United States Department of Agriculture

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
IMPORTANT NOTICE

This audit report contains sensitive information that has been redacted for public release, due to privacy 

concerns. 

Forest Service Initiatives to Address Workplace 

Misconduct

Audit Report 08601-0008-41

We reviewed whether FS’ actions in response to sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct complaints sufficiently addressed workplace concerns.

WHAT OIG FOUND

We reviewed 11 cases of substantiated allegations of 

sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the Forest 

Service’s (FS) Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) from 

fiscal years (FY) 2013–2017. We found two, and likely a 

third, cases in which former supervisors did not inform 

FS hiring officials about employees’ prior histories. These 

employees were later selected for supervisory positions 

in other regions. This occurred because hiring officials 

relied on reference checks with the employees’ former 

supervisors, who did not disclose the misconduct.

We also reviewed intake forms for 125 complaints of 

sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in Region 5 for 

FYs 2014–2017, and we found that 18 of these cases were 

not reported by FS managers and supervisors within 

the required 24-hour timeframe. In addition, we found 

that in 13 of these 18 cases, FS took no action against 

management officials who did not timely report these 

allegations. This occurred because FS supervisors and 

managers did not appear to fully understand the 24-hour 

reporting requirement, and FS lacked specific guidelines 

on disciplinary actions to take when addressing untimely 

reporting.

Lastly, we found that for 4 of the 11 cases we reviewed 

where the allegations of sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct were substantiated, the decided action was 

less than the corresponding penalty listed in USDA’s 

Guide for Disciplinary Penalties. Though deviating from 

recommended penalties is allowed, in three of the cases FS 

officials did not adequately document their justification for 

deviating from the penalty outlined in the Guide. 

Regarding our first objective, we had no reportable 

findings. Although some are still ongoing, FS had 

generally implemented all of the action items outlined in 

the joint agreement with the Office of the General Counsel 

(OGC) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights (OASCR) (see Exhibit B).

FS generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations, and we accepted management decision 

on all eight recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

Our objectives were to evaluate 

whether the actions FS took in 

its Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5) in response to 

complaints of sexual misconduct 

and harassment in the workplace 

(1) were effectively implemented

as outlined in the joint

agreement with OGC and

OASCR, and (2) sufficiently

addressed workplace concerns.

FS should provide training and 

guidance for reference checks 

and the 24-hour reporting 

requirement, ask specific 

questions regarding applicants’ 

prior histories, establish 

disciplinary guidelines for 

allegations not reported within 

24 hours, and establish internal 

guidelines for documenting the 

justification when deviating from 

the recommended penalty.

RECOMMENDS

REVIEWED

We reviewed applicable laws, 

regulations, and agency policies, 

interviewed relevant officials 

and current and former FS 

employees, and examined case 

intake forms. 

United States Department of Agriculture

Office of Inspector General

Washington, D.C. 20250

DATE: February 11, 2019

AUDIT 

NUMBER: 08601-0008-41 

TO: Victoria Christiansen

Chief

Forest Service

ATTN: Antoine Dixon 

Chief Financial Officer

FROM: Steve Rickrode 

Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit

SUBJECT: Forest Service Initiatives to Address Workplace Misconduct 

This report presents the results of the subject audit. Your written response to the official draft, 

dated November 30, 2018, is included in its entirety at the end of the report. Your response and 

the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) position are incorporated into the relevant sections of the 

report. Based on your written response, we are accepting management decision for all audit 

recommendations in the report, and no further response to this office is necessary.

In accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, final action needs to be taken within 1 year 

of each management decision to prevent being listed in the Department’s annual Agency 

Financial Report. For agencies other than the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), 

please follow your internal agency procedures in forwarding final action correspondence to 

OCFO.

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during our 

audit fieldwork and subsequent discussions. This report contains publically available 

information and will be posted in its entirety to our website (http://www.usda.gov/oig) in the 

near future.

Table of Contents

Background and Objectives................................................................................... 1

Finding 1: FS Hiring Officials Promoted Employees with Undisclosed Prior 

Histories of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct.................................... 5

Recommendation 1 ........................................................................................7

Recommendation 2 ........................................................................................8

Recommendation 3 ........................................................................................9

Recommendation 4 ......................................................................................10

Finding 2:  FS is Not Timely Reporting All Complaints of Sexual Harassment 

and Sexual Misconduct......................................................................................... 11

Recommendation 5 ......................................................................................14

Recommendation 6 ......................................................................................14

Recommendation 7 ......................................................................................15

Finding 3: Justification for Decided Actions Not Adequately Documented in 

Case Files................................................................................................................ 17

Recommendation 8 ......................................................................................18

Scope and Methodology........................................................................................ 19

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 21

Exhibit A:  Audit Sites Visited............................................................................. 22

Exhibit B:  Status of Action Items from Joint Agreement................................ 23

Agency's Response ................................................................................................ 25

AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 1

Background and Objectives

Background

The Forest Service (FS) manages more than 193 million acres of public land. The agency 

currently has a workforce of over 27,000 employees, and women make up roughly 36 percent of 

that workforce.1 FS’ Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) has a workforce of over 4,500 

employees, and women comprise roughly 27 percent of that workforce.2In November 2014, 

Congress requested that OIG review allegations of sexual harassment, attempted sexual assault, 

and whistleblower retaliation within FS’ Region 5.3

 In December 2014, OIG initiated a 

preliminary review of Region 5’s work environment to determine the actions FS had taken to 

address Congress’ concerns.

In May 2015, OIG completed its preliminary review and concluded that FS had taken 

constructive steps towards improving its work environment. For instance, in December 2014, 

FS, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR), and the Office of the 

General Counsel (OGC) entered into a joint agreement to strengthen the work environment in 

Region 5, including specific actions to improve the environment for women. The joint 

agreement included action items to increase FS’ commitment to create a respectful, equitable, 

and safe workspace for all employees, with full accountability for any wrongdoing. However, 

a number of the action items in the joint agreement at the time of our initial review were still in 

the planning stages. As a result, OIG postponed further audit work until FS had more time to 

implement all of the action items in the joint agreement.

In November 2016, OIG received another request from Congress urging OIG to further review 

allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment and whistleblower retaliation within FS’ 

Region 5.

4

 In a December 2016 hearing, Congressional members were concerned that sexual 

misconduct and harassment still persisted within the FS and demanded that changes be made.

5

 

Due to these Congressional concerns, OIG expedited its timeline for an audit of Region 5.

1 This number does not include an additional 10,902 employees that FS hired on a temporary basis. Roughly 

29 percent of its temporary workforce were women. In the summer months, FS adds thousands of seasonal 

employees, most of whom are engaged in firefighting.

2 This number does not include an additional 2,316 employees that FS’ Region 5 hired on a temporary basis. 

Roughly 22 percent of Region 5’s temporary workforce were women. In the summer months, Region 5 adds 

thousands of seasonal employees, most of whom are engaged in firefighting. 

3 Congressional members on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requested, in a letter dated 

November 19, 2014, that OIG review allegations of sexual harassment, attempted sexual assault, gender 

discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation in FS’ Region 5.

