest 

Effect

• Was the type of behavior or experience based 

on your: age; race or ethnicity; religious beliefs; 

disability status or condition; sexual orientation; 

sex/gender; When and where did it occur? Who 

did it? Did you report it?

Part IV 

Organizational 

Policies & 

Procedures

• General Intolerance for 

Harassment

• At your current work unit, it would be very 

risky to file a harassment complaint.

• Leadership Intolerance for 

Harassment

• Do the persons below tolerate harassment?

• Bystander Harassment • How often have you witnessed another 

employee being harassed?

• Bystander Intervention • What actions did you take if you witnessed 

another employee being harassed?

• Resource Utilization • Which resources would you use if you were to 

make an oral and/or written 

complaint/grievance/report about a harassment 

experience?
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

149 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Table C.1 Continued

Survey Section Construct Sample Item

Part V 

Demographic & 

Occupational 

Characteristics

• Demographic and 

Occupational Characteristics

• Age, Marital Status, Ethnicity, Race, Sexual 

Orientation, Education, Tenure, Pay Grade, 

Supervisory Status, Work Location, Gender 

Context.

Table C.1 displays the sections of the survey, key constructs, and sample items for each 

of the measures included in the survey. A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix 

D of the Technical Report for NPS. As shown in Table C.1, the survey was structured into five 

parts. Part I included items assessing employees’ perceptions about their job, including 

satisfaction and engagement with the job, commitment to the work unit, political dynamics and 

trust within the work unit, as well as support from supervisors and inclusion within the work 

unit. Part II included items assessing employees’ experiences with harassing and/or assault 

behavior based on their age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, 

gender and sexual harassment, and sexual assault related behaviors that occurred during and 

before the past 12 months. This section also included a follow-up question to assess the pay 

grade at which each of the forms of harassment was experienced for the first time. Part III

included items assessing a variety of situational characteristics surrounding a specific harassing 

and/or assault behavior or set of experiences (e.g., time, location, frequency, and duration of the 

experience; sex, age, and employment status of the person[s] involved); reporting behaviors and 

outcomes; and items assessing the impact of these experiences on interpersonal relationships, 

physical or emotional well-being, job performance, and willingness to remain part of the 

organization. Responses to this section of the survey were purposely focused on a single 

experience or set of related experiences to minimize response burden and optimize survey 

completion.39 Part IV included items assessing employees’ perceptions of both the general and 

leaders’ intolerance of harassment in the work unit, bystander experiences with harassing and/or 

assault behaviors, bystander responses to bystander harassing and/or assault experiences, and 

items assessing future use of resources. Part V included items assessing employees’ 

demographic and occupational characteristics to include age, relationship status, racial/ethnic 

background, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, education, tenure, pay 

grade, supervisory status, type of work location, and gender context of their current work unit 

and career field.

 

39 We recognize that people may have experienced more than one type of harassing and/or assault behavior in the 

past 12 months. However, to ask about each specific form of harassment and/or assault experience would have 

added substantial content to an already lengthy survey. Hence, we made a compromise to focus on a specific 

behavior or experience that had the greatest effect on the person responding to the survey and asked them to respond 

to all subsequent questions to this section in terms of the specific form of harassment and/or assault experience that 

had the greatest effect on their personal and professional life. Following the same approach, we also included a 

single question to ask about harassing and/or assault behaviors related to the respondents’ sex and/or gender (e.g., 

gender harassment, sexual harassment, sexual assault related behaviors) because asking about experiences for each 

of the sex/gender related experiences would have required repetition of the individual behaviors specific to gender 

harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual assault related behaviors, thus adding considerable length to the survey.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

150 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

C.2 Data Collection Procedures

C.2.1 Sampling Approach

The WES was a census-based survey that was fielded from January 9, 2017 to March 5, 

2017. All active employees were eligible to participate. Table C.2 documents sampling statistics 

for the WES.

Table C.2 NPS WES Sampling Statistics

NPS

Total Sample 18,550

Delivered Invitations/Surveys 18,550

Submitted Surveys 9,395

Participation Rate 50.6%

Completed Surveys 9,156

Response Rate 49.4%

As of December 10, 2016, the population of NPS employees included a total of 18,550 

individuals, with valid email and/or postal addresses. Each employee received an electronic 

invitation or paper copy of the survey. A total of 9,395 surveys were submitted electronically 

and/or by postal delivery at the end of the survey period (i.e., March 5, 2017), yielding a 

participation rate of 50.6%.40

Upon screening of the data, we eliminated data from 239 surveys because they did not 

meet criteria for inclusion, leaving a total of 9,156 completed questionnaires, yielding an

adjusted response rate of 49.4%. The 2016 American Association of Public Opinion Research 

(AAPOR) RR1 standard was used to calculate WES response rates (https://www.aapor.org/).

Each submitted survey had to be associated with a unique survey identifier, include 

responses to items assessing respondents’ gender identity, responses to at least one item from the 

sexual harassment questions, responses to 50% of the core variables and those responses had to 

have variability associated with reverse coded items distributed throughout the survey. Each of 

these criteria are elaborated in the sections below.

Unique Survey Identifier – Each survey had to be associated with a valid survey identifier 

that could not be linked to more than one submitted survey. If an individual submitted both an 

 

40 Five follow-up emails were sent to all employees throughout the survey period. Each email thanked individuals 

who had responded to the survey and reminded others to complete the survey if they had not already done so. 

Response rates were tracked after each follow-up and at survey closing on March 5, 2017. We found no systematic 

evidence of differential participation among employees throughout the survey period. The fifth and final follow-up 

yielded only an additional 1.79% increase in participation rate.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

151 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

electronic and paper survey, we relied on their electronic responses and discarded paper 

responses.

Responses to Gender Identity and Gender/Sexual Harassment Questions – Each survey 

had to include responses to an item assessing employees’ gender identity (see item 60 in survey 

instrument) and to at least one item in either the gender or sexual harassment questions (see 

items 25a-q in survey instrument).

Responses to Core Variables – Each survey had to include responses to at least 50% of 

non-skip questions which were distributed throughout the survey. These items were embedded 

within the measure of job satisfaction and job engagement (see items 3a-j and 4a-i, respectively 

in survey instrument); commitment to the work unit (see items 5a-f in survey instrument); 

political dynamics and trust within the work unit (see items 6a-g and 7a-g, respectively in survey 

instrument); supervisor support (see items 8a-d in survey instrument); inclusion within the work 

unit (see items 9a-e in survey instrument); general intolerance of harassment (see items 51a-k in 

survey instrument); leadership intolerance of harassment (see items 52b-d in survey instrument); 

and bystander harassment (see items 53a-f in survey instrument).

No Variance – Any case where a response pattern did not vary for reverse coded item(s) 

was excluded from the analytical database. Items with neutral response alternatives, (e.g., neither 

agree nor disagree) were not considered for this criterion. Reverse coded items were distributed 

throughout the survey within the measures of political dynamics and trust within the work unit 

(see items 6a and 6b, and 7a, 7b, 7e, and 7g, respectively in the survey instrument); supervisor 

support (see item 8d in the survey instrument); and general intolerance for harassment (see items 

51a, 51b, 51f, and 51g in the survey instrument). Cases were only considered to have “no 

variable” if the response pattern did not vary for each individual question block with reverse 

coded items.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

152 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

C.2.2 Survey Data Collection Approach

The WES was made available to all active employees online via a secured website or 

upon request in paper format. Three independent organizations provided support in the 

administration of the WES. GovDelivery handled all email addresses and managed the 

distribution of electronic invites to all employees. GovDelivery was selected because it is 

FedRAMP authorized by the Joint Accreditation Board, assuring that secure protection of 

employee contact information would be achieved and that individual contact information could 

not be associated with any survey responses. This procedure allowed the team to address 

confidentiality safeguards and ensure anonymity for all employees. CASO Document 

Management handled all postal addresses and managed the distribution and collection, and 

scanning of all paper surveys. Scanned copies of all submitted surveys were transferred to CFI 

Group via secure FTP for data processing. CASO Document Management was selected because 

they are Service Organization Controls (SOC) II compliant allowing them to maintain a secure, 

independent network of client and survey data. At no point were postal addresses, which were 

provided to CASO by the Department of the Interior, uploaded to a system/computer connected 

to the internet. Postal addresses were sent to CASO via postal mail on an encrypted disk. 

Qualtrics provided electronic survey platforms for CFI Group to administer and collect data from 

the online survey. Qualtrics was selected because their servers are protected by high-end firewall 

systems, with scans performed regularly to ensure that any vulnerabilities found can be 

addressed quickly. Qualtrics services also have quick failover points and redundant hardware, 

with complete backups performed nightly. University Translator Services provided Spanish 

translations of the WES. The online version of the WES was designed to comply with Section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

All employees with a government issues email address on file received an emailed 

invitation from GovDelivery that contained an authenticated, single-submission, web-link to 

enable access to the WES posted on CFI Group’s secure servers. A small group of employees 

without an email address in the DOI database were mailed paper surveys to their work address. 

Prior to the official launch of the survey, a “soft launch” was executed on January 9, 2017. 

GovDelivery sent electronic invitations to two percent of employees to ensure that links could be 

successfully opened, that surveys were able to be completed via the online secure link, and that 

survey responses were consistent with the design of the survey. On January 10, 2017, 

GovDelivery sent electronic invitations to all remaining employees to execute the official launch 

of the survey. GovDelivery also sent three follow-up email reminders after the initial email 

invites were sent. Follow-up emails thanked employees for completing the survey and reminded 

other employees to complete the survey if they had not yet done so. On February 14, 2017, a 

decision was made to extend the field date by two and a half weeks (18 days) to allow more time 

for employees to participate in the survey. GovDelivery sent an additional two email reminders 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

153 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

to all employees alerting them to the additional time available to complete the survey.41 The 

survey closed on March 5, 2017. 

Employees had the option of requesting a paper copy of the survey be mailed to them by 

filling out an online form or calling a toll-free number. Both means of requesting a paper survey 

were made available in the email invitation and reminder messages. Paper survey requests were 

processed and mailed directly to individual employees throughout the survey period by CASO 

Document Management.

C.2.3 Data Processing

Test data were generated prior to the execution of the official launch of the survey. Test 

data were compared against the finalized questionnaire to ensure all questions and answers could 

be accounted for. Test data were also used to define metadata, implement skip logic, ensure rescaling requirements were met, and variables were computed for segmentation. Once the official 

launch was executed, interim data were downloaded and used to finalize data preparation 

procedures in advance of the survey closing. Upon survey closure, a final dataset was 

downloaded, cleaned, cross-checked, verified to specification and screened prior to analyses. 

Data cleaning included quality assurance steps to ensure data had been properly specified and 

coded in the survey database. This step included finalizing sample disposition codes and 

establishing rules for treatment of missing data. Two independent research teams prepared and 

processed data in parallel and compared results. Syntax and analytic coding was reviewed by 

separate data analysts prior to final data processing. Cross-checking of data from the paper 

survey included steps for inspecting responses, coding them into the database, and validating 

each of these entries. Data screening addressed inconsistences in response patterns and involved 

examination of item-level characteristics for both online and paper collected survey data. An 

aggregate data file was created by merging online and paper collected datasets to verify for 

accuracy of data entry and merging. 

An additional step in data processing addressed illogical responses to questions. In the 

online version of the survey, respondents were guided to appropriate follow-on questions 

through skip logic. In other words, respondents only saw follow-on questions appropriate to a 

prior response. In the paper survey where skip logic was printed in the survey booklet but not 

controlled electronically, analysts observed whether responses were logical and inappropriate 

responses to follow-on questions were set to missing. Similar inspection was make of responses 

on the paper survey to identify and set to missing situations where a respondent failed to follow 

 

41 Participation rates were calculated several days following each follow-up. On January 23, 2017, following the first 

follow-up (sent January 17, 2017), the participation rate had increased by 10.76% over the first two weeks of 

fielding. On January 30, 2017, the participation rate increased by 6.44% following the second follow-up (sent 

January 24, 2017). On February 15, 2017, the participation rate increased by 5.42% following the third follow-up 

(sent January 31, 2017). On February 22, 2017, the participation rate increased by 1.80% following the fourth 

follow-up (sent February 16, 2017). On March 6, 2017, the participation rate increased by 1.79% following the fifth 

and final follow-up (sent February 23, 2017).
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

154 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

instructions, such as selecting multiple responses in a question where only one selection was 

indicated.

Even though the online survey used skip logic to control the display of questions, there 

were still instances where a respondent could make an illogical choice. For example, in the 

survey Part III, One Behavior or Experience with the Greatest Effect, respondents were asked to 

indicate the primary basis for the experience that had the greatest effect on them. Their choices 

were behaviors or experiences based on their age, race/ethnicity, religious beliefs, disability 

status or condition, sexual orientation, sex/gender, or unknown reasons. To be included in the 

analyses, the selection of the experience in Part III had to be consistent with responses to 

questions in Part II, Work-Related Experiences. For example, someone may have selected 

religious beliefs as the basis for their harassment experience of greatest effect in Part III, but did 

not indicate experiencing that type of harassment in the past 12 months in Part II. In that 

situation, their responses to Part III were set to missing. If someone selected “Unknown” in Part 

III, their responses were retained regardless of the type of harassment they indicated in Part II.

A similar illogical situation could occur if someone in Part V, Demographic and 

Professional Characteristics, indicated they had been employed by NPS less than one year, yet in 

Part II they indicated experiencing a form of harassment prior to the past 12 months. In those 

instances, responses to the questions in Part II regarding experiences prior to the past 12 months 

were set to missing.

C.2.4 Data Protection

Data collection procedures were designed to ensure the highest level of security and 

privacy possible for handling employee contact information and survey responses. As noted 

above, CFI Group obtained support from GovDelivery to distribute invitations and reminders, 

CASO Document Management to manage distribution and collection of the paper surveys, and 

Qualtrics to host the online survey. The separation of responsibilities among these companies 

and CFI Group assured that Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and employee survey 

responses were compartmentalized, ensuring that employee contact information could not be 

linked to individual survey responses. Protocols specified procedures for the secure transfer and 

storage of contact information, secure distribution of surveys, and secure collection and storage 

of data. Each of these procedures are described in the sections below.

Secure transfer and storage of contact information – DOI uploaded sample files directly 

into the GovDelivery Communications Cloud one week before the official launch of the WES. 

Sample files contained email addresses for all active employees. A two-factor authentication 

process was used to load files securely in the GovDelivery Communications Cloud. Employee 

contact information was stored securely within the application, protected by redundant firewalls 

and highly specialized intrusion detection hardware.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

155 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Secure distribution of surveys – GovDelivery sent electronic invitations containing an 

authenticated, single-submission-web link to access the survey on CFI Group’s secure servers. 

