Evaluation and Inspections Division 18-03 June 2018

Office of the Inspector General

U.S. Department of Justice

OVERSIGHT INTEGRITY GUIDANCE

Review of Gender Equity in the 

Department's Law Enforcement 

Components
i

Executive Summary

Review of Gender Equity in the Department’s Law Enforcement 

Components 

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Justice (Department, DOJ) 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this 

review after receiving several complaints from various 

sources, including Senator Charles E. Grassley and DOJ 

employees, expressing concerns about gender 

discrimination and harassment in the Department’s law 

enforcement components. OIG assessed overall gender 

equity, based on both gender diversity in the workforce

and employees’ perceptions of gender equity and 

discrimination in the four law enforcement components. 

It is the Department’s policy to provide, ensure, and 

promote equal opportunity for all employees on the 

basis of merit. In Human Resources Order DOJ 1200.1, 

the Department directs every component to take 

actions to eliminate any policy, practice, or procedure 

that results in discrimination on the basis of a variety of 

demographics, including gender. Additionally, DOJ 

developed the Attorney General’s Diversity Management 

Plan in 2010 to improve diversity among its employees, 

including the law enforcement staff. The leadership of 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives (ATF); Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA); Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and U.S. 

Marshal’s Service (USMS) told us that a diverse 

workforce, which includes diversity in gender, is 

important to their mission. 

The Office of the Inspector General assessed gender 

equity in the four law enforcement components from 

fiscal year (FY) 2011 through FY 2016. We analyzed 

component workforce demographics and sex-based 

discrimination complaints, including sexual harassment, 

and conducted a climate assessment to gauge 

employees’ perceptions about whether all staff have the 

same career opportunities regardless of gender. As 

part of our review, we conducted 133 individual 

interviews as well as 57 focus groups with a total of 228 

participants. Additionally, we interviewed the heads of 

each of the four components to gain their perspectives 

on the issues related to gender equity. We also 

deployed an anonymous online survey to all staff 

members of the four law enforcement components and 

received 8,140 survey responses, a 15 percent 

response rate of the total population. Out of the 8,140 

responses, 34.4 percent were women, 50.8 percent 

were men, and 1.5 percent chose “other” or did not 

select a gender. 

Results in Brief

While 52 percent of all survey respondents reported 

that their agency had a gender equitable culture, our 

analyses of survey, focus group, and interview 

responses by gender and position revealed wide 

variations in perceptions about equity. One of our most 

striking findings is that women in Special Agent and 

Deputy U.S. Marshal (Criminal Investigator) positions 

consistently reported distinctly more negative 

perceptions of equity and experiences with differing 

treatment and discrimination than other staff in the four 

law enforcement components. These negative

perceptions may be influenced by the low percentage of 

women in leadership and Criminal Investigator 

positions, promotion selections that reflect an 

underrepresentation of women, and the staff view that 

personnel decisions are based on personal relationships 

more than merit. While the components have taken 

steps to increase diversity, additional work is needed to 

address the concerns and negative perceptions related 

to gender equity and to promote an equitable culture 

within each component. 

Women Accounted for Only 16 percent of the Criminal 

Investigators in DOJ’s Law Enforcement Components 

and Held Few Law Enforcement Executive Leadership 

Positions, and Components Have Taken Limited Actions 

to Increase the Number of Women in These Positions

Based on interviews and focus group responses, we 

found that the representation of women forms an 

important part of staff perceptions about gender equity. 

In FY 2016, women composed only 16 percent of the 

Criminal Investigator population in the four law 

enforcement components. Women in these components

were more likely to be Human Resources Specialists, 

Financial Specialists, or Program Analysts. Additionally, 

we found that between FY 2011 and FY 2016, women 

held few headquarters executive leadership positions

and those positions were usually leading administrative 

or support units rather than operational units. Further, 

we found that women did not hold many of the top 

leadership positions in field offices, divisions, and 

districts. 

Leadership of the law enforcement components told us 

that they were striving to increase the diversity, 

including gender, of staff to better represent the 

population the component serves. We found that the 

components were taking some steps to increase the 

diversity of their workforce through recruiting. 

However, the components have not fully identified all 

the barriers to recruiting women that may be specific to 

their respective component. 
ii

Executive Summary

Review of Gender Equity in the Department’s Law Enforcement 

Components 

Women Were Often Underrepresented in Criminal 

Investigator Promotions, while the Representation of 

Women and Men in Professional Staff Promotions Varied 

by Agency

We heard from interview and focus group respondents 

at multiple components that there is a “glass ceiling” for 

women. We examined the distribution of women at the 

General Schedule (GS)-13 through 15 levels in all four 

law enforcement components and found that at DEA, 

FBI, and ATF the percentage of female Criminal 

Investigators mostly decreased as the grade level 

increased. At USMS, the proportion of women in the 

GS-13 population was more or less comparable to the 

GS-14 population, and USMS was the only component 

in which the proportion of women actually increased 

from GS-14 to GS-15. We believe that our analysis

might indicate possible issues at ATF, DEA, and FBI for

women advancing into supervisory positions.