4 Members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate requested in a letter dated November 10, 2016, 

that OIG conduct an audit into the FS’ revised sexual misconduct procedures to ensure that (1) there are adequate 

processes in place to report sexual misconduct, (2) survivors and whistleblowers are protected from retaliation, 

(3) perpetrators found to have engaged in sexual misconduct and supervisors who have not properly implemented

FS procedures are held accountable, and (4) the agency has improved its workplace environment.

5 Congressional Hearing, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Holds Hearing on Sexual

Harassment and Gender Discrimination at the Agriculture Department (December 1, 2016).
2 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

FS has an ongoing relationship with OASCR and OGC regarding FS’ past consent decrees and 

class action suits, one of which related specifically to sexual harassment6

and sexual 

misconduct.7 Tensions and mistrust among employees in FS’ Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5) have built up over time, dating back to the consent decrees of 19818and 2001.9In 

September 2014, a New York Times article about women alleging harassment and abuse from FS 

firefighting crews prompted a formal collaboration between FS, OASCR, and OGC to strengthen 

and enhance compliance with FS’ sexual harassment and sexual misconduct policies. 

In the joint agreement with OASCR and OGC that focused solely on Region 5, FS was required 

to revise Region 5’s standard operating procedures for reporting and responding to allegations of 

sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and to strengthen and enhance compliance with its 

sexual misconduct policies. For example, Region 5 strengthened and enhanced compliance with 

its sexual misconduct policies by stating management’s specific responsibility for reporting 

allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in a separate policy memorandum. The 

policy memorandum also placed a greater emphasis on potential discipline, including specific 

mention of potential termination for violation of the policy. In addition, Region 5 strengthened 

its standard operating procedures to require that the aggrieved employee be provided a written 

acknowledgment within 48 hours that his or her allegation was received and was being processed 

6 FS defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or 

physical conduct of a sexual nature when: a) Submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a 

term or condition of an individual’s employment; b) Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by an individual is 

used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or c) Such conduct has the purpose or effect of 

unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive 

work environment.” Examples of sexual harassment include: graphic verbal commentaries, verbal exchanges, or 

jokes with a sexual connotation; behavior with sexual overtones that is intimidating or offensive to the recipient, or 

to one who observes such behavior or other displays; unnecessary or inappropriate touching or grabbing; making 

lewd gestures; pressuring for sexual activity; offensive sexual flirtation, advances, or propositioning; using sexually 

degrading words to describe an individual; and/or the display in the workplace of sexually suggestive objects, 

pictures, computer screen savers, or written materials. Sexual harassment can occur at any time and any location, 

regardless of whether the acts occur on or off the workplace or federal property, and whether they occur during or 

after work hours. FS Washington Office, Forest Service Manual 1700-Civil Rights, Chapter 1760-Equal 

Employment Opportunity (August 25, 2016). This manual was amended on August 7, 2017; however, the changes 

made did not affect FS’ definition of sexual harassment.

7

Inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature (also referred to by FS as sexual misconduct) “can create or be the basis 

of sexual harassment. It may consist of an isolated incident of behavior with a sexual connotation or could include 

repeated unwelcomed flirtations; repeated unwanted requests for dates; or repeated suggestive comments about or 

references to someone’s anatomy; or ridicule or teasing regarding an employee’s gender identity, gender expression, 

or sexual orientation.” FS Washington Office, Forest Service Manual 1700-Civil Rights, Chapter 1760-Equal 

Employment Opportunity (August 25, 2016). This manual was amended on August 7, 2017; however, the changes 

made did not affect FS’ definition of sexual misconduct.

8

In 1973, an employee filed a class action suit alleging that FS Region 5 discriminated against females with respect 

to hiring and promotions. On July 1, 1981, the Court approved a consent decree in which FS Region 5 agreed to 

strive to eliminate under-representation of women in all series and grades for 5 years. The Court extended the 

consent decree, and after its expiration in 1992, the parties agreed to a 2-year settlement agreement that ended in 

1994.

9

In 1995, two employees filed a class action suit alleging that FS Region 5 retaliated against and created a hostile 

work environment for women. On February 6, 2001, the Court approved a settlement agreement, which required FS 

to take specific actions regarding civil rights and personnel programs to ensure a work environment free of sexual 

harassment and retaliation. In 2003, the parties agreed to extend the duration of the settlement agreement until 2006. 

Afterwards, the Court determined that FS had substantially complied with the settlement agreement and denied 

Plaintiffs’ requests to extend the duration of the settlement agreement.

 

 

 
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 3

according to the region’s protocols. These changes were enacted between June 2015 and 

October 2016.

FS uses the USDA Guide for Disciplinary Penalties10 to assist officials in selecting appropriate 

penalties for disciplining employees who have engaged in misconduct. The Guide has a 

dedicated section specific to sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. While the Guide does 

not cover every possible offense, it does address the more common types of offenses and the 

penalties typically associated with an offense once it is substantiated.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) issued a report in September 2005 regarding the 

use of reference checking in the public and private sectors.11 It identified best practices, which,

when followed, increase the contribution reference checking makes to hiring decisions. The 

report also noted that there are strong legal protections for Federal employers who make 

reference check inquiries of those who are able to provide job-related information about 

applicants.

In order to ensure a consistent approach to addressing harassment, FS created one comprehensive 

agency anti-harassment policy in August 2016, hereafter referred to as the National AntiHarassment Policy, which expanded and improved on the previous Pacific Southwest Region 

policy. FS wanted to strengthen the policy to outline clear expectations for employees and 

supervisors, ensure a prompt and effective process for handling sexual misconduct complaints, 

and ensure effective support systems for those involved. With OASCR’s concurrence, FS 

rescinded the Pacific Southwest Region policy and enacted the National Anti-Harassment Policy 

in July 2017.

Both the Pacific Southwest Region policy and National Anti-Harassment Policy require 

management officials who receive reports of sexual assault, sexual violence, or sexual 

harassment to notify the appropriate FS officials of the issue within 24 hours of receiving the 

report of sexual assault, sexual violence, or sexual harassment.12 Initial notification can be made 

by email or telephone, but it must describe the issue completely. An intake form is used to 

document the complaint that must be submitted to the designated FS officials within 3 duty days 

of receiving a report of sexual assault, sexual violence, or sexual harassment. In addition, with 

reports of sexual assault or sexual violence, management officials are required to notify local law 

enforcement immediately, not to exceed 24 hours.

10 United States Department of Agriculture, Department Personnel Manual, Chapter 751, Appendix A, USDA Guide 

for Disciplinary Penalties (June 29, 1994).

11 MSPB made its recommendations in accordance with the requirements specified in 5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3). 

“Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call,” A Report to the President and the Congress of the 

United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sept. 2005.

The primary difference between the two policies regarding the reporting requirement is who would be notified

when there are allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. The regional policy required regional 

office, civil rights, and employee relations personnel to be notified. Supervisors or managers also informed the 

Forest Supervisor or Deputy Forest Supervisor, the Staff Director or Deputy Staff Director, and the Civil Rights 

Officer. The National Anti-Harassment Policy requires notification to the Field Service Center Civil Rights Director 

and the Employee Relations Supervisor.