Employees could choose to forward the survey invitation to their personal email address if they 

preferred to take the survey elsewhere. In total, five reminder emails containing the survey link 

were sent by GovDelivery during the fielding period to all individuals included in the sample 

file, regardless of whether they had completed the survey. A paper copy of the survey was made 

available to all employees upon request. CASO Document Management managed the 

distribution of paper surveys to employees who requested them.

Collection and storage of data – Employee responses to the survey were collected via the 

authenticated, single-submission web link. Authentication provided a means of encryption that 

ensured that the respondent was communicating directly with the survey website such that the 

contents of the communication could not be read or forged by a third party. Each survey link was 

valid for only one survey submission and was deactivated once the survey was submitted. Upon 

submission, completed surveys were downloaded into CFI Group’s data warehouse on a secure 

server. Paper surveys received from respondents were kept by CASO in a locked file, scanned 

for delivery to CFI Group, and shredded upon completion of data entry. At no point in the 

process was any of the contact information associated with the survey responses. 

In addition to the secure protocols described above, CFI Group also employed procedures 

to protect respondents’ data from indirect disclosure. The separation of the invitation, data 

collection process, and data analyses prevented any of the organizations supporting this work 

(i.e., NPS, DOI, GovDelivery, Qualtrics, CASO Document Management, and CFI Group) from 

linking contact information with individual survey responses. Contact information was held by 

GovDelivery and CASO Document Management, and never associated with the survey data 

collected via Qualtrics or by CFI Group. Further, CFI Group performed all the data analyses and 

never had access to any information that could be associated with any employee who provided 

survey responses with their identity. Any potentially identifying information resulting from the 

crossing of particular variables was suppressed to prevent any form of disclosure. Also, 

responses from potentially identifiable groups were suppressed if they failed to meet criteria for 

inclusion (see inclusion criteria described previously), and any group with fewer than 15 

members overall or fewer than five responding to a specific question were excluded from 

analyses to protect the anonymity of employees from small groups within the workforce.

C.3 Analytical Weighting Procedures

The WES was a census-based survey of the NPS workforce. While all employees were 

asked to participate in the survey, some were not available during the fielding period (e.g., on 

extended leave, hospitalized, unable to locate), some submitted incomplete surveys, others 

started but did not complete the survey, and some declined to participate at the outset. Because 

unweighted survey results are potentially subject to bias introduced by disproportionate numbers 

of respondents representing a specific group, the data were weighted to estimate results as 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

156 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

though all sampling units (employees) completed a survey, reflecting population estimates and 

reducing non-response bias. The resulting weighted dataset was used to derive population 

estimates and their corresponding margin of errors. 

Non-response adjustments and non-response weights were derived based on returned 

surveys (responses) to account for those who did not respond to the survey all together or did not 

respond to critical items in the survey. To reduce bias unaccounted for by the previous step, nonresponse weights were post-stratified or scaled up to match certain known population totals for 

select demographic characteristics (sex [2 levels], and age [6 levels]). 

Rules for presenting results were established at this stage based on the weighted number 

of responses in an analysis cell and size of the statistical error component. Small cell sizes and/or 

large standard errors of estimate can lead to unreliable or misleading results. Inspection of the 

data offered empirical evidence for setting criteria for minimum cell size and maximum 

acceptable error. If a result did not meet one or both criteria, it was marked as “Not Reportable” 

and masked. Specific rules for suppressing a result are discussed in Section C.4.2.

People in different sub-groups may respond in proportions that are not the same as the 

proportion of the sub-group in the population. For example, younger males with an associate’s 

degree may respond at a lower rate than older females with a college degree. Therefore, to avoid 

biasing results in favor of the sub-group that responded in higher proportions, weights were used 

to bring results in line with population proportions. Base weights took on a value of 1 since the 

survey was a census. The base weights were then adjusted for nonresponse in two steps. The 

nonresponse adjusted weights were then poststratified to known population totals to derive the 

final weights. The sections below describe procedures used to weight NPS data to include 

construction of the initial dataset to estimate nonrespondents and to construct the final dataset for 

weighting. Case dispositions codes and procedures used in the derivation of the nonresponse and 

poststratification adjustment factors are also described. The last section describes procedures to 

calculate final weights. 

C.3.1 Constructing Nonrespondents and Final Dataset for Weighting

To derive weighting adjustment factors and ultimately final weights, a dataset was 

created representing both respondents and nonrespondents. Because the survey was anonymous, 

only survey responses were available with no knowledge about nonrespondents in the returns 

dataset. Therefore, a dataset of nonrespondents was constructed for NPS. This dataset was

appended to the existing dataset of respondents to come up with a final dataset representing both 

respondents and nonrespondents used for weighting NPS survey data.

A nonrespondent dataset was constructed based on demographic information derived 

from administrative records available from the employee population. Only the selected 

demographic variables in the nonrespondents dataset were populated and all other variables

corresponding to the return dataset were left blank. Since it was anticipated that sex (2 levels: 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

157 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

male, female), age (6 levels: 25 years old or under, 26-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60 years old 

or older), race/ethnicity (2 levels: non-minority, minority), and education (4 levels: less than high 

school/high school/GED, trade/tech certificate/some college, AA/4-year college degree, and 

graduate degree) would influence survey responses, and since some of these variables did not 

have any missing information (e.g., sex and age) or a very small percentage of missing 

information (e.g., race/ethnicity and education) in the data file, these four variables were used to 

construct the nonrespondents portion of the dataset to weight for NPS. The administrative 

records for the sex and age variables were complete, however, the variables race/ethnicity and 

education had some missing values. To construct the nonrespondents dataset, the first step was to 

cross the four demographic variables (sex, age, race/ethnicity, and education) to calculate the 

number and percent of these characteristics within the population for each combination and 

corresponding levels within each of four variables (sub-group). 

The nonrespondents dataset construction started with the variable sex where the number 

and percent of males and females in the population were identified. The difference between the 

total number of males in the population and total number of males in the returns dataset 

represented the initial number of male nonrespondents. Similarly, the difference between the 

total number of females in the population and the total number of females in the returns dataset 

represented the initial number of female nonrespondents. Because not all respondents answered 

the gender question, the number of missing values for the sex variable was calculated, and then 

distributed over the two sex categories (male and female) based on the proportion of males and 

females in the population. This estimated number of missing values for males and females was 

then subtracted from the initial number of nonrespondents in each category to come up with the 

final number of nonrespondents based on the sex variable. This process was repeated for each of 

the remaining variables (age, race/ethnicity, and education) using the crossing procedure as a 

guideline for the number of records in each sub-group. Finally, each nonrespondents dataset was 

appended to the returns dataset to come up with a dataset representing respondents and 

nonrespondents.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

158 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

C.3.2 Case Disposition

Disposition codes were assigned to each case based on known and unknown eligibility 

and completion of survey responses. Each individual in the dataset was assigned to only one 

disposition group for weighting purposes. Nine mutually exclusive disposition code groups were 

identified (see Table C.3 below). Information about case dispositions was obtained from Survey 

Control System (SCS) and from survey returns. Case disposition codes are defined below.

Table C.3 Case Disposition Codes Used for Weighting

Case

disposition code

(CASE_DC)

Condition Eligibility status Source Comment

1 – Record ineligible Sample member/record 

became ineligible for any 

reason 

4 – Ineligible - Any AR Not Applicable

2 – Eligible – Complete 

Response

Return satisfies the 

completion criteria defined 

below 

1 – Respondent SCS Created to flag 

Complete 

Response 

3 – Eligible – Incomplete 

Response- Partial 

Response

Return not blank and 

satisfies the partial 

incomplete criteria defined 

below 

2 – Nonrespondent -

Known eligibility 

SCS Created to flag 

Incomplete 

Response 

4 - Eligible Incomplete –

Break Offs

Return is not blank and 

satisfies the Break Off 

criteria defined below 

2 – Nonrespondent -

Known eligibility

SCS Created to flag 

Break Offs

5 – Refusal Refused to respond for any 

reason

2 – Nonrespondent -

Unknown eligibility

SCS Not Applicable

6 – Blank Returned blank survey 3 – Nonrespondent -

Unknown eligibility

SCS Created to flag 

Blank Responses. 

7 - Eligible NonInterview 

(Nonrespondent)

Employees accessed the 

survey but did not submit 

questionnaire 

3 – Nonrespondent –

Known Eligibility 

Not used for 

weighting but used 

as part of 

CASE_DC = 9

8 – PND Postal non-deliverable, nonlocatable, email bounce 3 – Nonrespondent -

Unknown eligibility

SCS Not Applicable 

9 – Nonrespondent Nonresponse 3 – Nonrespondent -

Unknown eligibility

SCS/AR Based on 

completed/near 

completed

variables in 

population

Note. AR = Administrative Record. SCS = Survey Control System
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

159 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Eligibility. All NPS employees in the administrative files as of December 10, 2016, with 

email address and/or postal address were considered eligible for the survey. The total number of 

eligible employees in the NPS study population was 18,550.

Complete Eligible Response. Survey responses were considered as complete eligible 

responses (CASE_DC = 2) if respondents answered the gender question (see item 60 in the 

survey instrument) and answered at least one item within the sexual harassment questions (see 

item 25a-q in the survey instrument) and at least 50% of items measuring job satisfaction and job 

engagement (see items 3a-j and 4a-i, respectively, in survey instrument); commitment to the 

work unit (see items 5a-f in survey instrument); political dynamics trust within the work unit (see 

items 6a-g and 7a-g, respectively in survey instrument); supervisor support (see items 8a-d in 

survey instrument); inclusion within the work unit (see items 9a-e in survey instrument); general 

intolerance of harassment (see items 51a-k in survey instrument); leadership intolerance of 

harassment (see items 52b-d in survey instrument); and bystander harassment (see items 53a-f in 

survey instrument).

Eligible Incomplete – Partial Response. Responses were considered incomplete partial 

responses (CASE_DC = 3) if respondents responded to the gender identity question but did not 

answer at least one item in sexual harassment questions (see item 25a-q in the survey 

instrument); or did not satisfy the 50% condition; or did not respond to at least one item in the 

sexual harassment questions (see item 25a-q in the survey instrument) and did not satisfy the 

50% condition; or employees did not respond to the gender identity question (see item 60 in the 

survey instrument) but satisfied the 50% and (see item 25a-q in the survey instrument)

conditions.

Eligible Incomplete Response – Break Off. Responses were considered a Break Off 

(CASE_DC = 4) if respondents did not answer the gender identity question (see item 60 in the 

survey instrument) and did not satisfy the 50% criterion, but answered at least one of the 

remaining questions; or did not answer the gender identity question (see item 60 in the survey 

instrument) and did not satisfy the criterion for the sexual harassment question (see item 25a-q in 

the survey instrument), but answered at least one of the remaining questions; or did not answer 

the gender question and did not satisfy both the sexual harassment question (see item 25a-q in 

the survey instrument) or the 50% criteria for the remaining questions, but answered at least one 

of the remaining questions.

Blank Survey. Surveys submitted, but no questions were answered (CASE_DC = 6). 

Eligible Non-Interview (Nonrespondents with known eligibility). Employees who 

accessed the survey but did not submit the questionnaire were considered nonrespondents with 

known eligibility and classified as (CASE_DC = 7). This disposition group includes not 

submitted complete responses, incomplete-partial responses, break offs, blanks, and others. 

Eligible Non-Interviews were not used in weighting as a separate category at any stage; they 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

160 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

were only used in calculating the contact rate. For weighting purposes, they were part of 

CASE_DC = 9 and hence all disposition codes for weighting were mutually exclusive.

Nonrespondents. Employees who did not respond to the survey were classified as 

nonrespondents (CASE_DC = 9). Also, respondents who submitted questionnaires that had no 

response variance among categories 1, 2, 4, and 5 in a block of questions containing reverse 

coded sub-items (see items 6a-g, 7a-g, 8a-g, and 51a-k in the survey instrument) were treated as 

nonrespondents. The block of questions included reverse coded items within the measures of 

political dynamics and trust within the work unit (see items 6a and 6b, and 7a, 7b, 7e, and 7g, 

respectively in the survey instrument); supervisor support (see item 8d in the survey instrument); 

and general intolerance for harassment (see items 51a, 51b, 51f, and 51g in the survey 

instrument).

Case disposition totals for the WES survey are shown in Table C.4 below.

Table C.4 NPS Case Disposition Counts

Case disposition category (CASE_DC) Count

1 Record ineligible 0

2 Eligible - Complete Response 9,156

3 Eligible - Incomplete Response - Partial Response 215

4 Eligible - Incomplete Response - Break Offs 19

5 Refusal 0

6 Blank 2

7 Eligible Non-Interview (Nonrespondent) 1,028

8 PND 0

9 Nonrespondent 8,130

Total 18,550

C.3.3 Nonresponse Adjustments and Weights

Sampling or base weights were defined as the inverse of selection probabilities. However, 

since WES was a census, sampling weights took on a value of 1. Nonresponse adjustments were 

derived in two steps. First, sampling weights for cases with known eligibility (CASE _DC = 2, 3, 

4) were adjusted to account for cases with unknown eligibility (CASE _DC = 1, 5, 6, 8, 9). This 

is equivalent to adjusting for units’ nonresponse, the outcome of this step is the unit nonresponse 

adjusted weights. Second, units’ nonresponse adjusted weights derived in the previous step were 

adjusted for complete eligible respondents (CASE_DC = 2) to account for those who submitted 

incomplete surveys (CASE _DC = 3, 4). This is equivalent to item nonresponse. These two steps 

allowed us to estimate the nonresponse weights.

Both unit and item nonresponse adjustment factors were model-based adjustments. They 

were derived from a logistic regression model as the inverse of logistic regression model 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

161 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

predicted probabilities. The dependent variable for the unit nonresponse logistic regression 

model was a binary variable representing the response to the survey, where 1 represented 

respondents (CASE _DC = 2, 3, 4) and 0 represented nonrespondents (CASE _DC = 1, 5, 6, 8, 

9). The dependent variable for the item nonresponse logistic regression model was a binary 

variable, where 1 represented respondents who completed the survey (CASE _DC = 2) and 0 

represented respondents who did not complete the survey (CASE _DC = 3, 4).

The choice of best predictors (independent variables) for each logistic regression model 

was derived using Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID). To derive best 

predictors for the unit nonresponse logistic model, a CHAID model was used where the 

dependent variable was a binary variable representing respondents versus nonrespondents and 

the independent variables were the four demographic categorical variables from the population: 

sex (2 levels), age (6 levels), race/ethnicity (2 levels), and education (4 levels). The final 

resulting nodes from the CHAID model where each node represented a combination of levels of 

some or all of the independent demographic variables were then used as a set of independent 

variables in the unit nonresponse logistic regression model. The unit nonresponse adjustment 

factors were then derived as the inverse of the logistic model predicted probabilities. The unit 

nonresponse weights were computed as the product of sampling weights by the unit nonresponse 

adjustments.