Our analysis indicated ATF and DEA female Criminal 

Investigators were underrepresented in competitive 

promotions compared to their proportion of the 

population at the next lower grade level. 

We did the same analysis on professional staff 

promotions and found that at ATF, DEA, and USMS, both 

genders within different sub-groups were 

underrepresented in promotions compared to their 

population size at the next lower GS level. 

Receiving a promotion is a mark of success and career 

achievement. Our analysis of promotions data thus 

plays a key role in our assessment of gender equity. 

Numerous interviewees and focus group participants 

spoke about bias and inequity in promotion selections

when describing how gender inequity manifests in the 

components. Their responses led us to conclude that 

promotion selections strongly influenced their 

perceptions of equity overall, and gender equity 

specifically, in their organization. 

Female Criminal Investigators Frequently Reported 

Gender Discrimination, and Both Men and Women

Believed that Personnel Decisions, Including 

Promotions, Were Based on Personal Relationships More 

than Merit

We found that a majority of male staff, but a minority of 

female staff, felt their component was gender equitable 

and/or that gender equity was improving. Specifically, 

female Criminal Investigators believed that there was 

ongoing gender discrimination in their agencies or 

offices. A significant number of women across agencies 

and position types reported in our survey, interviews, 

and focus groups that they had experienced gender 

discrimination and differing treatment in some form, 

including in promotions and other workplace 

opportunities. 

Also troubling to us was that all types of staff reported 

the perception that personnel decisions were driven more 

by “who you know” than by merit. Our analysis suggests 

that perceived bias and favoritism in personnel decisions 

affect staff’s perceptions about gender equity. We 

believe that this could negatively affect staff’s trust and 

belief about equity in an agency and possibly discourage 

qualified employees from applying for promotion. 

We believe that these issues are of significant concern 

because gender discrimination, and specifically sexual 

harassment, can result in costs to the component, 

including reductions in morale and productivity, 

decreased staff well-being, and monetary costs from 

settlements of complaints. Focus group participants 

and interviewees who described their experiences with 

discrimination and sexual harassment also told us how 

these experiences negatively affected them personally, 

including physical illness, isolation, and fearfulness at 

work. 

Dissatisfaction with and Mistrust about the EEO Process 

and Fear of Retaliation May Limit the Utility of the 

Process as a Tool to Address Discrimination

We found that staff of all genders, positions, supervisory 

status, and across agencies had negative perceptions about 

the EEO process. These perceptions included the stigma of 

filing an EEO complaint, fear of retaliation, lack of confidence

or trust in an EEO office or the EEO process, and the 

significant time commitment involved in the EEO process. 

The stigma associated with filing an EEO complaint included 

being labeled as a “troublemaker” or a belief that some 

people file to cover up poor performance. 

Many staff members reported to us that they had 

experienced discrimination and had not reported it and 

close to 45 percent of survey respondents said that they 

would not or were unsure whether they would use the 

EEO process if they experienced discrimination. We 

believe that negative perceptions of the EEO process 

may contribute to underreporting of discrimination and 

harassment to the EEO office. Underreporting could 

hinder the components’ ability to address individual 

instances of discrimination and harassment and the 

conditions that allow such behavior to occur. Further, it 

could obscure the extent of the problem.

Recommendations

We make six recommendations to address the concerns 

and negative perceptions related to gender equity in the 

law enforcement components.
iii

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1

Background ........................................................................................ 1

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW.............................................................................. 7

Women Accounted for Only 16 percent of the Criminal Investigators in DOJ’s 

Law Enforcement Components and Held Few Law Enforcement Executive 

Leadership Positions, and Components Have Taken Limited Actions to 

Increase the Number of Women in These Positions ................................... 7

Women Were Often Underrepresented in Criminal Investigator Promotions, 

while the Representation of Women and Men in Professional Staff 

Promotions Varied by Agency .............................................................. 16

Female Criminal Investigators Frequently Reported Gender Discrimination, 

and Both Men and Women Believed that Personnel Decisions, Including 

Promotions, Were Based on Personal Relationships More than Merit.......... 23

Dissatisfaction with and Mistrust About the EEO Process and Fear of 

Retaliation May Limit the Utility of the Process as a Tool to Address 

Discrimination ................................................................................... 36

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 44

Conclusion........................................................................................ 44

Recommendations ............................................................................. 45