12
4 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

Interim Report

In July 2017, FS amended its National Anti-Harassment Policy requiring that all complaints of 

sexual harassment and sexual misconduct go directly to a misconduct investigation, eliminating 

the need for management inquiries. FS made the policy change to strengthen its process for 

handling these types of complaints, which it considers “a particularly egregious form of 

harassment and a form of sex discrimination prohibited by law and regulation.” The change in 

policy acknowledged the seriousness with which FS considers complaints that adversely affect 

its employees and the overall work environment.

Beginning in March 2018, FS agreed, for a trial period of at least 1 year, to only use contract 

investigators or investigators from other Federal agencies to investigate complaints of sexual 

harassment and sexual misconduct in its Pacific Southwest Region. At the end of the trial 

period, FS would assess the overall effectiveness of using only contract investigators or 

investigators from other Federal agencies to investigate sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct cases and whether the practice should be made permanent. FS took this action in 

response to an OIG interim report issued during this audit due to the sensitivity of the subject 

matter and the need to ensure that the investigative process is fair and unbiased.13

Objectives

Our objectives were to determine whether the actions FS took in its Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5) in response to complaints of sexual misconduct and harassment in the workplace: 

(1) were effectively implemented as outlined in the joint agreement with OGC and OASCR; and 

(2) sufficiently addressed workplace concerns. 

Regarding our first objective, we had no reportable findings. Although some are still ongoing, 

FS had generally implemented all of the action items outlined in the joint agreement with OGC 

and OASCR (see Exhibit B). The findings in this report address the additional actions FS should 

take to address workplace concerns regarding its handling of sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct complaints.

 

13 OIG Audit Report 08601-0008-41(1), Forest Service Initiatives to Address Workplace Misconduct—Interim 

Report (March 2018).
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 5

Finding 1: FS Hiring Officials Promoted Employees with Undisclosed Prior 

Histories of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct

We reviewed 11 cases of substantiated allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct 

from FYs 2013–2017 and found two, and likely a third, cases in which former supervisors did 

not inform FS hiring officials about employees’ prior histories. Those employees were later 

selected for supervisory positions in other FS regions. This occurred because hiring officials 

relied on reference checks with the employees’ former supervisors, who did not disclose the 

misconduct when they submitted the reference checklist.14 As a result, FS hiring officials may 

lack critical information when making hiring decisions. Furthermore, employees may lose trust 

or confidence in Region 5’s commitment to a zero tolerance policy regarding sexual harassment 

and sexual misconduct in the workplace.

15 Lastly, these actions could adversely affect employee 

morale within the agency.

According to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), “[p]roperly conducted reference 

checks are a key component of a hiring process that will select the best employees from each 

pool of applicants,” and “reference checking also helps Federal employers identify and exclude 

applicants with a history of inappropriate workplace behavior.”16 Further, the MSPB states that

“the right to privacy is not absolute. Employment laws recognize that employers have special 

needs to access work history information.” Also, “employment-related questions about an 

applicant’s behavior may, as a general rule, be asked and answered with minimal risk of legal 

liability so long as an applicant’s rights are not knowingly violated.” 

We obtained the documentation for the 11 substantiated cases of sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct, which includes inquiry reports, written statements, case assessments, and notices of 

proposed disciplinary actions, from FS.17 FS provided additional information about these 

employees’ transfers, which included the reference checks we reviewed.

We found that FS hiring officials selected and reassigned three employees, who were the subject 

of substantiated allegations of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and/or creating a hostile 

work environment, to supervisory positions in other regions. 

14 The reference checklist is a form used by FS hiring officials to document their reference checks on applicants 

applying for FS positions. OIG obtained, for two of the employees, the reference checklists that indicated former 

supervisors did not disclose information about the employees’ prior histories of sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct. The third reference checklist no longer existed and was shredded due to the age of the record, 

according to FS human resource management staff. In this case, we concluded that the former supervisor likely did 

not inform the FS hiring official about the employee’s prior history because the reference checklist that would have 

been used for the reference check did not specifically ask about the employee’s prior history. If obtained, this 

information would have been documented on the reference checklist. There was nothing else in the case files we 

reviewed indicating former supervisors informed FS hiring officials about employees’ prior histories.

15 FSM 1700 Civil Rights—Chapter 1760—Employment Opportunity—Region 5 has a zero tolerance policy for

sexual harassment and does not tolerate or condone any form of sexual harassment, nor does it tolerate retaliating 

against any employee for reporting harassment or assisting in an investigation of a claim. 

16 A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, Sept. 2005.

17 FS determined 11 substantiated cases of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct out of the 35 cases we selected 

for review. The selected cases were from FYs 2013–2017.

 

 

 

 
6 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

Prior to the employees’ reassignments, 

18

The three cases are described below. 

Case #1: 

Case #2: 

Case #3: 

For two of these cases, we reviewed former supervisors’ answers in the reference checklists and 

found that the former supervisors did not disclose information regarding the two employees’ 

prior histories.19

 

In addition, we 

found that there were no specific questions asking about the employee’s character or whether the 

employee had a history of misconduct affecting his or her suitability for the job. Hiring officials 

did ask general questions that were on the checklist.20 However, the former supervisors did not 

disclose the misconduct associated with the employees when asked these two general questions.

 

18

 

19 We reviewed the reference checklists for Cases 1 and 3. According to FS human resource management staff, the 

reference checklist for Case 2 no longer existed because it was shredded due to the age of the record. 

20 Reference checklists included the two general questions: (1) Is there any information that you would like to add 

concerning this employee? and (2) What do you see as this employee’s challenges?
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 7

According to an FS official, former supervisors may have been reluctant to disclose information 

about the employees’ prior history due to privacy or liability concerns. However, according to 

the MSPB, “providing reference information need not be avoided—it can be done within the 

bounds of legality.”21 MSPB also notes that reference checkers, in general, have a qualified 

immunity against charges of invasion of privacy, so long as they follow the proper guidelines. 

Overall, we identified several improvements that FS can make to improve the process when 

making hiring decisions. FS should provide additional training and guidance regarding all

supervisors’ responsibility to provide accurate and reliable information during reference checks. 

Asking more specifically about current or former employees’ prior history regarding serious 

misconduct provides greater assurance that the supervisor providing the reference will be more 

forthcoming about this kind of information. Additionally, extra training on privacy and liability 

will help ensure that supervisors will be more inclined to share this type of information with 

hiring officials. Although not required, as a best business practice, hiring officials should also 

obtain information directly from human resources management about an employee’s prior 

history to ensure that all relevant information is available to make an informed decision in hiring. 

Hiring officials should not rely solely on the information provided by the former supervisors.

An FS management official suggested that the referencing process should also include directly 

asking current and former FS employees applying for positions within the agency additional 

questions that could provide information on their behaviors in work settings. This process would 

hold the employee responsible and accountable for providing truthful and honest information 

during the application process. OIG agreed with the suggestion to include these interview 

questions in the overall process of interviewing applicants. 