Similarly, survey completion or equivalently item nonresponse adjustment factors were 

derived using the CHAID model with the binary dependent variable representing completed 

versus incomplete surveys and the four demographic categorical independent variables. The 

resulting nodes from CHAID were then used as a set of independent variables in the item 

nonresponse logistic regression model. Item nonresponse adjustment factors were computed as 

the inverse of model predicted probabilities. The final nonresponse weights were derived by 

multiplying item nonresponse adjustment factors by the unit nonresponse weights derived in the 

previous step. 

C.3.4 Final Weights Derivations

Nonresponse weights were poststratified (adjusted) to match known population totals. 

The two most complete demographic variables from the administrative records (population, sex 

[2 levels] and age [6 levels]), were used to construct the poststratification cells. Thus, 12 

poststratification cells were constructed. The poststratification adjustment factors were derived 

as the total of each poststratification cell divided by the sum of weighted complete responses 

corresponding to each cell. Final weights were derived as the product of poststratification 

adjustment factors by the nonresponse adjusted weights (completion weights).

It should be noted that there were 69 individuals who responded to the gender question 

and submitted complete surveys, but did not classify themselves as males or females. They either 

identified themselves as a “Transgender” or they “Did not want to identify themselves as male, 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

162 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

female, or transgender.” In addition, there were 33 respondents who submitted complete surveys 

and identified themselves as males or females in answering the gender question, but did not 

answer the age question (19 males with missing age, and 14 females with missing age). These 

responses were obviously not part of the 12 poststratification cells and there is no corresponding 

representation in the population for the 69 responses since the actual number of transgender is 

unknown and it is also unknown where those who did not want to identify their orientation really 

belong in the population. However, these respondents were still taken into consideration and 

their complete responses were used in the analysis as appropriate. Accordingly, the final weights 

for males and females came from the 12 poststratification cells plus the 33 respondents who 

submitted complete surveys and identified themselves as males or females resulting in a total 

final weight for the sex variable of 18,484. Similarly, the final weights for age came from the 12 

poststratification cells plus the 69 who did not classify themselves as males or females resulting 

in a total final weight for the age variable of 18,516.

Sampling weights, the nonresponse adjustment factor, the poststratification adjustment 

factors, the nonresponse adjusted weights, and the final weight along with statistical measures 

for the WES survey are shown in Table C.5 below. Final weights range between 0.88 and 39.05 

with an average of 2.03.

Table C.5 NPS Adjustment Factors and Weights

Statistic Sampling 

Weight

Unit Nonresponse 

Adjustment Factor

Item Nonresponse 

Adjustment 

Factor

Nonresponse 

Adjusted 

Weight

Post 

Stratification 

Factor

Final 

Weight

Count 18,550 9,390 9,156 9,156 9,156 9,156

Minimum 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.06 0.21 0.88

Maximum 1.00 20.91 1.05 21.86 2.06 39.05

Mean 1.00 2.05 1.03 2.06 0.99 2.03

Standard 

Deviation 0.00 3.00 0.02 3.07 0.18 3.04

Sum 18,550 19,283 9,390 18,887 9,026 18,553

CV 0.00 1.46 0.02 1.49 0.18 1.50

C.4 Analytical Approach

C.4.1 Structural and Psychometric Analyses

Upon completion of data processing procedures, data were analyzed to examine the 

structural and psychometric properties of multi-item scales included in the WES. Principal-axis 

factor analyses (PAF), with an oblique rotation, were performed to examine the structural 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

163 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

relations among items within each of the multi-item scales using SPSS Version 24. An oblique 

rotation was chosen because it seemed likely the factors would be correlated. Factors were 

identified on the basis of Kaiser's rule of eigenvalue > 1 (Kaiser, 1960) and confirmed by 

examination of a scree plot (Cattell, 1966). A factor was retained if its eigenvalue was greater 

than unity (Kaiser, 1960) and verified by the scree plot (Cattell, 1966). Psychometric analyses 

were performed to examine reliability and validity of each of the multi-items scales. Internal 

consistency analyses were performed to estimate reliability of each of the multi-item scales and 

to validate results of factor analytic tests. Validity analyses examine associations among scale 

scores for different constructs and yielded evidence of the convergent and predictive validity of 

constructs included in the WES. Results of these analyses informed the calculation of scale 

scores used to estimate rates of harassment and/or assault behaviors assessed in the WES. 

Results of these analyses are presented separately within the section describing measures 

included in the WES.

C.4.2 Descriptive and Inferential Analyses

Upon completion of structural and psychometric analyses, descriptive and inferential 

analyses were also performed that were designed to meet the project objectives outlined in the 

statement of work: (1) provide substantive evidence that can inform the design of effective 

responses and justify resource allocation; (2) educate workforce leadership and employees on the 

extent, severity, and consequences of the problem; (3) identify the context, character, and causes 

for harassment to occur and/or be tolerated within the organization; (4) provide a baseline for 

monitoring progress and effectiveness of specific interventions. Specific research questions 

examined included:

• What is the character of harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced?

• What contextual factors influence specific behaviors or sets of experiences?

• What demographic, occupational, and organizational factors were correlated with 

harassing and/or assault behaviors experienced?

• What job-related consequences were associated with harassing and/or assault behaviors 

experienced?

• What additional findings were uncovered with regard to harassment and/or assault 

experiences?

Descriptive and inferential analyses were designed to answer specific research questions 

that aligned with the project objectives. Descriptive statistics including counts, percentages, 

means, and standard deviations for characteristics of respondents and for all constructs included 

in the WES. Descriptive statistics for multi-item scales were examined in relation to key 

demographic and occupational characteristics (e.g., sex, race/ethnicity, age, pay grade, 

employment status) for specific results. Appropriate statistical significance tests were performed 

to assess whether significant differences between groups existed by conducting t-tests or 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

164 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Logits transformation was employed to account for the 

asymmetric distribution of proportions when making inferences about proportions.

In addition to tests of statistical significance between groups, a rule was adopted to guard 

against over-interpretation of small, yet statistically significant results. Because the analytical 

cell sizes in this study were often large, even small differences tended to be statistically 

significant, but not necessary meaningful when interpreting results. Therefore, the report flags 

differences that are not just statistically significant, but also represent a change of at least 30% 

from the overall result. In other words, when breakdown groups are being compared, the 

difference in percentages or means were only flagged for discussion if the difference between 

two groups was statistically significantly different and of a magnitude of at least 30% of the 

overall result. For example, if an overall result were reported as 40%, the absolute difference 

between two breakdown groups had to exceed 12 percentage points to be reported (30% of 40% 

equals 12). In this way, the reader knows that a difference between groups represents a 

meaningful difference and is not just an artifact of large numbers of people represented in the 

finding. Likewise, the report presents the number of people represented in breakdowns to help 

interpret differences that are statistically significant and larger than 30% of the overall mean, but 

might only apply to a small number of people. The goal of these rules is to aid the reader in 

making proper interpretations of the data based on meaningful differences.

Regression analyses were also performed to examine association among variables in the 

WES. To examine how various demographic, occupational, and organizational factors 

(independent variables) were associated to employees’ harassment and/or assault behaviors 

experienced, logistic regression analyses were performed, employing likelihood ratio estimation 

procedures. These analyses provided information about the unique associations between each 

independent variable (i.e., demographic, occupational, and organizational factors) and the 

dependent variable (i.e., harassment experienced), while controlling for the potential influence of 

every other variable included in the models examined. Results include the unstandardized beta 

(B), standard error of the unstandardized beta (S.E. B), Wald statistic and associated probability 

value (p-value), Odds Ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), model log likelihood 

statistic, and the model if the particular variables are removed (i.e., Change in -2 Log 

Likelihood) for each of the logistic regression models examined. Logistic regression is used to 

predict the probability of the occurrence of an event, which by definition is constrained to be 

between 0 and 1. Odds ratios can range from 0.00 to infinity, with 1.00 as the point at which the 

odds are considered equal (that is, the variable has no effect on harassment and/or assault 

experienced). In a logistic regression, an odds ratio greater than 1.00 means the independent 

variable is associated with the dependent variable; the larger the odds ratio, the stronger the 

association. For interpreting results of the logistic regression analyses, an absolute value for 

Change in -2 Log Likelihood was set at ≥ 100 for specific variables to have significant and 

meaningful associations with the dependent variables. To determine differences among 

significant variables emerging from the logistic regression analyses, we inspected means and 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

165 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

percentages for employees who experienced harassment and those who did not. The order of 

those difference is determined by how those variables are coded:

42

• Age – 6 age groups coded 1=25 or under, 2=26-29, 3=30-39, 4=40-49, 5=50-59, 6=60 or 

older 

• Sex – coded 1=women, 0=men 

• Education level – coded 1=no college, 0=college 

• Race/ethnicity – coded 1=minority, 0=non-minority 

• Relationship status – coded 1=single/separated/widowed/divorced, 0=partnered/married 

• Pay grade – 4 pay grade groups coded 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high, 4=executive 

• Years of service – 7 tenure groups coded 1=less than 1 year, 2=1 to 3 years, 3=4 to 5 

years, 4=6 to 10 years, 5=11 to 14 years, 6=15 to 20 years, 7=more than 20 years 

• Appointment type – coded 1=temp/term, 0=permanent 

• Work schedule – coded 1=seasonal, 0=non-seasonal

• Supervisor support – a continuous variable with higher values indicating more support

• Organizational trust – a continuous variable with higher values indicating more trust

• Organizational politics – a continuous variable with higher more pressure to conform to 

organizational norms

• Organizational inclusion – a continuous variable with higher values indicating more 

inclusion

• Bystander harassment – coded 1=witnessed harassment against others, 0=did not witness 

harassment against others 

• General intolerance for harassment – a continuous variable with higher values indicating 

more intolerance of harassment

• Leadership intolerance for harassment – a continuous variable with higher values 

indicating more intolerance of harassment among leaders

• Gender context – coded 1=mostly women, 3=mostly men

To examine associations between harassment and/or assault behaviors experienced and 

rating of job satisfaction, job engagement and organizational commitment, linear regression 

analyses were performed, employing maximum likelihood estimation procedures. These analyses 

provided information about the unique associations between each independent variable (i.e., 

harassment experienced) and the dependent variable (i.e., job satisfaction, job engagement, and 

organizational commitment), while simultaneously controlling for the potential influence of 

every other variable included in the models examined. Results include the unstandardized beta 

(B), standard error of the unstandardized beta (S.E. B), t-statistic and associated probability value 

(p-value), standardized beta (B) 95% confidence interval (95% CI), zero-order correlation (r), 

partial correlation (partial r), and the semi-partial correlation coefficient (semi-partial r) for each 

of the regression models examined. In a linear regression, a standardized beta coefficient can 

 

42 See additional description of each variable in Section C.5.2.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

166 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

range from -1 to +1, with negative values indicating an inverse association among variables, and 

positive values indicating a parallel association among variables; the larger the beta coefficient 

the stronger the associations among variables in the model.

Statistically significant differences among groups or associations among variables were 

annotated within respective tables and figures throughout the report and were fully documented 

in a Supplemental Statistical Report. For all statistical significance testing, probability values 

were set a p <.05, meaning that in 95% of such comparisons the differences were of a magnitude 

such that they represent true differences in attitudes, perceptions and behaviors and are not likely 

to be due to chance. In some instances, results were not reported because the estimates were not 

stable due to low reliability or because they met criteria for suppression. A result was suppressed 

if it met any of the following criteria: fewer than five cases in the numerator (weighted values), 

fewer than 15 cases in the denominator (weighted values), and/or the relative standard error 

(RSE) for a mean where RSE > 50% of the estimate or for a proportion where RSE[-ln(p)] > 

0.225 for p <= 0.5 and RSE[-ln(1-p)] > 0.225 for p > 0.5.43 Any result that met either criteria was 

suppressed within a respective table and denoted as “NR” to indicate the result “Not 

Reportable.” In these cases, the results were deemed unstable and potentially misleading, so they 

are not presented.

Before any of the analyses described above were conducted, the data were inspected to 

verify if there were violations of normality or homogeneity of variance that would invalidate a 

procedure. These inspections were in addition to the data preparation steps described in Section 

C.2 previously. In no cases were outliers or distribution anomalies detected that caused concern 

for the tests of significance or regression analyses performed. For the regression analyses 

described above, analyses were not conducted if the dependent variable did not exceed the 

suppression rules. An additional check was made to identify situations where missing data in one 

or more of the independent variables could have caused the dependent variable to fall below the 

suppression criteria for that specific analysis.

C.5 Description of Measures

Electronic and paper versions of the WES included a cover letter describing the general 

purpose of the study, addressing confidentiality safeguards, and instructions directing employees 

who agreed to take part in the survey to complete and submit the survey via postal mail or 

electronically via a secure link. Below, are descriptions of each of the single and multi-item 

measures that were included in the WES. For ease of reading, the description of measures is 

presented as follows: harassment and assault behaviors; demographic, occupational, and 

 

43 Numerator denotes the number of individuals who selected a particular option within a question. Denominator 

denotes the number of individuals who responded to the question itself. Hence, there had to be at least five people 

who selected a particular response option and at least 15 people who answering the question.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

167 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

organizational factors; job-related outcomes; other factors associated with specific behaviors or 

sets of experiences with harassment and/or assault behaviors. 

C.5.1 Harassment and Assault Related Behaviors

Harassment based on age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, disability status or 

condition, and sexual orientation. A standard set of seven behavioral items adapted from Estrada 

and Laurence (2011) were used to assess harassing and/or assault experiences based on age, 

racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, disability status or condition, and sexual orientation

(e.g., negative comments, offensive jokes, exclusionary or discriminatory behavior, physical 

threats or assault behaviors). 

Instructions asked employees to indicate how often they experienced any of seven 

behaviors from someone at work in the past 12 months using a 6-point response scale that ranged 

from never (1), once (2), once a month or less (3), two to three times a month (4), once a week or 

more (5), to one or more times a day (6).

44 This approach avoids confounding of terms that could 

occur if survey participants were asked if they had experienced, for example, “sexual 

harassment.” Harassment scores were computed by averaging across items within each type of 

harassment and counting employees who answered in the affirmative (i.e., selected any option 

from once to one or more times a day) for each type of harassing and/or assault experience 

occurring one or more times – i.e., higher percentages indicating more employees experienced 

harassing behaviors.

Gender Related Harassing Behaviors. Four items from the Sexual Experiences 

Questionnaire developed for the US Department of Defense ([SEQ-DoD]; Fitzgerald, Magley, 

Drasgow, & Waldo, 1999; Stark, Chernyshenko, Lancaster, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2002) were 

used to assess employees’ experiences with gender related harassing behaviors (e.g., “put you 

down or was condescending to you because of your sex?”). Instructions asked employees to 

indicate how often they experienced any of four behaviors from someone at work in the past 12 

months using a 6-point response scale that ranged from never (1), once (2), once a month or less

(3), two to three times a month (4), once a week or more (5), to one or more times a day (6). 