APPENDIX 1: THE OIG SURVEY TOOL .......................................................... 47

APPENDIX 2: METHODOLOGY OF THE OIG REVIEW ....................................... 55

Standards ......................................................................................... 55

Interviews and Focus Groups............................................................... 55

Survey ............................................................................................. 56

Data Analysis .................................................................................... 57

Policy and Document Review ............................................................... 58

Prior Work Related to Gender Equity in Federal Law Enforcement 

Agencies .......................................................................................... 58

APPENDIX 3: THE SEVEN STAGES OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMPLAINT PROCESS............................................................ 59
iv

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

APPENDIX 4: THE MERIT PROMOTION PROCESSES OF THE FOUR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS................................................. 60

APPENDIX 5: OIG SURVEY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR RESPONSES RELATED 

TO DIFFERING TREATMENT..................................................... 61

APPENDIX 6: ATF’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ................................. 62

APPENDIX 7: OIG ANALYSIS OF ATF’S RESPONSE......................................... 68

APPENDIX 8: DEA’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT................................. 74

APPENDIX 9: OIG ANALYSIS OF DEA’S RESPONSE ........................................ 77

APPENDIX 10: FBI’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT.................................. 80

APPENDIX 11: OIG ANALYSIS OF FBI’S RESPONSE ......................................... 83

APPENDIX 12: USMS’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT .............................. 86

APPENDIX 13: OIG ANALYSIS OF USMS’S RESPONSE ...................................... 91
1 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

INTRODUCTION

Background

In April 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (Department, DOJ) issued the 

Attorney General’s Diversity Management Plan to improve diversity in the

Department, including the four law enforcement components: the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA); Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and U.S. Marshal’s Service (USMS).1 

The plan, which is in effect as of the time of our review, calls for the Department to 

create a framework for managing and sustaining diversity in the Department over 

time. In the plan, former Attorney General Eric Holder stated that workforce 

diversity (including and beyond gender, race, ethnicity, or disability) makes the 

Department “stronger, more credible, and more effective.” 

The Department’s efforts to increase diversity are an extension of the U.S. 

government’s overall initiative “to develop and implement a more comprehensive, 

integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion” as a key component of 

human resources strategies for the federal workforce.2 In the Government-wide 

Strategic Inclusive Diversity Plan of 2016, which can be found on the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management’s (OPM) Diversity & Inclusion webpage, OPM defines 

diversity as “a collection of individual attributes that together help agencies pursue 

organizational objectives efficiently and effectively.”3 OPM notes: “Governmentwide, we have made important progress toward hiring a workforce that truly 

reflects America's diversity, and we will continue to pursue that goal. But merely 

hiring a diverse workforce is not enough. We must make our workplaces more 

inclusive as well.”4 

The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review of gender 

equity in the Department’s law enforcement components after receiving several 

complaints from various sources, including Senator Charles E. Grassley and DOJ 

employees, expressing concerns about gender discrimination and harassment in 

these agencies. Gender equity is commonly defined as fair treatment for both 

genders, according to their respective needs. This may include equal treatment or 

treatment that is different but considered equivalent in terms of benefits and 

opportunities. We assessed gender equity in the law enforcement components 

according to each gender’s numerical representation in the workforce and 

 1 Eric Holder, Attorney General, memorandum to Heads of Department Components and U.S. 

Attorneys, Diversity Management Plan for the Department of Justice, April 30, 2010. The Department 

considers the Federal Bureau of Prisons also to be a law enforcement component; however, we did not 

include it in this review.

2 E.O. 13583 on Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity 

and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.

3 OPM, Government-wide Strategic Inclusive Diversity Plan of 2016, July 2016, 6. 

4 OPM, “Diversity & Inclusion,” www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion

(accessed May 30, 2018).
2 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

employees’ perceptions about whether they had the same opportunities in their 

careers compared to others, regardless of their gender. Further, we used the 

experiences and perceptions about agencies and offices that staff members shared 

with us during interviews and focus groups to assess components’ culture as it 

relates to gender and equity. Our review examined demographics, gender 

differences in various datasets, and sex-based (or gender) discrimination 

complaints from fiscal year (FY) 2011 through FY 2016.5 Our climate assessment 

included a combination of complementary qualitative data collection tools—

interviews, focus groups, and a survey—to determine staff perceptions of gender 

equity. 

We conducted 133 individual interviews and 57 focus groups with a total of 

228 participants. We conducted some of these interviews with headquarters staff 

early in our review to help us better understand the topics (e.g., the promotions 

process or the EEO process) we would be covering in the report. We organized 

each focus group with employees of the same demographic characteristics (such as 

gender, supervisory status, position type, and agency) so that participants would 

feel more comfortable speaking. We randomly selected the employees we invited 

to participate in the focus groups, and participation was optional. We also 

conducted individual interviews with staff members who requested to speak with us 

but did not want to be a part of a focus group. 