These improvements should help ensure that appropriate guidance is given to strengthen the 

process of assessment and evaluation on the advancement of current employees. These 

improvements would also help ensure the suitability of future employees with prior histories of 

allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct through accurate exchange of 

information in the interview and reference-checking process.

Recommendation 1

Provide additional training and guidance to supervisors on the MSPB and OPM guidelines 

regarding their responsibility to provide complete and accurate information to hiring officials 

when asked for references on current and former FS employees seeking employment or 

promotions within FS. The training and guidance should also cover privacy and liability 

concerns when disclosing employee information. 

 

21 A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board,

Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, Sept. 2005.
8 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated:

The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation. FS requires all hiring 

managers to complete the Hiring Matters! training in AgLearn. This training is mandated 

by USDA Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) and it covers Merit System 

Principles, Prohibited Personnel Practices, and provides guidance regarding interviews 

and conducting reference checks. Reports are available to show training participation 

and completion. 

To supplement the above required training, FS will:

1. Review and update previous guidance provided to supervisors and managers 

covering their responsibility to reply completely and accurately when asked for 

references on current and former Forest Service (FS) employees seeking 

employment or promotions within FS; 

2. Develop scenario-based training for supervisors which supplements the required 

USDA training with an emphasis on legally providing information when asked for 

a reference check. AgLearn, or another training platform or methodology, will be 

utilized to house this training which will allow for tracking; and

3. Ensure scenario-based training referred above covers privacy and liability 

concerns when disclosing employee information.

FS provided an estimated completion date of June 1, 2019, for this action.

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 

Recommendation 2

Add, to the standardized list of questions that hiring officials ask the supervisors of current and 

former FS employees applying for positions within the agency, questions about whether 

applicants have a prior history of serious misconduct, the nature of the misconduct, and their 

suitability for the position despite the misconduct. 

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated:

The USDA Forest Service generally concurs, but has concerns with the legality of 

implementing the recommendation as written. Before moving forward we will need to 
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 9

seek guidance and concurrence from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and 

OHRM. Our initial concerns include: 

1) Protecting the Agency from liability caused by hiring managers asking

questions that are too detailed regarding prior discipline. This could lead to

violations of Merit Systems Principles and/or the Privacy Act.

2) Placing supervisors in the position of having to violate a settlement agreement

that requires them to not disclose certain information without legal risk to the

Agency or themselves.

3) Inconsistent approaches for internal and external applicants which may lead to

potential violations of Merit System Principles and the USDA Merit Promotion

Plan. Reference checks must be consistent for all applicants to maintain fair

and open competition. Asking different questions to different applicants could

lead to these violations.

The Agency will collaborate with OGC and OHRM to see if there is an appropriate 

way that we can revise our existing, optional, standardized template containing 

reference questions to include questions responsive to OIG’s recommendation. 

FS provided an estimated completion date of October 1, 2019, for this action.

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 

Recommendation 3

Add, to the standardized list of questions that hiring officials ask the applicants applying for 

positions within FS, questions about whether applicants have a prior history of serious 

misconduct, the nature of the misconduct, and their suitability for the position despite the 

misconduct. 

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated:

The USDA Forest Service generally concurs with this recommendation. Interviews are 

an effective tool in evaluating candidates for appointment to Federal positions. FS 

provides interview and reference check guides that are on the Human Resource 

Management (HRM) website. The guides outline the role and responsibility of the hiring 

official and give parameters of what can be asked. Asking specific questions regarding 

an employee’s prior discipline and the specifics around that could lead to violations of the 

Privacy Act and Merit Systems Principles which could create liability for the Agency. 
10 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

The Agency will collaborate with OGC and OHRM to see if there is an appropriate way 

that we can require questions responsive to OIG’s recommendation. 

FS provided an estimated completion date of December 1, 2019, for this action.

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 

Recommendation 4

Establish guidelines for hiring officials to contact human resources management to determine 

whether current or former employees (including seasonal employees) applying for positions 

within FS have prior histories of serious misconduct and the nature of the misconduct.

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated:

The USDA Forest Service generally concurs with the intent of this recommendation but 

has significant concerns with the legality and feasibility of implementing it as written. 

Areas of concern that the Agency needs to avoid are violations of the Privacy Act, Merit 

Systems Principles, or any other employment law. For example, we do not want to set up 

a process where an individual could release information in violation of the Privacy Act or 

Office of Personnel Management rules and regulations on appropriate use/release of 

information contained within personnel files. Likewise, we do not want to increase risk 

in employment litigation caused by creating a higher bar or enacting a more strenuous 

process for internal applicants. This is something that could definitely be argued is a 

violation of Merit System Principles requiring fair, equal, and open competition based on 

the duties of the position. The Agency will collaborate with OGC and OHRM and ask 

them to determine if this recommendation is achievable. 

FS provided an estimated completion date of December 1, 2019, for this action.

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 11

Finding 2: FS is Not Timely Reporting All Complaints of Sexual Harassment 

and Sexual Misconduct

We reviewed the intake forms for 125 complaints of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in 

Region 5 from FYs 2014–2017 and found that 18 of these cases were not reported within the 

required 24-hour timeframe. We also found that in 13 of these 18 cases, FS took no action 

against management officials who did not timely report these allegations. This occurred because 

FS supervisors and managers did not appear to fully understand the 24-hour reporting 

requirement, and FS lacked specific guidelines on disciplinary actions to take when addressing 

supervisors’ and managers’ untimely reporting. As a result, FS employees may lack confidence 

in FS’ willingness and ability to timely follow up on their allegations of sexual harassment and 

sexual misconduct, and may therefore be more reluctant to report these types of complaints.

The Region 5 FS manual states, “[a]ll supervisors and managers are required to report all 

allegations or incidents of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or allegations of reprisal 

(retaliation for reporting sexual harassment-related civil rights activity) within 24-hours of 

becoming aware of those allegations or incidents and to take prompt and appropriate action to 

address such conduct. Failing to meet this requirement may result in corrective action, up to and 

including removal and referral to appropriate law enforcement, if warranted.”22 The Washington 

Office’s FS manual also reiterates that FS officials must take appropriate steps, which include 

implementing appropriate corrective and disciplinary action, when an employee, manager, or 

supervisor fails to follow procedures.23

Despite recent policies, we still found instances where sexual harassment and sexual misconduct 

allegations were not reported timely. We also found that FS did not always take action when

supervisors or managers failed to report these types of allegations timely. Our findings are 

detailed below. 

Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct allegations not timely reported

In our review of the 18 untimely reported cases, cases were not formally reported until 

days, or in some cases months, after FS management officials were initially made aware 

of the allegations. FS supervisors and managers did not appear to fully understand their 

roles and responsibilities regarding the 24-hour reporting requirement. Below are two 

cases that illustrate untimely reporting and the actions the supervisor or manager took 

before formally reporting these allegations. 

Case #1: 

 

22 FS Pacific Southwest Region (R5), Forest Service Manual 1700-Civil Rights, Chapter 1760-Employment 

Opportunity (June 19, 2015). This manual was amended on October 24, 2016; however, the changes made did not 

affect this finding. 