Gender harassment scores were computed by averaging across items and counting employees

who answered in the affirmative (i.e., selected any option from once to one or more times a day) 

 

44 The measures of harassment and assault related behaviors were framed for any behavioral experiences within the 

past 12 months as of the data of the survey. This time frame was chosen to facilitate recall of behavioral experiences 

and not confound recall with recency/latency memory effect. Additionally, the 12-month time frame establishes a 

baseline of experiences for future comparisons (i.e., trending) that avoids compounding of the same experiences 

year after year (leading to inflated experience rates when the same behaviors are counted in subsequent years). 

While the 12-month time frame anchors the behavioral experiences, the research team also want to allow employees 

to indicate if they had experienced harassing and/or assault behaviors prior to the past 12 months. The following 

discussion first addresses calculation of experience rates in the past 12 months followed by calculations of 

experience rates prior to the past 12 months. Note that experience rates and other statistics are presented at the scale 

level and results for each item comprising a scale are not presented. It is not appropriate to draw conclusions from 

individual items that comprise a scale.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

168 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

as having experienced gender harassment one or more times – i.e., higher percentages indicating 

more employees experienced harassing behaviors.

Sexual Harassment Behaviors. Twelve items from the SEQ-DoD (Fitzgerald et al., 1999; 

Stark et al., 2002) were used to assess three general categories of sexually harassing behaviors,

including crude or offensive behaviors (e.g., “repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were 

offensive to you?”), unwanted sexual attention (e.g., “made unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle 

or kiss you?”), and sexual coercion (e.g., “treated you badly for refusing to have sex?”). Sexual 

coercion is also known as quid pro quo. Instructions asked employees to indicate how often they 

experienced any of the twelve behaviors from someone at work in the past 12 months using a 6-

point response scale that ranged from never (1) once (2), once a month or less (3), two to three 

times a month (4), once a week or more (5), to one or more times a day (6). Sexual harassment 

scores were calculated by averaging across items within each type of harassment and counting 

employees who answered in the affirmative (i.e., selected any option from once to one or more 

times a day) and indicated some or all of the behaviors experienced were sexual harassment. 

Scores were computed separately for any form of sexually harassing behavior, and for each subtype of sexually harassing behavior (i.e., crude or offensive behaviors, unwanted sexual 

attention, and sexual coercion) occurring one or more times – i.e., higher percentages indicating 

more employees experienced sexually harassing behaviors.

Sexual Assault Related Behaviors. Modified items from the SEQ-DoD (Fitzgerald et al., 

1999) were used to assess employees’ experiences with sexual assault related behaviors (sexual 

touching – i.e., intentional touching of genitalia, breasts, or buttocks; attempted and/or completed 

sexual intercourse – i.e., vaginal, oral, or anal sex, or penetration by a finger or object). 

Instructions asked employees to indicate how often they experienced intentional sexual contacts 

that were against their will or which occurred when they did not or could not consent from 

someone at work in the past 12 months. Items used a 6-point response scale ranging from never 

(1), once (2), once a month or less (3), two to three times a month (4), once a week or more (5),

to one or more times a day (6). Sexual assault related behavior scores were computed by 

averaging across items and counting employees who answered in the affirmative (i.e., selected 

any option from once to one or more times a day) as having experienced any sexual assault 

related behavior one or more times. Scores were computed for any form of sexual assault related 

behavior, and separately for each sub-type of sexual assault related behavior (i.e., sexual 

touching; attempted sexual behaviors with or without sexual touching and completed sexual 

behaviors with or without touching and with or without attempted sex) occurring one or more 

times (i.e., higher percentages indicating more employees experienced sexual assault related 

behaviors).

45

 

45 In many instances of sexual assault related behaviors, people experience a combination of behaviors. For 

example, someone who marked in the survey that they experienced “Made you have sexual intercourse” once or 

more might have also marked once or more to “Sexually touched you.” Rather than attempt to provide experience 

rates for every possible combination of behaviors, responses were coded to create three mutually exclusive 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

169 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Experiences Prior to the Past 12 Months. We included a single item asking respondents 

to indicate if they had experienced any the harassing and/or assault behaviors before the past 12 

months using a yes-no response format for harassment based on age, race/ethnicity, religious 

beliefs, disability status, and sexual orientation. Each item was placed immediately after the 

respective harassment form it was meant to assess in order to ensure that respondents would have 

the proper framing to consider and respond to the content of the item.46 For sexual harassing 

behaviors, employees were also asked if they considered any of the behaviors to be sexual 

harassment. Experience rates were calculated for each form of harassment and sexual assault 

related behaviors based on an affirmative response to any of these follow-on questions. 

Experience rates were not calculated for gender harassment or any of the three subcomponents of 

sexual harassment in order to balance the length of the survey. To measure each of these would 

have required repetition of the individual behaviors specific to gender harassment and the 

subcomponents of sexual harassment, thus adding considerable length to the survey.

C.5.2 Individual and Occupational Factors

 

categories: unwanted sexual touching (this includes only those respondents who marked once or more to intentional 

touching of genitalia, breasts, or buttocks), attempted sex (this includes those respondents who marked once or more 

to an attempt to make someone have sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or object 

regardless of whether they also experienced unwanted sexual touching), and completed sex (this includes those 

respondents who marked once or more to making someone have sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration 

by a finger or object regardless of whether they also experienced unwanted sexual touching or attempted sex). 

Specifically, responses were coded as unwanted sexual touching (single category) if the respondents indicated 

experiencing sexual touching without identifying an attempted or completed sexual behavior. Responses were 

coded as experiencing attempted sex (with or without unwanted touching) if the respondents indicated experiencing 

attempted sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or object, regardless of whether they also 

experienced unwanted sexual touching, but without an experience of completed sex. Responses were coded as 

experiencing completed sex (with or without unwanted touching and/or attempted sex) if the respondents indicated 

experiencing a behavior associated with completed sex, regardless of whether they also indicated experiencing 

unwanted sexual touching or attempted sex. The results then show the percentage of employees who experienced 

any of the unwanted sexual touching behaviors only, any of the attempted sex behaviors excluding unwanted sexual 

touching, and any of the completed sex behaviors excluding unwanted sexual touching and attempted sex. 

46 Note that single lifetime estimates of the percent who experienced each form of harassing and/or assault behaviors 

were not created by combining responses obtained from the multi-item scales and the single-item question. The 

single-item measures of experiences prior to the past 12 months did not employ a behavioral experience method and 

are neither parallel nor equivalent in content or format. The response alternatives employed were also distinct from 

one another. Therefore, the use of different response alternatives makes it difficult to justify the aggregation of these 

items into a single overall lifetime estimated prevalence rate. The number of items and the response alternatives 

used to render a judgement are not parallel or equivalent, making it scientifically indefensible to combine responses 

into a single score. For the same reasons, caution should be exercised in attempting to draw inferences about trends 

between rates of experience in the past 12 months and rates of experiences prior to the past 12 months. The 

measures are not comparable. The measures of experiences prior to the past 12 months were included to give 

respondents an opportunity to share all experiences they have had and to give a general understanding if harassing 

behaviors are pervasive over time. The measures of experiences prior to the past 12 months were not intended to be 

used for trend analyses. Future surveys of this population will use the same questions with a past 12-month time 

frame allowing for precise trend comparisons. As noted earlier, using a 12-month time frame in future surveys will 

also avoid double counting of experiences going forward, with only the most recent experiences being assessed and 

not the same ones captured in previous surveys.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

170 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Age. An item from the FEVS (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2016) was used to 

measure employees’ age. Employees were asked to select their age-grouping using options that 

included 25 or under; 26-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59; and 60 or older. Two analytical variables 

were created based on responses to this item. A dichotomous variable was created by collapsing 

age groupings into 39 and younger vs. 40 and older based on the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967. A trichotomous variable was created by combining age groupings into 

young (25 or under; 26-29; 30-39), middle-aged (40-49) and older (50-59; 60 or older). The 

original, dichotomous, or trichotomous forms of the variable were scored so that higher scores 

always indicated greater age.

Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Two items adapted from Estrada (2011) 

were used to measure employees’ sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The first item 

asked employees to self-identify as female, male, transgender, or I do not identify as male, 

female, or transgender, with individuals self-identifying as transgender receiving a follow-up 

item to indicate if they were transgender – male-to-female, transgender – female-to-male, 

gender non-conforming, unsure, or I prefer not to say. The second item asked employees to selfidentify as heterosexual or straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, other (e.g., questioning, asexual, 

undecided, self-identified, or intersex), or I prefer not to say. Based on responses to these items, 

analytical variables were created for sex (male vs. female), gender identity (male, female, 

transgender), sexual minority status (heterosexual vs. sexual minority), and sexual orientation

(heterosexual or straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, other, and I prefer not to say).

Racial/Ethnic Background. Two items from the FEVS (U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 2016) were used to measure employees’ racial/ethnic background. Employees 

indicated whether they were Hispanic or Latino using a yes-no response format. Employees also 

indicated their racial background using options that included American Indian or Alaskan Native; 

Asian; Black/African-American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; White; or Two or 

more races. Based on responses to these items, analytical variables were created for ethnic 

minority status (Non-Minority [Non-Hispanic White] vs. Minority) and racial/ethnic background

(American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Black/African-American; Hispanic; Native 

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; Non-Hispanic White; or Multi-racial).

Relationship Status. An item taken from Estrada (2011) was used to measure employees’ 

relationship status. Employees indicated their current marital status using options that included 

single, partnered, married, separated, divorced, or widowed. For analytical purposes, the 

original and a trichotomous form of the variable were used, which combined marital status 

responses into single, partnered/married, or separated/divorced/widowed.

Pay grade. An item was adapted from the FEVS (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

2016) to measure employees’ pay plan and grade. Employees identified their pay grade using 

one of nine categories that included Wage Grade (WG 1-16), General Schedule (GS 1-15), and 

Senior Grade (Senior Level, Scientific Professional, Senior Executive Service). For analytical 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

171 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

purposes, the original form of the variable and a categorical form of the variable were used, 

which combined pay grades as follows: Junior Grade (WG 1-4; GS 1-6), Middle Grade (WG 5-

16; GS 7-10), Senior Grade (GS 11-15) and Executive Grade (Senior Level, Scientific 

Professional, Senior Executive Service). All versions of this variable were scored so that higher 

scores always indicated higher grade.

Tenure with Organization. An item from the FEVS (U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 2016) was used to measure employees’ tenure with the organization. Employees 

were asked to identify their tenure level using one of the options that included less than 1 year, 1 

to 3 years, 4 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 20 years, and more than 20 years. 

This item was scored so that higher scores were indicative of longer tenure with the organization.

Employment Status. Employees were asked to indicate their current employment 

classification using options that included permanent (an employee hired without time 

limitations), term (appointment of no less than one year but not to exceed four years), and 

temporary (appointment of less than one year). Employees were also asked to indicate their work 

schedule using options that included seasonal (work schedule that is less than 12 months and 

may be recurring), and non-seasonal. Based on responses to these items, analytical variables 

were created for appointment type (permanent, term, temporary), work schedule (seasonal vs. 

non-seasonal) and combined (permanent-seasonal, permanent-non-seasonal, term, temporaryseasonal, and temporary-non-seasonal).

Type of Work Unit. Employees were asked to indicate their work location using options 

that included National Park Service Headquarters Office (WASO); regional office; and park or 

other location.

C.5.3 Organizational Factors

This section describes measurement and calculation of the organizational factors used as 

predictors of workplace harassment. Each factor is measured using an established multi-item 

scale. Note that composite scores and other statistics are presented at the scale level and results 

for each item comprising a scale are not presented. It is not appropriate to draw conclusions from 

individual items that comprise a scale.

Supervisor Support. Four items from Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, 

Sucharski, and Rhoades (2002) were used to measure perceived supervisor support (e.g., “The 

supervisor of your work unit cares about your opinions”). Items were rated on a five-point 

response scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Examination of the 

inter-item correlation matrix indicated items were positively correlated, ranging from .81 to .85 

(mean inter-item correlation = .83). Results of principal axis factor analysis yielded a single 

factor solution, with item loadings ranging from .89 to .92. Eigenvalue statistics (Kaiser, 1960) 

and the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation – eigenvalue for the factor 

was 3.49 (accounting for 87.39% of the common variance); a single factor was also evident in 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

172 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

the scree plot. Composite scores were computed based on these results by averaging across 

items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived supervisor support. Cronbach 

(1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .95.

Organizational Trust. Six items from Cummings and Bromiley (1996) were used to 

measure perceived trust in the work unit (e.g., “I feel my work unit will keep its word”). Items 

were rated on a five-point response scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree

(5). Examination of the inter-item correlation matrix indicated all of the items were positively 

correlated, ranging from .50 to .79 (mean inter-item correlation = .60). Results of principal axis 

factor analysis yielded a single factor solution, with item loadings ranging from .65 to .87. 

Eigenvalue statistics (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further supported this 

interpretation – eigenvalue for the factor was 4.05 (accounting for 67.52% of the common 

variance); a single factor was also evident in the scree plot. Composite scores were computed 

based on these results by averaging across items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of 

perceived trust in the work unit. Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .90.

Organizational Politics. Seven items from Kacmar and Carlson (1997) were used to 

measure perceived pressure to conform to organizational norms (e.g., “Agreeing with powerful 

others is the best alternative in my work unit”). Items were rated on a five-point response scale 

that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Initial examination of the inter-item 

correlation matrix indicated all of the items were positively correlated, ranging from .30 to .69 

(mean inter-item correlation = .49). Results of principal axis factor analysis yielded a single 

factor solution, with item loadings ranging from .60 to .85. Eigenvalue statistics (Kaiser, 1960) 

and the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation – eigenvalue for the factor 

was 3.96 (accounting for 56.65% of the common variance); a single factor was also evident in 

the scree plot. Composite scores were computed based on these results by averaging across 

items, with higher scores indicating greater pressure to conform to organizational norms (going 

along to get along). Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .87.

Organizational Inclusion. Five items from Estrada, Harbke and Severt (2016) were used 

to measure perceived inclusion within the work unit (e.g., “Members of my work unit value each 

other's perspective and contribution”). Items were rated on a five-point response scale that 

ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Examination of the inter-item correlation 

matrix indicated all of the items were positively correlated, ranging from .74 to .87 (mean interitem correlation = .80). Results of principal axis factor analysis yielded a single factor solution, 

with item loadings ranging from .87 to .92. Eigenvalue statistics (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree plot 

(Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation – eigenvalue for the factor was 4.23 

(accounting for 84.60% of the common variance); a single factor was also evident in the scree 

plot. Composite scores were computed based on these results by averaging across items, with 

higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived inclusion within the work unit. Cronbach 

(1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .95.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

173 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Bystander Harassment Experiences. Six items adapted from Estrada and Laurence (2011) 

were used to assess bystander harassment experiences. Instructions asked employees to indicate 

how often they witnessed a situation where another employee was harassed or discriminated 

based on their age, racial/ethnic background, religious beliefs, disability status or condition, and 

sex/gender in the past 12 months. Items were rated on a six-point response scale that ranged from 

never (1), once (2), once a month or less (3), two to three times a month (4), once a week or 

more (5), to one or more times a day (6). Bystander harassment scores were computed by 

counting employees who answered in the affirmative (i.e., selected any option from once to one 

or more times a day), indicating that they experienced a specific form of bystander harassment 

one or more times – i.e., higher percentages indicating more employees experienced bystander 

harassing behaviors.