We deployed an anonymous online survey to all staff members of the four 

law enforcement components and received 8,140 survey responses, a 15 percent 

response rate of the total population. Out of the 8,140 responses, 34.4 percent 

were women, 50.8 percent were men, and 1.5 percent chose “other” or did not 

select a gender. The survey allowed us to obtain input from a wider population, 

while the interviews and focus groups allowed us to obtain more thorough and 

detailed information from staff members (see Appendix 1 for the survey tool). 

Throughout this report, whenever we refer to issues raised by focus group 

participants and interviewees, the minimum standard is that multiple staff members 

from at least two of the four sites we visited and two of the four components 

discussed the topic (unless otherwise stated). However, most of the issues we 

discuss were raised by staff in at least three agencies and three locations and the 

survey data provided further support. 

In general, research on gender equity includes an assessment of salary data. 

However, because the federal government General Schedule (GS) pay system is 

structured so that employees in the same grade level and step receive the same 

salary and do not negotiate that salary when hired, an analysis comparing 

employee salaries would not allow for conclusions about gender equity. Such an 

analysis would require data for how fast individual employees received step 

 5 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines “sex discrimination” as 

unfavorable treatment toward someone based on their sex and “gender discrimination” as 

discrimination based on a person’s gender identity, such as transgender status or sexual orientation. 

EEOC, “Sex-Based Discrimination,” https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm (accessed May 30, 

2018). In this report, we use the term “gender discrimination” to mean discrimination and treatment 

toward someone based on his or her sex. 
3 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

increases and the factors that affected the timing of those step increases. 

According to the DOJ Employment Factbook, men have the same average grade 

level but higher average steps than women in some positions in the four law 

enforcement components. However, the components do not track data that would 

determine the factors that affect those averages. Appendix 2 is a detailed 

description of the methodology of our review. 

Below, we provide background information on several topics related to our 

discussion of and findings about the state of gender equity. These include the legal 

foundation for equal employment protection, the Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) process that employees can use if they feel they have been discriminated 

against, the promotion processes used in the four law enforcement components, 

and the workforce demographics of the four law enforcement components. 

Foundation for Equal Employment Protection

It is the Department’s policy “to provide, ensure, and promote equal 

opportunity in employment for all persons on the basis of merit.”6 Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 established the legal framework for governing equal 

employment in the workplace.7 In 1969, E.O. 11478 extended the provision for 

equal employment to federal employees; 28 C.F.R. Part 42 contains the 

implementing regulations for equal employment in DOJ.8 Human Resources (HR) 

Order DOJ 1200.1, Part 4, directs how the Department handles equal employment 

protection and complaints and outlines procedures for processing, documenting, 

and reporting of discrimination complaints as well as developing affirmative 

employment programs.9 According to the HR Order, management within every 

component and at all levels is required to take effective actions to eliminate any 

internal policy, practice, or procedure that results in discrimination on the basis of a 

variety of demographics, including gender.10

 6 Human Resources Order DOJ 1200.1, Part 4: Equal Employment Opportunity, 

www.justice.gov/jmd/hr-order-doj-12001, June 15, 2015 (accessed May 30, 2018).

7 EEOC, established in 1965, is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that 

make it illegal to discriminate against job applicants or employees on the basis of a person's race, 

color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic 

information. Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair, EEOC, “Statement on 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964,” www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/cra50th/index.cfm (accessed May 30, 2018).

8 National Archives, “Executive Order 11478—Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal 

Government,” www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11478.html (accessed 

May 30, 2018).

9 Affirmative employment programs include the multiyear Affirmative Action Program Plan for 

minorities and women, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Recruitment Program, Disabled 

Veterans Affirmative Action Plan, Affirmative Action Plan for Persons with Disabilities, and any other 

initiative or program aimed at providing equal opportunity in employment for the purpose of achieving 

a representative and diverse workforce. HR Order DOJ 1200.1, Part 4.

10 HR Order DOJ 1200.1, Part 4. 
4 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

EEO Claims Process 

Federal law gives all employees the right to file an EEO complaint if they 

believe that they have been discriminated against or denied an equal opportunity in 

the workplace.

11 Equal employment protections cover many different personnel 

decisions, including promotions. DOJ policy requires that complaints of 

discrimination and sexual harassment be promptly and thoroughly investigated and 

resolved without reprisal or threat of reprisal.12 

The Director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Staff in the Justice 

Management Division (JMD) oversees the Department’s discrimination complaints 

processing system and provides policy, direction, guidance, and assistance to DOJ 

components.13 Eight components, including the Department’s four law enforcement 

components, have their own EEO offices that have the authority to accept and 

assign for investigation formal complaints of discrimination filed within the 

component.14 The JMD Equal Employment Opportunity Staff has ultimate authority 

over dismissal of complaints in accordance with Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) regulations for all DOJ components, including the eight that 

have their own EEO offices. 