FS Washington Office, Forest Service Manual 1700-Civil Rights, Chapter 1760-Equal Employment Opportunity 

(August 25, 2016). This manual was amended on August 7, 2017; however, the changes made did not affect this 

finding. 

23
12 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

Case #2: 

Considering the actions the manager or the supervisor took before reporting the 

allegations in the cases above, the manager or the supervisor did not appear to fully 

understand the reporting requirements. In the remaining cases where FS inquired about 

the untimely reporting, we also determined, based on the responses these supervisors or 

managers provided, that they did not appear to fully understand the 24-hour reporting 

requirement. Although the 24-hour reporting requirement has been in effect since 2009, 

we believe additional training and guidance would be beneficial to ensure that all 

employees fully understand the 24-hour reporting requirement.

These two cases occurred after Region 5 issued its revised sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct policy. Since then, FS has made efforts to improve its reporting process. In 

November 2017, FS established its harassment reporting center. As of March 2018, all 

reports of harassment, including sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, must be 

initiated through the reporting center.24 Employees can call the reporting center and 

report the allegation themselves, or if the supervisor or manager was already informed, it 

would be the supervisor’s or manager’s responsibility to report the allegation for his or 

her employee. According to FS, 40 percent of the allegations received by the harassment 

reporting center are reported by the employee’s supervisor or manager.25

 

24 The harassment reporting center is available 7 days a week, including holidays, from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm EST. 

The number for the harassment reporting center is 1-844-815-8943.

25 Anti-Harassment & Harassment Reporting Center Data and Metrics (Updated May 25, 2018). The data received 

from FS did not specify the type of harassment that supervisors and managers reported. The data included all types 

of harassment.
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 13

FS took no disciplinary action against supervisors and managers for untimely reporting

In all 18 untimely reported cases, FS took no official disciplinary action against 

management officials for not formally reporting sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct allegations timely. In 2 of the 18 cases, FS believed supervisors and 

managers reported the allegations timely, even though it took them more than 24 hours to 

formally report the allegations. In seven other cases, FS did not inquire about the 

untimely reporting, thus no actions were taken.

In 9 of the 18 cases, FS inquired about the untimely reporting. Of those nine cases, only 

five resulted in non-disciplinary actions against management officials. The officials were 

either given letters of warning, required to take specialized training in the prevention of 

sexual harassment, or a combination of both. However, even these non-disciplinary 

actions were often not taken against management officials until several months later. In 

the remaining four cases, no action, not even non-disciplinary action, was taken against 

management officials for untimely reporting.

Although both the FS Region 5 and Washington Office manuals prescribe that 

appropriate corrective and disciplinary action be implemented when an employee, 

manager, or supervisor does not follow procedures, the manuals do not specifically state 

what those corrective or disciplinary actions should be. Our review shows that FS took 

inconsistent actions when it came to untimely reporting. We attribute these 

inconsistencies to FS not having specific guidelines that address the action FS should 

take when supervisors or managers do not report sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct allegations timely. We believe FS needs guidelines that specify what actions 

to take on untimely reporting for these types of complaints to ensure consistency.

OIG followed up with a Human Resources Management official from the Washington 

Office to gain perspective on the inconsistent actions taken for untimely reporting. The 

Human Resources Management official explained that the issue was a result of a lack of 

supervisory training on the revised policy and there was confusion on where and to whom

to report, thus resulting in the inconsistent actions taken regarding untimely reporting. 

The Human Resources Management official added that FS takes this issue seriously and 

has implemented formal training since then. However, for FY 2017, we reviewed 

26 sexual harassment and sexual misconduct intake forms and found 4 instances of 

untimeliness.26 Of the four cases, FS inquired about the untimeliness of one and, as a 

result, prescribed training on the prevention of sexual harassment. In the remaining three

cases, FS did not inquire about the untimely reporting, thus no actions were taken.

Due to the inconsistencies mentioned above, we urge that FS take additional steps to ensure 

timely reporting and consistent inquiry, and to take action against management officials who do 

not meet the 24-hour reporting requirement. Considering the sensitivity of the subject matter, we 

recommend FS require supervisors and managers to formally acknowledge their responsibility to 

report all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct within the required 24-hour 

 

26 These 26 intake forms were included in the 125 intake forms reviewed from FYs 2014–2017.
14 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

timeframe and record this acknowledgement. FS should also provide additional training and 

guidance to FS supervisors and managers on their roles and responsibilities regarding the 

24-hour reporting requirement. Lastly, FS should establish guidelines to ensure that those FS 

supervisors and managers who do not timely report sexual harassment and sexual misconduct 

allegations within the required 24-hour timeframe are disciplined, when appropriate. 

It is essential that FS employees have confidence and trust in their management’s ability to 

report complaints of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct timely. The FS Washington 

Office manual states that “[t]he Forest Service can only take action if it knows about incidents of 

harassment.” When supervisors or managers do not report these allegations timely, it does not 

help the situation or affected employees. How supervisors and managers handle these types of 

allegations is a direct reflection on the FS and how the agency, as a whole, responds to sexual 

harassment and sexual misconduct allegations. The reporting aspect is the first pivotal step in 

initiating the process and supervisors’ and managers’ roles in reporting these allegations timely 

is crucial. 

Recommendation 5

Require FS supervisors and managers to formally acknowledge their responsibility to report all 

allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct within the required 24-hour timeframe

and record this acknowledgement.

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated:

The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation. The Agency has already 

created, distributed and delivered this requirement. It is included in the Agency AntiHarassment Policy (FSM 7165.08), and was discussed during the mandatory all 

employee Stand Up for Each Other Training, but no formal acknowledgement was 

required (other than to certify completion of the training). The Forest Service will create 

an annual certification through AgLearn, or a similar system, that will require all 

supervisors to acknowledge this requirement. 

FS provided an estimated completion date of June 1, 2019, for this action.

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 

Recommendation 6

Provide additional training and guidance to FS supervisors and managers on their roles and 

responsibilities regarding the 24-hour reporting requirement.
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 15

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated:

The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation, and has already 

accomplished this in FY18. Examples of efforts already completed by the Agency are: 

· The creation of a Leader Guide and Leader Quick Reference Sheet in March 2018 

that is available on our Anti-Harassment intranet page. 

· Mandatory New Supervisor Training is required for all new supervisors in our 

Agency within their first year in a supervisory position. This training covers 

reporting requirements in detail. 

· During the week of June 11, 2018, all employees participated in mandatory antiharassment training titled, “Stand Up For Each Other.” This training covered 

reporting requirements in detail, to include the mandatory 24-hour requirement 

for sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations.

The USDA Forest Service will also continue to communicate this requirement through 

our already established mandatory annual anti-harassment training and adhoc training 

sessions to field supervisors to improve awareness of the Anti-Harassment policy and 

reporting requirements. 

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 

Recommendation 7

Establish guidelines to ensure that those FS supervisors and managers who do not timely report 

sexual harassment and sexual misconduct allegations within the required 24-hour timeframe are 

disciplined, when appropriate.