General Intolerance for Harassment. Nine items adapted from Estrada, Olson, Harbke, 

and Berggren (2011) were used to measure perceived intolerance for harassment within the work 

unit (e.g., “Harassment is not tolerated in my work unit”). Items were rated on a five-point 

response scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Examination of the 

inter-item correlation matrix indicated all of the items were positively correlated, ranging from 

.45 to .73 (mean inter-item correlation = .57). Results of principal axis factor analysis yielded a 

single factor solution, with item loadings ranging from .67 to .82. Eigenvalue statistics (Kaiser, 

1960) and the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation – eigenvalue for the 

factor was 5.57 (accounting for 61.97% of the common variance); a single factor was also 

evident in the scree plot. Composite scores were computed based on these results by averaging 

across items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived intolerance for harassment 

within the work unit (i.e., higher scores indicate that members of one’s work unit do not tolerate 

harassment). Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .92.

Leadership Intolerance for Harassment. Three items adapted from Estrada and Laurence 

(2011) were used to assess leadership intolerance of harassment. Employees were asked to 

indicate whether team leaders, supervisors, or managers tolerated harassment using a “no,” 

“yes,” and “don’t know” response format. Affirmative responses were coded as 1, negative 

responses were coded as 0. Scores were computed by averaging across items with higher scores 

indicating greater intolerance of harassment. Examination of the inter-item correlation matrix 

indicated all of the items were positively correlated, ranging from .60 to .73 (mean inter-item 

correlation = .66). Results of principal axis factor analysis yielded a single factor solution, with 

item loadings ranging from .72 to .89. Eigenvalue statistics (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree plot 

(Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation – eigenvalue for the factor was 2.33

(accounting for 77.58% of the common variance); a single factor was also evident in the scree 

plot. Composite scores were computed based on these results by averaging across items, with 

higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived leadership intolerance of harassment within 

the work unit (i.e., higher scores indicate that leaders within one’s work unit do not tolerate 

harassment). Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .85.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

174 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Gender context. Three items adapted from Bastian, Lancaster, and Reyst (1996) were 

used to assess the gender context of the work environment. Employees were asked to indicate the 

gender mix of coworkers, leaders, and individuals in their occupation or career field using 

options that included mostly women (1), a relatively even mix of women and men (2), mostly men 

(3), and do not know (coded as missing). Scores were computed by averaging across items with 

higher scores indicative of a male dominated work environment.

C.5.4 Job Related Outcomes

This section describes measurement and calculation of the organizational factors used as 

predictors of workplace harassment. Each factor is measured using an established multi-item 

scale. Note that composite scores and other statistics are presented at the scale level and results 

for each item comprising a scale are not presented. It is not appropriate to draw conclusions from 

individual items that comprise a scale.

Job Satisfaction. Nine items from Short (1985) were used to assess employees’ 

satisfaction with their job. Employees indicated their level of satisfaction with various facets 

with their job (e.g., security, promotion opportunities, coworkers, job as a whole) using a fivepoint response scale that ranged from strongly dissatisfied (1) to strongly satisfied (5). 

Examination of the inter-item correlation matrix indicated items were positively correlated, 

ranging from .22 to .66 (mean inter-item correlation = .41). Results of principal axis factor 

analysis yielded a single factor solution, with item loadings ranging from .45 to .84. Eigenvalue 

statistics (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation –

eigenvalue for the factor was 4.35 (accounting for 48.42% of the common variance); a single 

factor was also evident in the scree plot. Scores were computed based on these results by 

averaging across items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of job satisfaction. Cronbach 

(1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .86.

Job Engagement. Nine items from Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) were used to assess 

employees’ engagement with their job (e.g., I am immersed in my work). Items were rated on a 

seven-point response scale that ranged from never (1) to always or everyday (7). Examination of 

the inter-item correlation matrix indicated items were positively correlated, ranging from .48 to 

.81 (mean inter-item correlation = .64). Results of principal axis factor analysis yielded a single 

factor solution, with item loadings ranging from .64 to .89. Eigenvalue statistics (Kaiser, 1960) 

and the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation – eigenvalue for the factor 

was 6.20 (accounting for 68.95% of the common variance); a single factor was also evident in 

the scree plot. Scores were computed based on these results by averaging across items, with 

higher scores indicating higher levels of job engagement. Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficient for 

the scale was .94.

Organizational Commitment. Six items from Meyer and Allen (1991) were used to assess 

employees’ identification, involvement and emotional attachment to the work unit (e.g., I would 
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

175 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

be very happy to remain with this organization for the rest of my career). Items were rated on a 

five-point response scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). 

Examination of the inter-item correlation matrix indicated items were positively correlated,

ranging from .46 to .83 (mean inter-item correlation = .66). Results of principal axis factor 

analysis yielded a single factor solution, with item loadings ranging from .68 to .91. Eigenvalue 

statistics (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) further supported this interpretation –

eigenvalue for the factor was 4.32 (accounting for 72.01% of the common variance); a single 

factor was also evident in the scree plot. Scores were computed based on these results by 

averaging across items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of commitment to the work 

unit. Cronbach (1951) alpha coefficient for the scale was .91.

C.5.5 Other Factors Associated with Harassing and/or Assault Behaviors

Primary basis for behavior or experience. An item from Estrada and Berggren (2009) 

was used to measure the primary basis for a behavior or experience that had the greatest effect on 

employees. Employees were asked to indicate whether the primary basis for the behavior or 

experience was based on their age, race or ethnicity, religious belief, disability status or 

condition, sexual orientation, or sex/gender. Employees were also offered an option to indicate 

that the reasons for the behavior or experience were unknown to them. As we noted earlier, 

responses to this section of the survey were purposely focused on a single experience or set of 

related experiences to minimize response burden and optimize survey completion.47

Situational characteristics. Several items from Estrada and Berggren (2009) were used to 

assess situational characteristics of the specific behavior or experience to include time (e.g., on or 

off duty hours), location (e.g., while on travel vs. work location or site), frequency (e.g., once to 

every day), duration (e.g., once to over a week or a year), characteristics of persons involved

(e.g., sex, age, employment status, individual vs. group), and whether continued interaction was 

required.

Consequences of Behavior or Experience. Several items from Estrada and Berggren 

(2009) were used to assess consequences associated with the specific behavior or experience to 

include impacts on interpersonal relationships (e.g., relationship with other employees, spouse 

or other persons), physical and emotional well-being (e.g., take sick leave, seek counseling or 

 

47 We recognize that people may have experienced more than one type of harassing and/or assault behavior in the 

past 12 months. However, to ask about each specific form of harassment and/or assault experience would have 

added substantial content to an already lengthy survey. Hence, we made a compromise to focus on a specific 

behavior or experience that had the greatest effect on the person responding to the survey and asked them to respond 

to all subsequent questions to this section in terms of the specific form of harassment and/or assault experience that 

had the greatest effect on their personal and professional life. Following the same approach, we also included a 

single question to ask about harassing and/or assault behaviors related to the respondents’ sex and/or gender (e.g., 

gender harassment, sexual harassment, sexual assault related behaviors) because asking about experiences for each 

of the sex/gender related experiences would have required repetition of the individual behaviors specific to gender 

harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual assault related behaviors, thus adding considerable length to the survey.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

176 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

medical attention), job performance (e.g., performance evaluation, promotion opportunities), and 

retention (e.g., transfer job, leave organization).

Reporting Behaviors and Outcomes. Several items from Estrada and Berggren (2009) 

were used to measure employees’ reporting behaviors and outcomes. Employees were asked to 

indicate if they discussed the experience with anyone at work (e.g., peer/coworker, supervisor, or 

manager); whether they made a complaint/grievance/report using a DOI/NPS resource (e.g., 

supervisor or manager, EEO Counselor or Office, Employee Assistance Program, or Labor 

Relations); helpfulness of the action taken for the complaint/grievance/report (e.g., not at all 

helpful to extremely helpful); the outcomes associated with such actions (e.g., actions focused on 

the person involved, the organization, or employee); if they chose not to make complaint/

grievance/report to indicated their reasons for not doing so (e.g., seriousness, avoidance, 

behavior stopped); and resources they might use if they were to make a complaint/grievance/

report in the future (e.g., supervisor or manager, EEO Counselor or Office, Employee Assistance 

Program, or Labor Relations) and how helpful the particular resource (e.g., not at all helpful to 

very helpful).

Bystander Intervention. Two items from Estrada and Berggren (2009) were adapted to 

measure actions taken in response to witnessing a harassment episode against another employee 

(e.g., help the person, tell someone) and reasons for not taking action in response to witnessing a 

harassment episode (e.g., feared negative consequences, lack authority). Note that this measure 

asked respondents if they had observed harassing behaviors against another person, not whether 

they experienced the harassing behaviors themselves.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

177 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

References

Age Discrimination in Employment in Act of 1967. Retrieved from 

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm

Bastian, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E. (1996). Department of Defense 1995 sexual 

harassment survey (Report No. 96-014). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data 

Center.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A 

theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

1, 245–276.

Chan, D. K-S., Lam, C. B., Chow, S. Y., & Cheung, S. F. (2008). Examining the job related, 

psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A meta-analytic 

review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 362-376.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 6, 

297-334.

Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): 

Development and validation. In RM Kramer & TR Tyler, (Eds.), Trust in organizations

(pp. 302-330), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). 

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and 

employee retention, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.

Estrada, A.X. (2011). Results of the 2011 Clark County Work Environment Study. Vancouver, 

WA. Washington State University Vancouver.

Estrada, A.X., & Berggren, A.W. (2009). Sexual harassment and its impact for women officers 

and cadets in the Swedish Armed Forces. Military Psychology, 21, 162-185.

Estrada, A., Harbke, C., & Severt, J. (2016, April). Antecedents and outcomes of employee 

perceptions of inclusion at work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for 

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Anaheim, CA.

Estrada, A.X., & Laurence, J.H. (2009). The impact of training on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 

Don’t Pursue policy. Military Psychology, 21, 62-80.

Estrada, A.X., Olson, K.J., Harbke, C.R., & Berggren, A.W. (2011). Evaluating a brief scale 

measuring psychological climate for sexual harassment. Military Psychology, 23, 410-

432.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V., Drasgow, F., &. Waldo, C.R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment 

in the military: The sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ-DoD). Military Psychology, 

11, 243-263.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and 

Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

178 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale 

(POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of management, 23(5), 627-658.

Krieger, N., Chen, J. T., Waterman, P. D., Hartman, C., Stoddard, A. M., Quinn, M. M., 

Langhout, R. D., Bergman, M. E., Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & 

Williams, J. H. (2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal 

determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 975-1007.

Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual workplace 

aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of 

Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 155-169.

Lighthouse Associates. (1999). U.S. Park Police gender equity study. Springfield, VA. 

Lighthouse Associates. (2000). U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service women in law 

enforcement study. Burke, VA. Author.

Lipari, R.N., & Lancaster, A.R. (2003). Armed forces 2002 sexual harassment survey (Report 

No. 2003-026). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Mazzeo, S. E., Bergman, M. E., Buchanan, N. T., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. (2001). 

Situation-specific assessment of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 

120–131.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational 

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. 

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Gellatly, I.R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the 

organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged 

relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710-720. 

O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Bowes-Sperry, L., Arens Bates, C., & Lean, E.R. (2009). Sexual 

Harassment at Work: A Decade (Plus) of Progress. Journal of Management, 35, 503-536

Pascoe, E., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic 

review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554.

Pina, A., Gannon, T. A., & Saunders, B. (2009). An overview of the literature on sexual 

harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 

14, 126-138.

Raver, J. L. & Nishii, L.H. (2010). Once, twice, three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, 

gender harassment, and general workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 

95, 236-254.

Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of 

sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal 

of Applied Psychology, 85, 401-415.

Severt, J., & Estrada, A. (2016, August). Validating an inclusion scale for use in military 

contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological 

Association in Denver, CO.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

179 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing 

clarity to the concept. In A.B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A 

handbook for essential theory and research (pp. 10-24). New York. Psychology Press.

Short, L.O. (1985). The United States Air Force organizational assessment package. Maxwell 

Air Force Base, AL: Leadership and Management Development Center, Air University.

Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., & Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women’s 

occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 10-40.

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., Lancaster, A.R., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (2002). Toward 

standardized measurement of harassment: Shortening the SEQ-DoD using item response 

theory. Military Psychology, 14(1), 49-72.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2016a). Investigative report of the misconduct at the Grand 

Canyon River District. Washington, DC. Office of the Inspector General. Retrieved from

https://www.doioig.gov/reports/investigative-report-misconduct-grand-canyon-riverdistrict.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2016b). Investigative report of sexual misconduct by chief 

ranger at the Canaveral National Seashore. Washington, DC. Office of the Inspector 

General. Retrieved from 

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/SexualMisconduct_ChiefRanger_Canavera

lNationalSeashore_Public.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2016c). Investigation of alleged off-duty misconduct by an 

Official at Denali National Park. Washington, DC. Office of the Inspector General. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/InvestigativeSummaries_AllegedOffDutyMisconductByAnOfficialAtDenaliNationalPark.pdf

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Federal employee viewpoint survey: 

Governmentwide management report. Washington DC. Author. Retrieved from 

https://www.fedview.opm.gov/2016FILES/2016_FEVS_Gwide_Final_Report.PDF

Willness, C.R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences 

of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

180 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Appendix D Survey Instrument
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

WORK ENVIRONMENT SURVEY
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

182 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

WELCOME TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WORK ENVIRONMENT SURVEY

You are invited to participate in the National Park Service Work Environment Survey as part of our efforts to 

understand employee attitudes and harassment experiences within our workforce. The survey is being 

conducted by a third party to ensure the process is as objective and professional as possible. Participation in 

the survey is completely optional and your responses to survey questions will remain confidential and 

anonymous. Please consider this information as you determine whether you would like to participate. 

The survey will ask you to provide your opinions regarding your experience working in the National Park 

Service. This survey asks about your perceptions about your job, work unit, and the larger organization. The 

survey also includes questions regarding unwanted behaviors from others you might have experienced while 

working within the National Park Service. Again, you are in no way obligated to complete this survey if you do 

not wish to do so. Additionally, you may skip any question or sets of questions that you do not want to answer 

or that may cause you discomfort. Should you choose to take part in the survey, we would greatly welcome 

your candid and thoughtful answers to survey questions.