Each component’s EEO office has EEO Counselors who receive and process 

discrimination complaints, conduct informal inquiries into the allegations, and help 

set up mediation sessions between the complainant and management officials. EEO

offices employ internal or contract investigators to investigate EEO complaints and 

produce a final investigative report. After the investigation, the complainant can 

request a hearing or ask the Department’s Complaint Adjudication Office in the Civil 

Rights Division for a Final Agency Decision, the Department’s final decision on the 

case. Appendix 3 outlines the seven stages of the EEO complaint process. 

 11 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d–2000d-7; E.O. 12250 on Leadership and Coordination of 

Nondiscrimination Laws; 45 Fed. Reg. 72995, 3 C.F.R., 1980 Comp., 298. EEOC, “Overview of Federal 

Sector EEO Complaint Process,” www.eeoc.gov/federal/fed_employees/complaint_overview.cfm

(accessed May 30, 2018). 

12 HR Order DOJ 1200.1, Part 4. 

13 HR Order DOJ 1200.1, Part 4.

14 The other four components are the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Executive 

Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Office of Justice Programs. 
5 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Promotion Processes for the Law Enforcement Components

In this report, we present several analyses of the promotion selections that 

result from each of the four law enforcement components’ unique promotions 

process. Each component has its own process for promoting Criminal Investigators, 

which we define as Special Agents at ATF, DEA, and FBI and as Deputy U.S. 

Marshals (DUSM) at USMS, and for professional staff, which includes all nonCriminal Investigator positions such as Intelligence Analysts, Information 

Technology Specialists, and Industry Operations Investigators.15 The four law 

enforcement components’ promotion processes for Criminal Investigators include 

the following elements: 

application packages that may include an applicant form, a resume, applicant

scores on various job-related examinations, applicant interview ratings, 

overall applicant rankings, or supervisor recommendations to help determine 

qualification for a position; 

a list of applicants who are deemed qualified for the position based on 

established qualifications (also called the certified applicant list); and

a board made up of various supervisors (referred to as a Local Career Board 

at FBI, a Merit Promotion Board at ATF, and a Career Board at DEA and 

USMS). Each board reviews applications for multiple Criminal Investigator 

positions, higher than the level employees reach non-competitively (career 

ladder), and makes a recommendation for selection.16

The promotions processes also vary for professional staff. ATF and DEA use 

career or promotion boards for professional staff job series promotions, similar to 

the promotions process for Criminal Investigators. At FBI and USMS, the 

promotions process for professional staff is similar to the Delegated Examining Unit 

hiring process, which is often used to hire individuals into the federal government 

and generally includes an HR-certified applicant list, interviews with the hiring 

manager, and selection. See Appendix 4 for more information about the four law 

enforcement components’ merit promotion processes.

The Department’s Law Enforcement Component Workforce

The four law enforcement components’ staffs made up 47.6 percent of the 

Department at the end of FY 2016. Table 1 below presents the workforce and 

 15 DUSMs include two job series: 0082 (Deputy U.S. Marshals) and 1811 (Criminal 

Investigators). The 0082 series is unique to USMS and functions the same as the 1811 series. Both 

series are considered DUSMs, and 0082 DUSMs can convert to the 1811 series upon reaching GS-11. 

DEA makes an additional distinction between types of employees: “core” and “non-core.” 

Core employees include Criminal Investigators, Intelligence Specialists, Chemists, and Diversion 

Investigators. Non-core employees occupy all other positions. 

16 Non-competitive Criminal Investigator career ladder positions go up to GS-12 at USMS and 

GS-13 at ATF, DEA, and FBI. The head of each component has the authority to override the career 

board’s recommendation.
6 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

female staff in each of the law enforcement components, individually and 

aggregated. 