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated: 

The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation. The Agency 

communicated this requirement throughout FY18. The annual certification that will be 

implemented in AgLearn by June 2019, will establish guidelines and inform supervisors 

that failure to meet this requirement may result in disciplinary action. The Agency will 

closely monitor compliance of this requirement through current system resources and will 

initiate appropriate action for those supervisors and managers who do not timely report 

known allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct within the required 

timeframes. 
16 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

FS provided an estimated completion date of October 1, 2019, for this action.

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 17

Finding 3: Justification for Decided Actions Not Adequately Documented in 

Case Files

For 4 of the 11 cases we reviewed where the allegations of sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct were substantiated, the decided action was less than the corresponding penalty listed 

in USDA’s Guide for Disciplinary Penalties. Though alternate penalties may be appropriate 

given the circumstances of any particular situation, in three of the cases FS officials did not 

adequately document the justification for their decision. Due to the lack of documentation, there 

is no assurance that FS took consistent disciplinary actions appropriate to address sexual 

harassment and sexual misconduct.

The Departmental Personnel Manual states, “To achieve a reasonable degree of uniformity in the 

imposition of penalties, Agencies should consider the penalties suggested therein and normally 

apply or recommend those indicated unless there appears to be substantial justification for 

deviating therefrom. In such cases, the justification shall be set forth in detail in the case file.”27

The purpose of the USDA Guide for Disciplinary Penalties is to assist those responsible for 

disciplining employees in selecting appropriate penalties for misconduct. While the Guide does 

not cover every possible offense, it does address the more common types of offenses and the 

penalties usually applied. The following table shows the offenses and corresponding penalties 

for sexual misconduct:28

Table 1. List of Offenses and Corresponding Penalties for Sexual Misconduct

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Type of Misconduct Penalty for First 

Offense

Penalty for 

Subsequent 

Offense

a. Actual or attempted assault (e.g., rape) Removal

b. Inappropriate and/or unwelcome touching 

or other physical contact. 

14-Day Suspension 

to Removal

30-Day 

Suspension to 

Removal

c. Pressure for (or official action based on) 

sexual favors, including taking action 

favorable to an employee because of the 

granting of a sexual favor or denying an 

action favorable to an employee because 

of the withholding of a sexual favor. 

30-Day Suspension 

to Removal

Removal

 

27 Departmental Personnel Manual Chapter 751-1, Subchapter 1-2(a)(3), (Nov. 1981). According to a Human 

Resources Specialist within USDA’s Office of Human Resources Management, although cited in the section of the 

manual pertaining to removal, this criteria applies to all types of disciplinary action.

28 Excerpted information from Departmental Personnel Manual Chapter 751, Appendix A, “USDA Guide for 

Disciplinary Penalties,” May 1994.
18 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

d. Inappropriate and/or unwelcome teasing, 

jokes, actions, gestures, display of visual 

material of a sexual nature or remarks of a 

sexual nature. 

Letter of 

Reprimand to 30-

Day Suspension 

14-Day 

Suspension to 

Removal 

We reviewed case file documentation, such as the Employee Relations case assessment reports

documenting the case review; the decision documentation, including the notice issued by the 

deciding official to the employee informing the employee of the disciplinary or non-disciplinary 

action; and the USDA Guide for Disciplinary Penalties to determine the penalties usually 

assessed for sexual misconduct. We noted three examples of sexual misconduct in which the FS 

officials did not apply the recommended penalty outlined in Table 1, and did not adequately 

document the justification for their decision in the case file. For example, in one case, 

 In another 

case,

Although the merits of each case must be evaluated in determining appropriate penalties, the 

Guide reflects penalties that are usually assessed for various types of misconduct, including 

sexual offenses. We recommend that FS establish internal guidelines that will ensure FS 

officials document in the case file their justification when deviating from the recommended 

penalty.

Recommendation 8

Establish internal guidelines that will ensure FS officials document in the case file their 

justification when deviating from the recommended penalty.

Agency Response

In its November 30, 2018, response, FS stated:

The USDA Forest Service generally concurs with this recommendation. The Agency 

will establish an internal process that will ensure FS managers provide documentation to 

justify any deviation from the recommended penalty of the USDA Guide for Disciplinary 

Penalties within the case file.

FS provided an estimated completion date of June 1, 2019, for this action. 

OIG Position 

We accept FS’ management decision on this recommendation. 
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 19

Scope and Methodology

The scope of our work covered the actions FS took in response to complaints of sexual 

harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace from FY 2013 to the present. To 

accomplish our audit objectives, we performed fieldwork at FS’ Washington Office in 

Washington, D.C.; FS’ Pacific Southwest Regional Office in Vallejo, California; two national 

forests within the Pacific Southwest Region; and two ranger districts—one within each national 

forest (for specific locations visited, see Exhibit A). We non-statistically selected the two 

national forests and two ranger districts based on their high number of sexual harassment and 

sexual misconduct cases and the number of employees that requested interviews with OIG. We 

performed our audit fieldwork from February 2017 through July 2018.

To develop the findings for this report, we performed the following steps and procedures:

· Reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies and procedures concerning 

sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace;

· Interviewed FS Washington Office officials, including the Deputy Chief for Business 

Operations and National Civil Rights Director, to determine their roles, responsibilities, 

and opinions on the actions FS has taken to address sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct in the workplace;

· Interviewed FS Washington Office Human Resources Management officials, including 

the Assistant Director for Employee Relations, regarding FS’ use of reference checks 

during the hiring process and FS’ use of USDA’s Guide for Disciplinary Penalties;

· Interviewed FS Pacific Southwest Regional Office officials, including the Regional 

Forester and Civil Rights Director, to determine their roles, responsibilities, and opinions 

on the actions FS has taken to address sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the 

workplace;

· Interviewed FS officials from selected national forests and district ranger offices, 

including the and , to determine their roles, 

responsibilities, and opinions on the actions FS has taken to address sexual harassment 

and sexual misconduct in the workplace;

· Interviewed officials from OASCR, including its Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights, to determine their roles, responsibilities, and opinions on the actions FS has 

taken to address sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace;

· Interviewed officials from OGC to determine their roles, responsibilities, and opinions on 

the actions FS has taken to address sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the 

workplace;
20 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

· Interviewed officials from the Department’s Office of Human Resources Management 

regarding USDA’s Guide for Disciplinary Penalties;

· Interviewed 34 FS Pacific Southwest Region employees who requested interviews with 

OIG regarding FS’ actions to address sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the 

workplace;29

· Interviewed 35 randomly selected FS Pacific Southwest Region employees from the sites 

we visited regarding FS’ actions to address sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in 

the workplace;30

· Reviewed the intake forms for 125 complaints of sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct in Region 5 from FYs 2014–2017 to determine whether supervisors and 

managers met the 24-hour reporting requirement and if not, whether disciplinary action 

was taken; and 

· Reviewed 35 non-statistically selected sexual harassment and sexual misconduct cases to 

determine whether the decisions made regarding the cases were timely and adequately 

supported.31

During the course of our audit, we did not solely rely on nor verify information in any agency 

information systems.  We also make no representation regarding the adequacy of any agency 

computer systems, or the information generated from them because evaluating the effectiveness 

of information system or information technology controls was not one of the audit’s objectives.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives.  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

                                                

29 OIG offered all employees in Region 5 the opportunity to be interviewed regarding FS’ actions to address sexual 

harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace. On March 28, 2017, the Regional Forester sent out an email to 

all Region 5 employees notifying them of the opportunity to be interviewed. Of the 34 employees interviewed, 

3 were former Region 5 employees.