Your responses to survey questions will remain confidential and anonymous. Responses will NOT be linked 

back to any individual at any time. Please also note that your responses to the survey will NOT result in a 

formal complaint related to your experiences, as the survey is not linked to the formal reporting process for 

such complaints. No one from the National Park Service will be able to link any responses to particular 

individuals. All data will be analyzed at the group level without specific reference to any individual. Reports of 

findings will not contain any information that could be used to identify individuals or their specific 

departments/units or work locations. Remember that you are free to discontinue your participation at any time 

without any consequence.

An executive summary of general survey findings will be made available when the research is completed. The 

summary will not include information on specific cases of harassment or any personally identifiable information. 

For more details, you may contact Sangita Chari, Program Manager, Office of Relevancy, Diversity and 

Inclusion at harassment_response@nps.gov.

Additional information on DOI's Equal Opportunity and Workplace Conduct efforts can be found at 

(https://sites.google.com/a/ios.doi.gov/equal-opportunity-and-workplace-conduct/home) or you may access 

NPS-specific employee support options at (https://sites.google.com/a/nps.gov/employeecenter/employeesupport-options). Please note that you must be within the DOI network to access internal resource links.

If you would prefer to take this survey in Spanish, please call 1-800-939-2640 and leave a message to request 

a copy be mailed to you. The deadline for submitting the survey is March 4, 2017.

Sincerely,

Michael Reynolds

Director (Acting), National Park Service

Lena McDowall

Deputy Director, Management and Administration, National Park Service

By moving forward and completing the survey, you agree to participate. Your individual responses will remain 

anonymous and confidential. You are free to skip any item(s) that you do not wish to answer or to discontinue 

your participation at any time.
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

183 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

We thank you for volunteering to participate in this survey. As noted previously, questions in this survey ask about your 

attitudes and opinions about your job, your organization, and about work-related experiences that may have occurred 

within the scope of any work or activity associated with your employment with the National Park Service and involved 

“someone at work”. If you are unsure of what a term or classification means, please refer to the definitions page found at 

the back of this questionnaire document.

Before you begin the survey, we would like to ask a preliminary question to help us tailor the survey for your participation.

1. What is your current employment classification? (Select one.)

Permanent (an employee hired without time limitations)

Term (appointment of no less than one year but not to exceed four years)

Temporary (appointment of less than one year)

[If you answered Term to Question 1, please skip Question 2 and proceed to Question 3.]

2. What is your work schedule? (Select one.)

Seasonal (work schedule that is less than 12 months and may be recurring)

Non-seasonal

PART I. YOUR PERCEPTIONS ABOUT YOUR JOB

In this section, we want to find out how you feel about your job and employment with the National Park Service. Read 

each statement below and select the response alternative that best describes your opinion of the statement.

3. How satisfied are you with the following? 

(Respond to each item.)

Very 

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Neither 

Dissatisfied 

nor 

Satisfied

Satisfied Very 

Satisfied

a. The kind of work I do

b. My job security

c. My pay and benefits

d. My opportunities for promotion

e. My relationship with my coworkers

f. The direction/supervision I receive

g. My chances to acquire valuable job skills

h. My job as a whole

i. The level of effort of my coworkers compared to my 

level of effort

j. My opportunities to participate in varied workplace 

experiences within the agency

[Only answer this question if you are a Term or 

Temporary employee.] 

k. My chances of becoming a permanent employee if I 

decide to pursue permanent employment

[Only answer this question if you are a Term or 

Temporary employee.] 

l. My chances of continuing in a term or temporary 

appointment if I decide to pursue such employment
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

184 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

6. How would you describe your perceptions regarding 

your current work unit? (Respond to each item.)

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Agree Strongly 

Agree

a. Employees are encouraged to speak out frankly even when 

we are critical of well-established ideas

b. There is no place for people who always agree with 

everything around here; good ideas are desired even if it 

means disagreeing with superiors

c. Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative in my 

work unit

d. It is best not to rock the boat in my work unit

e. Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than to fight the 

system

f. Telling others what they want to hear is sometimes better 

than telling the truth

g. It is safer to believe what I am told than to make up my own 

mind

4. How would you describe your 

feelings about work? (Respond 

to each item.)

Never

Almost 

Never or a 

Few 

Times a 

Year or 

Less

Rarely or 

Once a 

Month or 

Less

Sometimes 

or a Few 

Times a 

Month

Often or 

Once a 

Week

Very 

Often or a 

Few 

Times a 

Week

Always or 

Every Day

a. I am enthusiastic about my job

b. I am proud of the work that I do

c. I am immersed in my work

d. My job inspires me

e. I feel happy when working intensely

f. I am energized by my work

g. I often lose track of time when 

working

h. When I get up in the morning, I feel 

like going to work

i. At my job, I feel strong and 

vigorous

5. How would you describe your feelings about your 

current work unit? (Respond to each item.)

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Agree Strongly 

Agree

a. I feel like “part of the family” in my work unit

b. I feel “emotionally attached” to my work unit

c. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my work unit

d. I really feel as if my work unit’s problems are my own

e. My work unit has a great deal of personal meaning for me

f. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career in my work 

unit
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

185 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

8. Do you agree or disagree that the supervisor of your 

current work unit: (Respond to each item.)

Strongly 

Disagree

Disagree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Agree Strongly 

Agree

a. Cares about your opinions?

b. Really cares about your well-being?

c. Strongly considers your goals and values?

d. Shows very little concern for you?

9. Do you agree or disagree that members of your current 

work unit: (Respond to each item.)

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Agree Strongly 

Agree

a. Treat one another with dignity and respect?

b. Value each other's perspective and contribution?

c. Ensure that members are included in work unit activities?

d. Share a sense of belonging to the work unit?

e. Feel accepted by other members of the work unit?

7. How would you describe your perceptions regarding 

your current work unit? (Respond to each item.)

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Agree Strongly 

Agree

a. I feel my work unit takes advantage of its employees

b. I think the people in my work unit succeed by stepping on 

other people

c. I feel our work unit is straightforward in dealing with us

d. I think our work unit does not mislead us

e. I feel employees cannot depend on our work unit to fulfill its 

commitments to us

f. I feel my work unit will keep its word

g. I often doubt the truth of what management tells me
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

186 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

PART II. WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCES

Questions in this section ask about work-related experiences that may have occurred within the scope of any work or 

activity associated with your employment with the National Park Service and involved “someone at work.”

"Someone at work" may include any person(s) you have contact with as part of your duties. This person(s) could be a

coworker, supervisor, visitor, contractor, concessioner, partner, inside or outside of your work unit, or anyone else you 

interact with on the job. These individuals may be in your work unit, other work units within the organization, or in other 

organizations that you come into contact with as part of your duties.

The behaviors or experiences could have occurred within the scope of any work or an activity associated with your 

employment with the National Park Service. Behaviors or experiences could have occurred at work or away from your 

primary duty location; before, during, or after work hours while engaged in work or an activity associated with your 

employment with the National Park Service. Please include them as long as the experience or behavior occurred within 

the scope of any work or activity associated with your employment with the National Park Service.

Please note that responding to these questions will not result in a formal complaint about your experiences. We are 

gathering this information to learn about behaviors and/or experiences from employees of the National Park Service.

Read each statement carefully and indicate the extent to which you may have experienced any of the situations 

described. Answer each question as frankly and completely as you can. Note that all information will be confidential.

10. In the past 12 months, how often have you 

experienced any of the following behaviors based 

on your AGE? (Respond to each item.)

Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. I was subjected to negative comments or remarks 

based on my age

b. I was subjected to offensive jokes based on my age

c. I was denied a potential reward or benefit based on my 

age

d. I was physically threatened or assaulted based on my 

age

e. I was not asked to participate in social or recreational 

activities based on my age

f. I was ignored by others based on my age

g. I was given more menial tasks than my job normally 

requires based on my age

11. Now think back to the time BEFORE the past 12 months. Have you experienced ANY of the behaviors listed 

above based on your AGE while you were employed by the National Park Service? (Select one.)

Yes No

[If you answered No to Question 11, please skip Question 12 and proceed to Question 13 on the next page.]

12. You indicated that you experienced behaviors listed above based on your AGE in the time BEFORE the past 

12 months. What was your pay category or grade when you experienced these behaviors for the first time? 

(Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4 General Schedule (GS) 1-6 Senior Level (SL)/ 

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8 General Schedule (GS) 7-10 Scientific Professional (ST)/

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16 General Schedule (GS) 11-12 Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other Wage Grade (WG) General Schedule (GS) 13-15 Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

187 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

REMEMBER: "Someone at work" may include any person(s) you have contact with as part of your duties. This person(s) 

could be a coworker, supervisor, visitor, contractor, concessioner, partner, inside or outside of your work unit, or anyone 

else you interact with on the job. The behaviors or experiences could have occurred outside of work hours or away from 

your work location as long as they occurred in the context of your duties.

13. In the past 12 months, how often have you 

experienced any of the following behaviors based on 

your RACIAL or ETHNIC BACKGROUND? (Respond 

to each item.)

Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. I was subjected to negative comments or remarks based 

on my racial or ethnic background

b. I was subjected to offensive jokes based on my racial or 

ethnic background

c. I was denied a potential reward or benefit based on my 

racial or ethnic background

d. I was physically threatened or assaulted based on my 

racial or ethnic background

e. I was not asked to participate in social or recreational 

activities based on my racial or ethnic background

f. I was ignored by others based on my racial or ethnic 

background

g. I was given more menial tasks than my job normally 

requires based on my racial or ethnic background

14. Now think back to the time BEFORE the past 12 months. Have you experienced ANY of the behaviors listed 

above based on your RACIAL or ETHNIC BACKGROUND while you were employed by the National Park 

Service? (Select one.)

Yes No

[If you answered No to Question 14, please skip Question 15 and proceed to Question 16 on the next page.]

15. You indicated that you experienced behaviors listed above based on your RACIAL or ETHNIC BACKGROUND 

in the time BEFORE the past 12 months. What was your pay category or grade when you experienced these 

behaviors for the first time? (Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4 General Schedule (GS) 1-6 Senior Level (SL)/ 

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8 General Schedule (GS) 7-10 Scientific Professional (ST)/

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16 General Schedule (GS) 11-12 Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other Wage Grade (WG) General Schedule (GS) 13-15 Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

188 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

REMEMBER: "Someone at work" may include any person(s) you have contact with as part of your duties. This person(s) 

could be a coworker, supervisor, visitor, contractor, concessioner, partner, inside or outside of your work unit, or anyone 

else you interact with on the job. The behaviors or experiences could have occurred outside of work hours or away from 

your work location as long as they occurred in the context of your duties.

16. In the past 12 months, how often have you experienced 

any of the following behaviors based on your 

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? (Respond to each item.)

Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. I was subjected to negative comments or remarks based on 

my religious beliefs

b. I was subjected to offensive jokes based on my religious 

beliefs

c. I was denied a potential reward or benefit based on my 

religious beliefs

d. I was physically threatened or assaulted based on my 

religious beliefs

e. I was not asked to participate in social or recreational 

activities based on my religious beliefs

f. I was ignored by others based on my religious beliefs

g. I was given more menial tasks than my job normally requires 

based on my religious beliefs

17. Now think back to the time BEFORE the past 12 months. Have you experienced ANY of the behaviors listed 

above based on your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS while you were employed by the National Park Service? (Select 

one.)

Yes No

[If you answered No to Question 17, please skip Question 18 and proceed to Question 19 on the next page.]

18. You indicated that you experienced behaviors listed above based on your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS in the time 

BEFORE the past 12 months. What was your pay category or grade when you experienced these behaviors 

for the first time? (Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4 General Schedule (GS) 1-6 Senior Level (SL)/ 

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8 General Schedule (GS) 7-10 Scientific Professional (ST)/

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16 General Schedule (GS) 11-12 Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other Wage Grade (WG) General Schedule (GS) 13-15 Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

189 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

REMEMBER: "Someone at work" may include any person(s) you have contact with as part of your duties. This person(s) 

could be a coworker, supervisor, visitor, contractor, concessioner, partner, inside or outside of your work unit, or anyone 

else you interact with on the job. The behaviors or experiences could have occurred outside of work hours or away from 

your work location as long as they occurred in the context of your duties.

19. In the past 12 months, how often have you experienced 

any of the following behaviors based on a perceived or 

actual DISABILITY? (Respond to each item if applicable.)

Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. I was subjected to negative comments or remarks based on a 

perceived or actual disability

b. I was subjected to offensive jokes based on a perceived or 

actual disability

c. I was denied a potential reward or benefit based on a 

perceived or actual disability

d. I was physically threatened or assaulted based on a perceived 

or actual disability

e. I was not asked to participate in social or recreational 

activities based on a perceived or actual disability

f. I was ignored by others based on a perceived or actual 

disability

g. I was given more menial tasks than my job normally requires 

based on a perceived or actual disability

20. Now think back to the time BEFORE the past 12 months. Have you experienced ANY of the behaviors listed 

above based on a perceived or actual DISABILITY while you were employed by the National Park Service?

(Select one.)

Yes No

[If you answered No to Question 20, please skip Question 21 and proceed to Question 22 on the next page.]

21. You indicated that you experienced behaviors listed above based on a perceived or actual DISABILITY in the 

time BEFORE the past 12 months. What was your pay category or grade when you experienced these 

behaviors for the first time? (Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4 General Schedule (GS) 1-6 Senior Level (SL)/ 

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8 General Schedule (GS) 7-10 Scientific Professional (ST)/

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16 General Schedule (GS) 11-12 Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other Wage Grade (WG) General Schedule (GS) 13-15 Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

190 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

REMEMBER: "Someone at work" may include any person(s) you have contact with as part of your duties. This person(s) 

could be a coworker, supervisor, visitor, contractor, concessioner, partner, inside or outside of your work unit, or anyone 

else you interact with on the job. The behaviors or experiences could have occurred outside of work hours or away from 

your work location as long as they occurred in the context of your duties.

22. In the past 12 months, how often have you 

experienced any of the following behaviors based 

on your SEXUAL ORIENTATION? (Respond to each 

item.)

Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. I was subjected to negative comments or remarks based 

on my sexual orientation

b. I was subjected to offensive jokes based on my sexual 

orientation

c. I was denied a potential reward or benefit based on my 

sexual orientation

d. I was physically threatened or assaulted based on my 

sexual orientation

e. I was not asked to participate in social or recreational 

activities based on my sexual orientation

f. I was ignored by others based on my sexual orientation

g. I was given more menial tasks than my job normally 

requires based on my sexual orientation

23. Now think back to the time BEFORE the past 12 months. Have you experienced ANY of the behaviors listed 

above based on your SEXUAL ORIENTATION while you were employed by the National Park Service? (Select 

one.)

Yes No

[If you answered No to Question 23, please skip Question 24 and proceed to Question 25 on the next page.]