Table 1 

DOJ Law Enforcement Component Workforce Data, FY 2016

ATF DEA FBI USMS All Four 

Components

Total Workforce 5,195 8,936 37,029 5,229 56,389

Number of Female Staff 1,670 3,172 16,038 1,269 22,149

Percentage of Female Staff 32.1 35.5 43.3 24.3 39.3

Source: DOJ Employment Factbook, FY 2016
7

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW

Women Accounted for Only 16 percent of the Criminal Investigators in 

DOJ’s Law Enforcement Components and Held Few Law Enforcement 

Executive Leadership Positions, and Components Have Taken Limited 

Actions to Increase the Number of Women in These Positions

In FY 2016, women made up 51 percent of the U.S. population and over 

57 percent of the professional staff (non-Criminal Investigator) population 

combined in the Department’s four law enforcement components (see Table 2 

below). However, women made up only 16 percent of the population of the 

Department’s Criminal Investigators (Special Agents and Deputy U.S. Marshals

(DUSM)) and they occupied only a few of the Department’s Criminal Investigator 

executive leadership positions between FY 2011 and FY 2016. Each component’s 

leadership told us that they were striving to increase the diversity, including 

gender, of staff to better represent the population their component serves. Based 

on interview and focus group responses, we found that the representation of 

women forms an important part of staff perceptions about gender equity. We agree 

with component leaders about the importance of diversity at all levels of the 

component, but we found that the components’ actions to reduce the 

underrepresentation of women were limited. 

Female Criminal Investigators Made Up 16 percent of the Criminal Investigator 

Population

We found that, in FY 2016, women in the Department’s four law enforcement 

components made up about 40 percent of the total workforce, but only 16 percent 

of the Criminal Investigator population (see Table 2 below).17 

 17 We present the data for FY 2016 to be able to compare various datasets and because

percentages of women in the Criminal Investigator population of three of the four law enforcement 

components remained relatively stable between 2006 and 2016. The percentage of women in the 

general workforce and in the DUSM/Criminal Investigator population decreased slightly during that 

time. 
8 

Table 2 

Percentage of Women in the Workforce at ATF, DEA, 

FBI, and USMS, FY 2016

ATF DEA FBI USMS All Four 

Components

Percentage of Female 

Staff in the Total 

Population

32.1 35.5 43.3 24.3 39.3

Percentage of Female 

Staff in the Criminal 

Investigator Population

13.6 10.2 19.8 10.2 16.0

Percentage of Female 

Staff in the Professional 

Staff Population

51.8 61.6 57.3 54.4 57.3

Source: DOJ Employment Factbook, FY 2016

We also found that women in the Department’s law enforcement components

were more likely to be employed as Human Resource Specialists, Financial 

Specialists, or Program Analysts than as Criminal Investigators (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1 

Percentage of Women in Selected Occupations at ATF, DEA, 

FBI, and USMS, FY 2016

Note: Compliance Officers are Diversion Investigators at DEA and Industry Operations 

Investigators at ATF.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Finance Center (NFC) workforce data

We identified two law enforcement populations for comparison purposes to 

the four DOJ law enforcement component populations, based on the number of 

employees in these populations and their positions: Special Agents in the U.S. 

84.1%

77.8%

70.6%

53.3%

40.5%

16.0%

Human Resources Specialists

Financial Specialists

Management and Program Analysts

Intelligence Analysts

Compliance Officers

Criminal Investigators
9 

Department of Homeland Security at the federal level and Detectives and Criminal 

Investigators at the state and local levels.18 Women composed approximately 

13 percent of the Special Agent positions at the Department of Homeland Security 

and 27 percent of all Criminal Investigator and Detective positions at the state and 

local police and sheriff departments nationwide.19 

 

Women Held Only a Few of the Law Enforcement Components’ Executive Leadership 

Operational Positions at Headquarters and in the Field between FY 2011 and 

FY 2016

We found that there were few women in leadership and supervisory positions 

across all four law enforcement components at both the field and headquarters 

levels. Overall, between FY 2011 and FY 2016, women held only a few executive 

leadership positions over headquarters operational units or divisions.20 

Additionally, during our study period, women held only between 6.3 and 11 percent 

of the top leadership positions in the field across the four law enforcement 

components. When they did hold field leadership positions, they were seldom in 

offices, divisions, or districts with a larger staff size.21 During FY 2016, none of the 

components had more than 18 percent women in its GS-15 Criminal Investigator 

positions. Further, the individual components varied significantly in their percent of 

 18 DOJ has the highest number of Criminal Investigator, or 1811, positions of all federal 

agencies. The Department of Homeland Security, with just under half the number of 1811 positions 

as DOJ, has the second highest number of all federal agencies and is most comparable to DOJ with 

respect to the size of the agency and number of Criminal Investigator positions. Within state and local 

law enforcement, Criminal Investigator and Detective positions are most comparable to DOJ Criminal 

Investigator duties. When aggregated on a national level, these state and local Criminal Investigators 

and Detectives represent a large number of people. 

19 U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), “FedScope: Federal Human Resources Data,” 

www.fedscope.opm.gov (accessed May 31, 2018). Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Women in the Labor 

Force: A Databook,” April 2017, www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2016/home.htm#table-11

(accessed May 31, 2018). 