30 We used a simple random sampling technique to select employees from the sites we visited. We selected the 

employees from a listing FS provided us of all its full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal employees who were 

employed at the sites we visited at the time of our request.

31 At the FS units we visited in Region 5, we reviewed all of the sexual harassment and sexual misconduct cases for 

FYs 2014–2016. We also reviewed additional cases in Region 5 that were determined from our review of selected 

cases from the sites we visited or from interviews with Region 5 employees who were randomly selected for 

interviews or requested interviews with OIG.
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 21

Abbreviations

FS ...........................................Forest Service

FY ..........................................fiscal year

GAO .......................................U.S. Government Accountability Office

MSPB .....................................Merit Systems Protection Board

OASCR ..................................Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

OGC .......................................Office of the General Counsel

OIG ........................................Office of Inspector General

USDA .....................................Department of Agriculture
22 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

Exhibit A:  Audit Sites Visited

This exhibit shows the name and location of all FS sites visited.

AUDIT SITE LOCATION

FS Washington Office Washington, D.C.

FS Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) 

National Forests 

Lassen National Forest

Sequoia National Forest

Ranger Districts 

Eagle Lake Ranger District

Kern River Ranger District

Vallejo, CA

Susanville, CA

Porterville, CA

Susanville, CA

Kernville, CA
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 23

Exhibit B:  Status of Action Items from Joint Agreement

This exhibit shows the status of the action items from the joint agreement between FS, 

OASCR, and OGC.

Action Item Status

1. Reorganize FS’ Civil Rights 

Structure.

On September 29, 2016, FS realigned its Office of 

Civil Rights. Under the realignment, the National Civil 

Rights Director reports directly to the FS Chief and the 

Regional Civil Rights Directors, and other regional 

office civil rights staff report directly to the National 

Civil Rights Director.

2. Conduct Independent Climate 

Assessment in Region 5.

FS hired an outside contractor to conduct a climate 

assessment of FS’ Region 5. The contractor issued its 

Region 5 Workplace Environment Assessment Report 

on November 30, 2015.

3. Hold the FS Accountable for the 

Effectiveness of its Prevention of 

and Response to Sexual 

Harassment and Other Sexual 

Misconduct in Region 5.

As required by the joint agreement, in 2015 FS issued 

an Enhanced Agency Head Assessment. The 

assessment covered six of the eight action items 

included in the joint agreement. In the assessment, FS 

provided details on the actions it took to address the 

joint agreement’s six action items. 

4. Strengthen and Enhance 

Compliance with Sexual 

Misconduct Policies.

On February 27, 2015, FS’ Region 5 issued a 

memorandum to all employees reiterating its zero 

tolerance policy and reporting requirements. FS also 

took the lead in piloting USDA’s certification 

requirement by having employees acknowledge receipt 

of USDA’s harassment policy. FS also kept OASCR 

updated on its completion status, which ranged from 

93 to 97 percent.
24 AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41

Action Item Status

5. Strengthen Region 5’s Sexual 

Misconduct and Harassment 

Reporting and Response Standard 

Operating Procedures.

On June 22, 2015, FS’ Region 5 issued a memorandum 

informing all Forest Supervisors and Staff Directors 

that Region 5 had updated on June 19, 2015, their 

Region 5 Directive Policy for Handling Allegations of 

Sexual Harassment and Reprisal for Sexual 

Harassment-Related Civil Rights Activity. The new 

policy outlines the roles, responsibilities, and 

timeframes for reporting, inquiring/investigating, and 

taking appropriate action regarding allegations of 

sexual harassment and related reprisal.

6. Engage OASCR and OGC to 

Provide Input to FS’ Ongoing 

Efforts to Improve the EEO 

Informal Process and Conduct a 

Joint Quality Control Review of 

Region 5’s Processing of Informal 

EEO Complaints.

FS, OASCR, and OGC created a team of subject matter 

experts to review a random sample of informal EEO 

complaints from Region 5 employees from FYs 2013–

2014. These Region 5 employees alleged sexual or 

gender-based harassment, or related retaliation. The 

team reviewed 26 complaints and reported the details 

of their review on March 21, 2016.

7. Meaningfully Involve OASCR

in Reviewing and Expanding 

Region 5 Civil Rights Trainings.

On December 30, 2014, FS provided OASCR’s 

Training Division its training materials for both the 

Civil Treatment for Leaders and Prevention of Sexual 

Harassment (POSH) training courses. FS also provided 

its evaluation form for the POSH training course to 

OASCR to obtain its feedback. FS incorporated 

OASCR’s feedback in all of its trainings.

8. Meaningful and Ongoing 

Engagement with OASCR in 

Region 5 Civil Rights Issues.

During the implementation of the action items in the 

joint agreement, FS engaged with OASCR and kept it

apprised of pertinent details regarding the 

implementation of each action item. For example, FS 

provided OASCR quarterly reports on all agency 

misconduct and EEO data.
AUDIT REPORT 08601-0008-41 25

Agency's Response

AGENCY’S 

RESPONSE TO AUDIT REPORT

America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper 

Logo Department Organization Information Organization Address Information

Forest Service Washington Office 1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

File Code: 1430 Date: November 30, 2018

Route To:

Subject: Forest Service Response to Reach Management Decision on Office of Inspector 

General Report No. 08601-0008-41 Forest Service Initiatives to Address 

Workplace Misconduct

To: Gil H. Harden, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of Inspector General

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

Draft Report Number 08601-0008-41. The Forest Service generally concurs with the findings 

and recommendations and appreciates the time and effort that went into the report. The 

Agency’s response to the audit recommendations is enclosed. Please contact Antoine L. Dixon, 

Chief Financial Officer, at (202) 205-0429 or aldixon@fs.fed.us with any questions.

//Signed//

LENISE LAGO

(For Chief)

Enclosures
1

===================================================================

USDA Forest Service (FS)

===================================================================

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report No. 08601-0008-41

Forest Service Initiatives to Address Workplace Misconduct

Official Draft Issued November 8, 2018

Response to the Official Draft Report / Management Decision Request

===================================================================

Recommendation 1: Provide additional training and guidance to supervisors on the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines 

regarding their responsibility to provide complete and accurate information to hiring officials 

when asked for references on current and former Forest Service (FS) employees seeking 

employment or promotions within FS. The training and guidance should also cover privacy and 

liability concerns when disclosing employee information. 

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation. FS requires all 

hiring managers to complete the Hiring Matters! training in AgLearn. This training is mandated 

by USDA Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) and it covers Merit System 

Principles, Prohibited Personnel Practices, and provides guidance regarding interviews and 

conducting reference checks. Reports are available to show training participation and 

completion. 