24. You indicated that you experienced behaviors listed above based on your SEXUAL ORIENTATION in the time 

BEFORE the past 12 months. What was your pay category or grade when you experienced these behaviors 

for the first time? (Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4 General Schedule (GS) 1-6 Senior Level (SL)/ 

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8 General Schedule (GS) 7-10 Scientific Professional (ST)/

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16 General Schedule (GS) 11-12 Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other Wage Grade (WG) General Schedule (GS) 13-15 Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

191 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

This section of the questionnaire presents a series of new questions about work-related experiences that may have 

occurred within the scope of any work or activity associated with your employment with the National Park Service and 

involved “someone at work.” 

REMEMBER: "Someone at work" may include any person(s) you have contact with as part of your duties. This person(s) 

could be a coworker, supervisor, visitor, contractor, concessioner, partner, inside or outside of your work unit, or anyone 

else you interact with on the job. The behaviors or experiences could have occurred outside of work hours or away from 

your work location as long as they occurred in the context of your duties.

Read each question carefully and provide a response to each item below.

25. In the past 12 months, how often did someone at work: 

(Respond to each item.) Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. Repeatedly tell sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to 

you?

b. Make unwelcomed attempts to draw you into a discussion of 

sexual matters (e.g., attempted to discuss or comment on 

your sex life)?

c. Treat you differently because of your sex (e.g., mistreated, 

slighted, or ignored you)?

d. Make offensive remarks about your appearance, body, or 

sexual activities?

e. Make gestures or use body language of a sexual nature 

which embarrassed or offended you?

f. Refer to people of your sex in insulting or offensive terms?

g. Make offensive, sexist remarks (e.g., suggested that 

people of your sex are not suited for the kind of work you 

do)?

h. Make unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual 

relationship with you despite your efforts to discourage it?

i. Put you down or act in a condescending way toward you 

because of your sex?

j. Repeatedly ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even 

though you had said “no”?

k. Make you feel like you were being bribed with some sort of 

reward or special treatment to engage in sexual behavior?

l. Make you feel threatened with some sort of retaliation for 

not being sexually cooperative (e.g., by mentioning an 

upcoming review)?

m. Touch you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable?

n. Intentionally corner you or lean over you in a sexual way?

o. Treat you badly for refusing to have sex?

[Only answer this question if you are a Permanent 

employee.] 

p. Imply faster promotions or better treatment if you were 

sexually cooperative?

[Only answer this question if you are a Term or 

Temporary employee.] 

q. Imply you would be renewed, get permanent employment 

or better treatment if you were sexually cooperative?
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

192 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

[Only answer this question if you indicated you experienced any of the behaviors in Question 25.]

26. Do you consider any of the behaviors listed on the previous page that you marked as having experienced to 

be sexual harassment? (Select one.)

None were sexual harassment

Some were sexual harassment; some were not sexual harassment

All were sexual harassment

27. Now think back to the time BEFORE the past 12 months. Have you experienced ANY of the behaviors listed 

on the previous page while you were employed by the National Park Service? (Select one.)

Yes No

[If you answered No to Question 27, please skip Questions 28 and 29 and proceed to Question 30 on the next 

page.]

28. Do you consider any of the behaviors you experienced in the time BEFORE the past 12 months to be sexual 

harassment? (Select one.)

None were sexual harassment

Some were sexual harassment; some were not sexual harassment

All were sexual harassment

29. You indicated that you experienced behaviors listed on the previous page in the time BEFORE the past 12 

months. What was your pay category or grade when you experienced these behaviors for the first time? 

(Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4 General Schedule (GS) 1-6 Senior Level (SL)/ 

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8 General Schedule (GS) 7-10 Scientific Professional (ST)/

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16 General Schedule (GS) 11-12 Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other Wage Grade (WG) General Schedule (GS) 13-15 Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

193 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

The following questions ask about unwanted experiences of an abusive, humiliating, or sexual nature that can vary in 

terms of severity. Some of the questions contain strongly-worded language. Some behaviors listed can be viewed as 

assault, and others can be viewed as hazing or some other type of unwanted experience. These behaviors can happen to 

anyone, regardless of their sex.

When answering these questions, please include experiences occurring within the scope of any work or activity 

associated with your employment with the National Park Service. Please include experiences no matter who did it to you 

or where it happened. It could have been done to you by a male or female; someone you knew well or did not know at all; 

coworkers, supervisors, visitors, contractors, concessioners, partners, or anyone else you interact with on the job. It could

have been done to you while at work, on official work travel, or away from your work location while you were engaged in 

work, or an activity associated with your employment with the National Park Service. Please include experiences even if 

you or others had been drinking alcohol, using drugs, or otherwise impaired.

Responding to these questions will not result in a formal complaint about your experiences. We are gathering this 

information to learn about behaviors and/or experiences from employees of the National Park Service.

YOUR ANSWERS ARE STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL REMAIN ANONYMOUS.

Read each question carefully and provide a response to each item below.

30. In the past 12 months, how often did you experience any 

of the following intentional sexual contacts that were 

against your will or which occurred when you did not or 

could not consent, in which someone: (Respond to each 

item.)

Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. Sexually touched you (e.g., intentional touching of genitalia, 

breasts, or buttocks) or made you sexually touch him/her?

b. Attempted to make you have sexual intercourse, but was not 

successful?

c. Made you have sexual intercourse?

d. Attempted to make you perform or receive oral sex, anal sex, 

or penetration by a finger or object, but was not successful?

e. Made you perform or receive oral sex, anal sex, or 

penetration by a finger or object?

31. Now think back to the time BEFORE the past 12 months. Have you experienced ANY of the behaviors listed 

above while you were employed by the National Park Service? (Select one.)

Yes No

[If you answered No to Question 31, please skip Question 32 and proceed to Question 33 on the next page.]

32. You indicated that you experienced behaviors listed above in the time BEFORE the past 12 months. What was 

your pay category or grade when you experienced these behaviors for the first time? (Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4 General Schedule (GS) 1-6 Senior Level (SL)/ 

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8 General Schedule (GS) 7-10 Scientific Professional (ST)/

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16 General Schedule (GS) 11-12 Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other Wage Grade (WG) General Schedule (GS) 13-15 Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

194 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

[If you have indicated you have not experienced any type of discrimination, harassment or unwanted behaviors 

based on your Age, Racial or Ethnic Background, Religious Beliefs, Disability Status, Sexual Orientation, or for 

any other reason in the past 12 months, please skip this section (PART III) and proceed to Part IV (Question 51). If 

you are unsure, please read the introduction of PART III to see if this section is applicable to you.] 

PART III. ONE BEHAVIOR OR EXPERIENCE WITH THE GREATEST EFFECT

You indicated that you experienced some of the behaviors described in the previous sections in the past 12 months while 

employed at the National Park Service. We want to learn about the circumstances surrounding the TYPE OF BEHAVIOR 

OR EXPERIENCE THAT HAD THE GREATEST EFFECT ON YOU. Think about the ONE BEHAVIOR OR EXPERIENCE 

that had the greatest effect on you in the past 12 months and answer the questions below in terms of that specific 

experience. It is important that you select the ONE BEHAVIOR OR EXPERIENCE that had the greatest effect on you in 

the past 12 months even if you indicated more than one behavior experienced in the previous questions. ONE BEHAVIOR 

OR EXPERIENCE can be a single event or series of related events as long as similar behaviors were experienced or the 

same people were involved. Selecting ONE BEHAVIOR OR EXPERIENCE in the past 12 months is intended to help limit 

the number of questions we ask you.

33. Thinking about the ONE BEHAVIOR (single 

event) OR EXPERIENCE (series of related 

events) that had the greatest effect on you in the 

past 12 months, what was the primary basis for 

the behavior or experience? (Select one.)

Your age 

Your race or ethnicity 

Your religious beliefs 

Your disability status or condition

Your sexual orientation

Your sex/gender

Unknown

34. When did the specific type of behavior or 

experience occur? (Select one.)

All of it occurred during work hours

Most of it occurred during work hours; some off 

work hours

Some of it occurred during work hours; most off 

work hours

None of it occurred during work hours; all off 

work hours

35. Did the specific behavior or experience occur 

while you were on travel (i.e., on temporary 

assignment, attending a conference, attending 

training)? (Select one.)

Yes No

36. Where did the specific type of behavior or 

experience typically occur? (Select one.)

At a work location or site

At a work-sponsored social event (e.g., office 

picnic, happy hour, or party)

At a non-work sponsored social event where 

coworkers were present

At a permanent National Park Service supplied 

housing location, if applicable

At a location outside the park/site

[If you answered "At a work location" to Question 

36, please answer Question 37; otherwise, proceed 

to Question 38.]

37.You indicated that the behavior or experience 

typically occurred at a work location or site. 

Which of the following best describes the location 

or site? (Select one.)

At an indoor location (office setting)

At an indoor location (shop or maintenance 

area)

At an outdoor location (e.g., field site) that did 

not require an overnight stay

At an outdoor location (e.g., field site) that 

required an overnight stay

38. How often did the specific type of behavior or 

experience occur? (Select one.)

Once

Once a month or less

2-4 times a month

Every few days

Every day

39. How long did the specific type of behavior or 

experience persist? (Select one.)

It happened one time

A week

A month

A few months

A year or more

40. How many people were involved? (Select one.)

One person More than one person

41. Was/were the person(s) who did this to you? 

(Select one.)

 Male Female Both males and females

42. Was/were the person(s) who did this to you? 

(Select one.)
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

195 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

 Younger About my age Older

Some were younger, older, and/or about my age

Do not know

43. Was/were the person(s) who did this to you any 

of the following? (Mark all that apply.)

A National Park Service Peer(s)/Coworker(s)

A National Park Service Subordinate(s) or 

someone you supervise/manage

Your National Park Service Team lead(s) (current 

or former)

Another National Park Service Team lead(s) 

(current or former)

Your National Park Service Supervisor(s) (current 

or former)

Another National Park Service Supervisor(s) 

(current or former)

Your National Park Service Manager(s) (current or 

former)

Another National Park Service Manager(s) 

(current or former)

Another federal employee

A contractor

A concessioner

A park partner

A park visitor

Do not know

Other

44. Did your work role require you to continue to 

interact with this/these person(s)? (Select one.)

No, I did not have to interact with this/these 

person(s) at all

Yes, I had to or still have to interact with this/these 

person(s)

45. As a result of the behavior or 

experience: (Respond to each 

item.)

Yes No Don’t

Know

a. Did you request a transfer or change 

of assignment?

b. Did you take steps to leave your 

organization?

c. Did it make it harder to complete 

your work or do your job?

[Only answer this question if you are 

a Permanent employee.] 

d. Did it negatively affect your 

performance evaluation or promotion 

potential? 

[Only answer this question if you are 

a Term or Temporary employee.] 

e. Did it negatively affect your 

performance evaluation or chances 

for renewal or permanent 

employment? 

f. Did it cause arguments or damage 

interpersonal relations at work?

g. Did it damage your relationship with 

coworkers, supervisors, or 

managers?

h. Did it damage other personal 

relationships (e.g., your spouse or a 

friend)?

i. Did it cause you to call in sick or 

take other type of leave?

j. Did you seek any type of medical 

attention?

k. Did you seek counseling from a 

religious or spiritual leader, 

counselor, or medical or mental 

health care provider?

l. Did you consider leaving the 

National Park Service?
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

196 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

46. As a result of the behavior or experience, did you discuss it with any of the 

following people? (Respond to each item.) Yes No

a. The person(s) involved

b. My coworkers – People with whom you work that are not your supervisor (or chain 

of command)

c. My team leader – Team leaders are not official supervisors; those who provide 

employees with day-to-day guidance in work projects, but do not have supervisory 

responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals

d. My supervisor – First-line supervisors are typically responsible for employees' 

performance appraisals and leave approval

e. My manager – Those in management positions who typically supervise one or 

more supervisors

f. A senior leader – The heads of departments/agencies and their immediate 

leadership team, responsible for directing the policies and priorities of the 

department/bureau. May hold either a political or career appointment and typically 

a member of the Senior Executive Service or equivalent.

g. Another National Park Service employee

h. Someone from another bureau/office

47. As a result of the behavior or 

experience, did you make a 

complaint/grievance/report, either orally 

or in writing, to address the behavior or 

experience using any of the following 

resources? (Respond to each item if 

applicable.)

Yes No

If you answered Yes that you used a resource, how 

helpful was it?

Not at all 

Helpful

Somewhat 

Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful

Very 

Helpful

Extremely 

Helpful

a. Supervisor or Manager

b. Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

c. Ombudsman (if applicable)

d. CADR (Collaborative Action and Dispute 

Resolution) Office, CORE PLUS

e. Employee & Labor Relations (Human 

Resources)

f. Union (if applicable)

g. Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor

h. Equal Employment Opportunity Office

i. Office of Inspector General Hotline

j. Office of Inspector General

k. National Park Service Law 

Enforcement/Park Police

l. Other Law Enforcement or Civil Authority 

not in the National Park Service

m. Department of the Interior Ethics/National 

Park Service Ethics Office

n. Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

197 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

[If you answered Yes to any of the items in Question 47, please answer Questions 48 and 49; otherwise, proceed 

to Question 50.]

48. Did any of the experiences listed below occur as a result of making an oral and/or 

written complaint/grievance/report? (Respond to each item.) Yes No Don’t

Know

a. The person I told took no action

b. The rules of harassment were explained to everyone in the workplace

c. A review, investigation, survey, or other assessment of the workplace was conducted by 

management

d. An investigation was conducted by a law enforcement official

e. Someone talked to the person(s) to ask him/her/them to change their behavior

f. My work station location or duties were changed to help me avoid the person(s)

g. The person(s) was/were moved or reassigned so that I did not have as much contact with 

him/her/them

h. There was some official career action taken against the person(s) for the behavior

i. The person(s) stopped the behavior

j. I was encouraged to drop the issue

k. I was discouraged from making an oral and/or written complaint/grievance/report

l. The person(s) who did this took action against me for complaining (e.g., the behavior or 

experience became worse, or I was threatened)

m. My coworkers treated me worse, avoided me, or blamed me for the problem

n. My leadership punished me for bringing it up (e.g., loss of privileges, denial of 

promotion/training, or reassignment to a less favorable job)

o. I was threatened with loss of employment

49. How satisfied were you with: (Respond to each item.)

Very 

DissatisfiedDissatisfied

Neither 

Dissatisfied 

nor 

SatisfiedSatisfied

Very 

Satisfied

a. The availability of information on how to file a complaint/grievance/report?

b. How you were treated by personnel handling the 

complaint/grievance/report?

c. Actions taken by the person handling the complaint/grievance/report?

d. Being informed about the current status of the complaint/grievance/report?

e. The amount of time it took to address the complaint/grievance/report?
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

198 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

[If you answered No to all of the items in Question 47, please answer Question 50; otherwise proceed to Question 

51.]