20 We identified two types of leadership positions that Criminal Investigators can hold at 

headquarters. Positions that lead operational units or divisions overseeing criminal investigations or 

field operations, and positions that lead units providing support or administrative assistance. We 

heard through our interviews and focus groups that the leadership positions over operational units or 

divisions were perceived to have a higher status than administrative leadership positions. We 

acknowledge that administrative leadership positions can provide useful experience about the agency 

overall; however, staff told us that holding positions in certain operational units or divisions are more 

likely to contribute to career growth. 

21 We used the number of staff at all field offices, field divisions, and districts and calculated

the median and mean of staff size for each component. We then identified the ATF field divisions and

DEA and FBI field offices as large if the staff size was higher than the median and small if the staff size 

was smaller than the median. The median staff size for ATF was 151, for DEA was 293, and for FBI 

was 264. The USMS districts’ staff sizes were so varied that the median or mean did not provide a 

valid point for separation, so we selected 100-person staff size as the cutoff point. For this analysis, 

we did not consider the three FBI field offices that are led by an Assistant Director in Charge (ADIC)

because those field offices have larger staff sizes and are presented in analysis elsewhere in this 

section. Therefore, we classified 13 ATF field divisions, 10 DEA field divisions, 29 FBI field offices, and 

11 USMS districts as large. 
10

female staff who held Senior Executive Service (SES) positions during FY 2016. 

See Table 3. 

Table 3 

Percentage of Women in Leadership in the 

Department’s Law Enforcement Components, FY 2016

ATF DEA FBI USMS All Four

Components

Percentage of Female Staff 

in GS-15 Positions 28.5 25.8 32.1 18.3 29.4 

Percentage of Female Staff 

in GS-15 Criminal 

Investigator Positions

10.7 5.8 17.7 8.8 13.3 

Percentage of Female Staff 

in SES Positions 14.6 16.6 22.9 27.8 20.9

Note: Female staff in GS-15 and SES positions include 1811 (Criminal Investigation) and 

non-1811 series.

Sources: NFC data and DOJ Employment Factbook, FY 2016

We also found that the headquarters executive leadership positions women 

held were usually in administrative or support rather than operational units.22 

Specifically, women held 81 of the 498 headquarters executive leadership positions 

that were available over our 6-year study period.23 Only 14 of these 81 positions 

were overseeing operational work. Women at DEA held two of the agency’s

headquarters executive leadership positions, including the DEA Administrator, five 

times over the 6-year study period. Women at USMS held three of the executive 

leadership positions, including the USMS Director, eight times during the study 

period. At FBI, for 1 year, one woman held one headquarters executive leadership 

position that was responsible for overseeing operational work. ATF did not have 

any women in a headquarters leadership position during this time.

We also examined how many women held Special Agent in Charge (SAC) and 

Chief DUSM positions, the top leadership positions in the field, during our study 

 22 To be able to compare equivalent positions across the four components, we define the 

headquarters executive leadership positions as Director, Deputy Director, Chief Counsel, and Assistant 

Director at ATF and USMS and as Director, Deputy Director, Associate Deputy Director, Executive 

Assistant Director, Chief Counsel, Chief of Staff, and Assistant Director at FBI. The equivalent 

positions at DEA are Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Assistant Administrator, Chief Counsel, and 

Chief. ATF also considers the Deputy Assistant Director and Deputy Chief Counsel positions to be 

executive headquarters positions overseeing operational work, and there were no women holding 

these positions during our study period.

23 At ATF, DEA, and USMS, there were 14 headquarters executive leadership positions 

available each year, from FY 2011 through FY 2016, for a total of 84 positions at each component. 

FBI had 41 headquarters executive leadership positions available each year, for a total of 

246 positions over the same 6-year period. 
11

period.24 Three of the FBI field offices are headed by an Assistant Director in 

Charge (ADIC), with SACs that report to the ADIC.25 Over our study period, we 

found that women held one of the three FBI ADIC positions during 3 fiscal years: 

2011, 2013, and 2016. The percentages of field leadership positions held by 

women in each of the four law enforcement components from FY 2011 through 

FY 2016 are in Table 4. It is important to note that at DEA, the 6.8 percent 

represented only one female SAC in all fiscal years except FY 2012, when DEA had 

two female SACs. Similarly, the 8.7 percent of ATF SAC positions represents just 

two female SACs in FY 2011, FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2015 and three female 

SACs in FY 2016. In FY 2014, ATF did not have any female SACs. 