To supplement the above required training, FS will:

1. Review and update previous guidance provided to supervisors and managers covering 

their responsibility to reply completely and accurately when asked for references on 

current and former Forest Service (FS) employees seeking employment or promotions 

within FS; 

2. Develop scenario-based training for supervisors which supplements the required USDA 

training with an emphasis on legally providing information when asked for a reference 

check. AgLearn, or another training platform or methodology, will be utilized to house 

this training which will allow for tracking; and

3. Ensure scenario-based training referred above covers privacy and liability concerns 

when disclosing employee information.

Estimated Completion Date: June 1, 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation 2: Add, to the standardized list of questions that hiring officials ask the 

supervisors of current and former FS employees applying for positions within the agency, 
2

questions about whether applicants have a prior history of serious misconduct, the nature of the 

misconduct, and their suitability for the position despite the misconduct. 

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service generally concurs, but has concerns with the 

legality of implementing the recommendation as written. Before moving forward we will 

need to seek guidance and concurrence from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and 

OHRM. Our initial concerns include: 

1) Protecting the Agency from liability caused by hiring managers asking questions 

that are too detailed regarding prior discipline. This could lead to violations of 

Merit Systems Principles and/or the Privacy Act.

2) Placing supervisors in the position of having to violate a settlement agreement that 

requires them to not disclose certain information without legal risk to the Agency 

or themselves.

3) Inconsistent approaches for internal and external applicants which may lead to 

potential violations of Merit System Principles and the USDA Merit Promotion 

Plan. Reference checks must be consistent for all applicants to maintain fair and 

open competition. Asking different questions to different applicants could lead to 

these violations. 

The Agency will collaborate with OGC and OHRM to see if there is an appropriate way that 

we can revise our existing, optional, standardized template containing reference questions to 

include questions responsive to OIG’s recommendation. 

Estimated Completion Date: October 1, 2019.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation 3: Add, to the standardized list of questions that hiring officials ask the 

applicants applying for positions within FS, questions about whether applicants have a prior 

history of serious misconduct, the nature of the misconduct, and their suitability for the position 

despite the misconduct. 

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service generally concurs with this recommendation. 

Interviews are an effective tool in evaluating candidates for appointment to Federal positions. 

FS provides interview and reference check guides that are on the Human Resource Management 

(HRM) website. The guides outline the role and responsibility of the hiring official and give 

parameters of what can be asked. Asking specific questions regarding an employee’s prior 

discipline and the specifics around that could lead to violations of the Privacy Act and Merit 

Systems Principles which could create liability for the Agency. The Agency will collaborate 

with OGC and OHRM to see if there is an appropriate way that we can require questions 

responsive to OIG’s recommendation. 

Estimated Completion Date: December 1, 2019
3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation 4: Establish guidelines for hiring officials to contact human resources 

management to determine whether current or former employees (including seasonal employees) 

applying for positions within FS have prior histories of serious misconduct and the nature of the 

misconduct.

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service generally concurs with the intent of this 

recommendation but has significant concerns with the legality and feasibility of implementing it 

as written. Areas of concern that the Agency needs to avoid are violations of the Privacy Act, 

Merit Systems Principles, or any other employment law. For example, we do not want to set up 

a process where an individual could release information in violation of the Privacy Act or Office 

of Personnel Management rules and regulations on appropriate use/release of information 

contained within personnel files. Likewise, we do not want to increase risk in employment 

litigation caused by creating a higher bar or enacting a more strenuous process for internal 

applicants. This is something that could definitely be argued is a violation of Merit System 

Principles requiring fair, equal, and open competition based on the duties of the position. 

The Agency will collaborate with OGC and OHRM and ask them to determine if this 

recommendation is achievable. 

Estimated Completion Date: December 1, 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation 5: Require FS supervisors and managers to formally acknowledge their 

responsibility to report all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct within the 

required 24-hour timeframe and record this acknowledgement. 

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation. The Agency has 

already created, distributed and delivered this requirement. It is included in the Agency AntiHarassment Policy (FSM 7165.08), and was discussed during the mandatory all employee Stand 

Up for Each Other Training, but no formal acknowledgement was required (other than to certify 

completion of the training). The Forest Service will create an annual certification through 

AgLearn, or a similar system, that will require all supervisors to acknowledge this requirement.

Estimated Completion Date: June 1, 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation 6: Provide additional training and guidance to FS supervisors and managers 

on their role and responsibilities regarding the 24-hour reporting requirement. 

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation, and has already 

accomplished this in FY18. Examples of efforts already completed by the Agency are: 

• The creation of a Leader Guide and Leader Quick Reference Sheet in March 2018 that 

is available on our Anti-Harassment intranet page. (Copies attached)
4

• Mandatory New Supervisor Training is required for all new supervisors in our Agency 

within their first year in a supervisory position. This training covers reporting 

requirements in detail. (Copy of Facilitator Guide attached)

• During the week of June 11, 2018, all employees participated in mandatory antiharassment training titled, “Stand Up For Each Other.” This training covered reporting 

requirements in detail, to include the mandatory 24-hour requirement for sexual assault 

and sexual harassment allegations. (This is discussed in Chapter 4 at approximately the 

10 min mark. Link to video is: https://vimeopro.com/forestservice/anti-harassmentawareness-training/video/269007251.)

The USDA Forest Service will also continue to communicate this requirement through our 

already established mandatory annual anti-harassment training and adhoc training sessions to 

field supervisors to improve awareness of the Anti-Harassment policy and reporting 

requirements.

Estimated Completion Date: Completed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation 7: Establish guidelines to ensure that those FS supervisors and managers 

who do not timely report sexual harassment and sexual misconduct allegations within the 

required 24-hour timeframe are disciplined, when appropriate. 

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service concurs with this recommendation. The Agency 

communicated this requirement throughout FY18. The annual certification that will be 

implemented in AgLearn by June 2019, will establish guidelines and inform supervisors that 

failure to meet this requirement may result in disciplinary action. The Agency will closely 

monitor compliance of this requirement through current system resources and will initiate 

appropriate action for those supervisors and managers who do not timely report known 

allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct within the required timeframes.

Estimated Completion Date: October 1, 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation 8: Establish internal guidelines that will ensure FS officials document in the 

case file their justification when deviating from the recommended penalty. 

FS Response: The USDA Forest Service generally concurs with this recommendation. The 

Agency will establish an internal process that will ensure FS managers provide documentation 

to justify any deviation from the recommended penalty of the USDA Guide for Disciplinary 

Penalties within the case file.

Estimated Completion Date: June 1, 2019
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and 

employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs 

are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, 

sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, 

age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil 

rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all 

bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 

program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign 

Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal

 Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program 

Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to 

USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed 

form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

All photographs are from USDA's Flickr site and are in the public domain.

Learn more about USDA OIG

Visit our website: www.usda.gov/oig/index.htm

Follow us on Twitter: @OIGUSDA

How to Report Suspected Wrongdoing in USDA Programs

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

File complaint online: www.usda.gov/oig/hotline.htm

Monday–Friday, 9:00 a.m.– 3:00 p.m. ET

In Washington, DC 202-690-1622

Outside DC 800-424-9121

TDD (Call Collect) 202-690-1202

Bribes or Gratuities

202-720-7257 (24 hours)