50. Previously you indicated that you opted not to make an oral and/or 

written complaint/grievance/report about the behavior or experience. 

What were your reasons for not doing so? (Respond to each item.)

Yes No

a. The behavior or experience stopped on its own

b. I thought it was not serious enough to discuss or report

c. I took care of it myself by confronting the person(s) who did it

d. I took other actions to handle the situation

e. I did not know who to report the behavior to and/or how to file a complaint

f. I did not want more people to know

g. I was ashamed or embarrassed

h. I did not want people to think less of me

i. I thought other people would blame me

j. I felt partially to blame

k. I wanted to forget about it or move on

l. I did not think anything would be done

m. I did not think I would be believed

n. I did not trust that the process would be fair

o. I thought I might get in trouble for something I did

p. I thought I would be labeled as a troublemaker

q. I thought it might hurt my performance appraisal

[Only answer this question if you are a Term or Temporary employee.]

r. I thought it might hurt my chances of being renewed or obtaining a 

permanent position

s. I was worried about potential negative consequences from leadership, 

such as being denied a promotion or training opportunity, being 

disciplined, or made to perform additional duties

t. I was worried about potential negative consequences from my coworkers 

or peers, such as being excluded from social activities, being ignored, or 

being the target of insulting or disrespectful remarks

[Only answer this question if you are a Permanent employee.]

u. I thought it might hurt my career

v. I did not want to hurt the person’s/s’ career/s or family/ies

w. I was concerned for my physical safety

x. I feared losing my job

y. Some other reason
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

199 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

PART IV. ORGANIZATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

This section of the survey explores your opinions regarding your work unit and its leaders. Consider each statement below 

and select the response alternative that best describes your opinion about each statement.

52. Do the persons below tolerate harassment? (Respond to each item if 

applicable.) Yes No Don’t

Know

a. My coworkers -- People with whom you work that are not your supervisor (or 

chain of command)

b. My team leaders -- Team leaders are not official supervisors; those who provide 

employees with day-to-day guidance in work projects, but do not have supervisory 

responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals

c. My supervisors -- First-line supervisors are typically responsible for employees' 

performance appraisals and leave approval

d. My managers -- Those in management positions who typically supervise one or 

more supervisors

53. Think for a moment about your current work unit only. 

In the past 12 months, how often have you WITNESSED 

a situation where ANOTHER EMPLOYEE was subjected 

to harassment or discrimination based on the 

following? (Respond to each item.)

Never Once

Once a 

Month

or Less

TwoThree 

Times a 

Month

Once a 

Week or 

More

One or 

More 

Times a 

Day

a. Age

b. Racial or Ethnic Background 

c. Religious Beliefs 

d. Disability Status or Condition

e. Sexual Orientation 

f. Sex/Gender

51. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the 

statements below regarding your current work unit? 

(Respond to each item.)

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Agree Strongly 

Agree

a. It would be very risky to file a harassment complaint

b. A harassment complaint would not be taken seriously

c. A harassment complaint would be thoroughly investigated

d. I would feel comfortable reporting a harassment complaint

e. Harassment is not tolerated

f. Individuals who harass others get away with it

g. I would be afraid to report a harassment complaint

h. Penalties against individuals who harass others at work are 

strongly enforced

i. Actions are being taken to prevent harassment

j. Employees engaging in misconduct are held accountable for 

their actions

k. Supervisors engaging in mismanagement are held 

accountable for their actions
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

200 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

[If you indicated you witnessed any of the types of harassment or discrimination listed in Question 53, please 

answer Question 54; otherwise, proceed to Question 55.]

54. You indicated in the previous question that you witnessed a situation where another employee was 

subjected to harassment or discrimination. Which of the following actions best describes your most typical 

response(s) to the situation you witnessed? (Mark all that apply.)

I did not take any action

I asked the person who was experiencing the behavior if s/he needed help

I pointed out to the person who appeared to be causing the situation that s/he “crossed the line” with his/her 

comments or behaviors

I stepped in with the intent of diffusing/stopping the situation

I asked others to step in as a group and diffuse the situation

I told someone in a position of authority about the situation

I considered intervening in the situation, but I feared I would experience negative consequences

I considered intervening in the situation, but did not feel I had the authority to do so

I stepped in to diffuse/stop the situation, but then was discouraged or criticized by others for doing so

I stepped in to diffuse/stop the situation, but then was harassed myself by the person(s) I was trying to stop

For each choice you answered Yes, how 

helpful do you believe this option(s) would 

be?

55. If you were to make an oral and/or 

written complaint/grievance/report 

about a harassment experience 

involving someone at work, which of 

the following options would you be 

most likely to use? (Respond to each

item.)

Yes No Don’t 

Know

Not at all 

Helpful

Somewhat 

Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful

Very 

Helpful

Extremely 

Helpful

a. Supervisor or Manager

b. Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

c. Ombudsman (if applicable)

d. CADR (Collaborative Action and Dispute 

Resolution) Office, CORE PLUS

e. Employee & Labor Relations (Human 

Resources)

f. Union (if applicable)

g. Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor

h. Equal Employment Opportunity Office

i. Office of Inspector General Hotline

j. Office of Inspector General

k. National Park Service Law 

Enforcement/Park Police

l. Other Law Enforcement or Civil Authority 

not in the National Park Service

m. Department of the Interior Ethics/National 

Park Service Ethics Office

n. Other
2017 WES Technical Report National Park Service

201 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

PART V. DEMOGRAPHIC AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

We would like to conclude the survey by asking some questions about your personal background. This information will 

allow us to combine responses across individuals to build the survey database. YOUR RESPONSES WILL REMAIN 

CONFIDENTIAL AND ANONYMOUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SURVEY. DATA WILL BE COMPILED TO 

ENABLE US TO REPORT THE VIEWS AND EXPERIENCES OF GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS. Read each item and 

select the response alternative that applies to you. Remember, answering questions is optional.

56. What is your age? (Select one.)

25 or under 30-39 50-59

26-29 40-49 60 or older

57. What is your current marital status? (Select one.)

Single Partnered Married

Separated Divorced Widowed

58. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Select one.)

Yes No

59. What is your racial background? (Select one.)

American Indian or Alaskan Native

Asian

Black/African-American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

White

Two or more races

60. How do you describe your gender identity? 

(Select one.)

Male

Female

Transgender

Do not identify as female, male, or transgender 

[If you answered Transgender to Question 60, please 

answer Question 61; otherwise, proceed to Question 

62.]

61. You indicated that you consider yourself to be 

transgender. How would you describe yourself? 

(Select one.)

Transgender, male to female

Transgender, female to male

Gender non-conforming

Unsure

I prefer not to say

62. Which of the following do you consider yourself 

to be? (Select one.)

Heterosexual or straight

Lesbian

Gay 

Bisexual

Other (e.g., questioning, asexual, undecided, selfidentified, or intersex)

I prefer not to say

63. Do you have a documented disability (i.e., on 

record with the National Park Service)? (Select 

one.)

Yes No

64. What is the highest level of education that you 

have completed to date? (Select one.)

Less than a High School Diploma

H.S. Diploma/GED or Equivalent

H.S. Diploma + Trade or Technical Certificate

H.S. Diploma + Some college, but no degree

Associate’s Degree (AA, AS)

Bachelor’s Degree (BA, BS)

Master’s Degree (MA, MS, MBA)

Advanced Professional Degree (PhD, JD, MD)

65. How many years have you been employed with 

the National Park Service? Include time spent as 

a temporary, term and/or permanent employee. 

(Select one.)

Less than 1 year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 14 years

15 to 20 years

More than 20 years

66. What is your current pay category or grade? 

(Select one.)

Wage Grade (WG) 1-4
202 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Wage Grade (WG) 5-8

Wage Grade (WG) 9-16

Other Wage Grade (WG)

General Schedule (GS) 1-6

General Schedule (GS) 7-10

General Schedule (GS) 11-12

General Schedule (GS) 13-15

Senior Level (SL)/Scientific Professional (ST)/ 

Senior Executive Service (SES)

Other

67. What is your supervisory status? (Select one.)

Team Leader – Team leaders are not official 

supervisors; those who provide employees with 

day-to-day guidance in work projects, but do not 

have supervisory responsibilities or conduct 

performance appraisals

Supervisor – First-line supervisors are typically 

responsible for employees' performance 

appraisals and leave approval

Manager – Those in management positions who 

typically supervise one or more supervisors

Senior Leader – The heads of 

departments/agencies and their immediate 

leadership team, responsible for directing the 

policies and priorities of the department/bureau. 

May hold either a political or career appointment 

and typically a member of the Senior Executive 

Service or equivalent.

None of the above

68. Which of the following best describes your 

current work location? (Select one.)

National Park Service Headquarters Office 

(WASO)

Regional Office

Park or Other Field Location

69. What is the mix of your current work unit? 

(Select one.)

Mostly men

A relatively even mix of men and women

Mostly women

Don’t know

70. What is the mix of the leadership within your 

current work unit? Include Team Leaders, 

Supervisors, and Managers. (Select one.)

Mostly men

A relatively even mix of men and women

Mostly women

Don’t know

71. What is the mix of your occupation or career 

field? (Select one.)

Mostly men

A relatively even mix of men and women

Mostly women

Don’t know

You are now at the end of the survey. 

We appreciate your participation and thank you for sharing your opinions and experiences regarding workplace 

harassment. Please use the envelope provided to mail in your completed survey.

The deadline for submission is March 4, 2017.
203 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Each and every employee deserves and is responsible for ensuring a supportive, safe, and inclusive workplace. If 

approaching a supervisor or manager about a workplace issue may not be feasible or effective, you have other options for 

assistance, counselling, and reporting. The resources below can offer support for yourself or someone else.

These resources can be used alone or in combination to support you or someone else. If you are confused or concerned 

about your options, or need to talk confidentially about the pros and cons of various pathways, the NPS Ombuds is a good 

place to start. Please note that you must be within the DOI network to access internal resource links.

Ombuds

The NPS Ombuds Office is an independent, impartial, informal, and confidential resource to explore resolution of 

individual and systemic problems affecting the workforce. It offers a safe haven for discussing, addressing and resolving 

the full range of workplace problems without fear of reprisal. The ombuds is strictly confidential. 

● Contact Scott Deyo at 844-288-7046 (toll free), scott_deyo@contractor.nps.gov stationed in Washington, DC 

(1201 I St NW, Room 560).

● Contact Sigal Shoham at 844-775-7726 (toll free), sigal_shoham@ios.doi.gov stationed in Oakland, CA.

Employee Assistance Program

The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all NPS employees for free, 

confidential counseling and support on mental health, financial, professional and personal management assistance, and 

many other services, including video-enabled counseling. The service is strictly confidential. 

● 24/7 hotline for counseling and support, 800-869-0276.

● www.eapconsultants.com (use the Password: “interioreap” to sign in). 

Equal Employment Opportunity Counseling and Complaints

The Office of EEO can help when you feel you are being discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, national 

origin, age, physical or mental disability, genetics, and/or sexual orientation, even if you are unsure whether discrimination 

is a factor. EEO offers informal counselling and processes formal complaints. Remember that a complaint must be filed 

within 45 days of the incident.

● EEO Hotline, 202-354-1855.

● Contact your Regional EEO Manager. 

Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution (CADR) Support

Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution uses methods such as mediation and arbitration instead of litigation to 

resolve a dispute. The DOI CADR program, called “CORE PLUS” provides these services.

● Visit the CORE PLUS Roster to find your nearest contact from over 25 CORE PLUS-certified facilitators 

located within NPS parks and programs.

● Or contact the NPS’ DOI CADR specialist Ken Brodie at Ken_Brodie@nps.gov or 202-351-1979.

Employee Resource Groups

Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) offer facilitated dialogue and discussion with like-minded peers. ERGs are voluntary, 

employee-led affinity groups that foster a diverse, inclusive workplace aligned with their organizational mission, values, 

goals, practices and objectives.

● Allies for Inclusion harnesses dialog and education to drive cultural change within NPS. 

● Visit thehttps://mylearning.nps.gov/ Common Learning Portal or Employee Center to join or track group 

activities. Contact Colette Carmouche at Colette_Carmouche@nps.gov or 202-354-6981.

Union Support

Bargaining unit employees (those not in human resources positions, supervisors, or confidential employees) may contact 

their local union representative.

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

If you wish to report fraud, waste, or mismanagement to the Department, use the OIG Hotline by calling 800-424-5081 or 

submitting a hotline complaint form online. You can also report allegations in person at locations across the country. 

Whistleblower protection laws exist to protect employees who fear or suffer reprisal for making a disclosure.

Law Enforcement and non-NPS Civil Authorities

If you believe you are the victim of a criminal offense, you may contact local law enforcement, which will determine 

whether the offense requires other civil authorities to be notified.
204 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Ethics Office

Ethics-related advice, counseling and training are provided by ethics counselors located in the Washington, regional, and 

servicing human resources offices (SHROs). Contact NPS Ethics Program Manager Jeff Davies at 

jeffrey_davis@nps.gov or 202-354-

1981.https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=jeffrey_davies@nps.gov
205 © 2017 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Survey Glossary of Terms

Concessioner: A person or entity who operates a business on or off federal premises, usually as the only seller of certain 

goods or services.

Contractor: A person or entity who contracts with the federal government to provide services, supplies, or other work.

Coworker: Someone with whom you work that is not your supervisor (or chain of command).

Disability: A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; a 

record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment (Source: The Americans with Disabilities 

Act 42 U.S.C. 12102).

Employee: An individual appointed in the civil service, does not include contractors, non-paid interns or volunteers.

Manager: Those in management positions who typically supervise one or more supervisors.

Partner: A person, volunteer or entity who has some degree of involvement with the Department or agency’s mission 

through agreement or memorandum of understanding.

Permanent employee: An employee hired without time limitations.

Seasonal employment: A work schedule with annually recurring periods of work of less than 12 months. 

Supervisor: First-line supervisors are typically responsible for employees’ performance appraisals and leave approval.

Senior Leader: The heads of departments/agencies and their immediate leadership team, responsible for directing the 

policies of the department/bureau. May hold either a political or career appointment, and typically a member of the Senior 

Executive Service or equivalent.

Team Lead: Team leaders are not official supervisors; those who provide employees with day-to-day guidance in work 

projects, but do not have supervisory responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals.

Temporary employee: An employee who is appointed for less than one year.

Term employee: An employee who is appointed for no less than one year but not to exceed four years.

Work unit: A unit or team of employees who have been assigned to accomplish specific tasks.
Federal Consulting Group

Rafael Williams

Contracting Officer’s 

Representative (COR)

202-208-3035 (tel)

Rafael_Williams@ios.doi.gov

Jessica Reed

Director

202-208-4699 (tel)

Jessica_Reed@ios.doi.gov

Call Order #105

IA# 20307

D12PA00231

CFI Group

625 Avis Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

734-930-9090 (tel)

www.cfigroup.com