Table 4 

Percentage of Female SACs or Chief DUSMs, 

By Component, FY 2011–FY 2016

Agency FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Over All 

Years

ATF 9.1 9.1 8.7 0.0 9.1 15.8 8.7

DEA 7.1 14.3 5.9 7.1 4.5 4.5 6.8

FBI 16.7 16.9 19.7 13.4 10.8 7.1 14.2

USMS 6.4 5.3 6.4 6.4 5.3 4.3 5.7

Notes: We calculated the percentages using the total number of SAC/Chief DUSM positions that were 

filled each fiscal year and the number that were held by women. Some positions were held by two 

different persons or were not filled at all during a fiscal year. Therefore, the total number of positions 

are not equal each fiscal year. 

Source: OIG analysis of law enforcement component data

When we analyzed the field offices, field divisions, and districts by size of 

staff, we found that very few women headed larger offices, in terms of number of 

staff, between FY 2011 and FY 2016. Of the field offices, field divisions, and 

districts we classified as large, one at ATF was led by a woman, one at DEA was led 

by two different women at different times, and two at USMS were led by women. 

Of the 29 FBI field offices we classified as large, 7 were headed by female SACs, 

but only in 2 of the years of our study period, FY 2011 and FY 2013. Further, the 

number of large FBI field offices headed by female SACs steadily decreased, from 

seven in FY 2013 to one in FY 2016. 

Workforce Diversity Contributes to Staff Perceptions about Gender Equity and Is 

Important to Component Leadership 

We found that workforce diversity is important to staff and leadership and 

helps contribute to perceptions about equity in the components. When we asked 

 24 ATF has 25 field divisions, DEA has 21 domestic field offices, FBI has 56 field offices, and 

USMS has 94 districts.

25 The Washington, D.C.; New York City; and Los Angeles FBI field offices are headed by an ADIC. 
12

interviewees and focus group participants to describe the “state of gender equity” in 

their component, many men and women immediately mentioned the composition of 

the workforce by gender or described the population as more male dominated. 

Interviewees and focus group participants often focused on the representation of 

women in supervisory and leadership positions and indicated that low or 

nonexistent representation in these positions affected their perception of gender 

equity. When we asked leaders and supervisors specifically why diversity is 

important, they said that diversity brings varied skills, experience, expertise, and 

perspectives to the component and results in the component reflecting the 

communities it serves, which can increase the component’s credibility. Focus group 

participants and interviewees also noted that women may bring to law enforcement 

a different skill set that relies more on communication and can be useful for 

defusing potentially violent confrontations. For example, a DEA SAC told us he 

believes that women are able to handle tense and difficult law enforcement 

situations in different ways than men and as a result are often able to deescalate a 

situation before it becomes physical. 

The acting USMS Director recognized the significance of having women at all 

levels of the organization, including leadership, noting that he wanted to ensure 

that all new employees were able to look up the chain of command and see leaders 

demographically like themselves so they could know that they could advance as 

well. The acting ATF Director said that it was important to diversify the agency, but 

he further stated “diversity is not enough; people have to feel they are included” in 

all aspects of the component. 

The DOJ Law Enforcement Components’ Actions to Increase the Number of Women 

in Criminal Investigator Positions Were Limited

We identified several factors that may have hindered the law enforcement 

components’ efforts to reduce the underrepresentation of women in Criminal 

Investigator positions. These factors included lack of awareness of the componentspecific barriers to attracting women to law enforcement, limited targeted 

recruitment of women, lack of hiring authorities, and incomplete hiring data. 

Effective recruitment efforts are critical for diversifying law enforcement agencies at 

all levels because supervisors and leaders are almost always drawn from the pool of 

existing staff members. 

Component Recruitment Efforts May Not Effectively Overcome Barriers to 

Attracting Women to Law Enforcement 

Many interviewees, focus group participants, and heads of human resources 

divisions expressed their belief that the requirements of a Criminal Investigator 

position, combined with the overall cultural view of law enforcement and gender 

roles, are significant barriers to recruiting women. For example, they noted that 

the inflexible nature of law enforcement work, unpredictable work hours, and the 

federal law enforcement requirement to periodically move for career advancement 

may be less attractive to women because they are often their family’s main 
13

caregiver.26 Additionally, staff members in numerous focus groups and interviews 

mentioned that the view of law enforcement as aggressive and male dominated was 

a barrier to recruiting women. During an interview, representatives from the DEA 

Female Agents Advisory Board described a recruitment brochure that had pictures 

of Special Agents in SWAT-type uniforms and equipment. They believed these 

types of images could deter some women from applying to DEA because they may 

not see themselves doing this specific aspect of Criminal Investigator work and may 

not realize that there are other activities and duties of a DEA Criminal Investigator. 

We reviewed each of the four law enforcement components’ recruitment 

activities and identified several weaknesses that may limit their ability to recruit 

diverse applicants, including women. First, not all of the components had 

recruitment plans that included goals or strategies specifically for recruiting women. 

Second, the components’ outreach and targeted recruitment efforts were not fully 

developed or implemented. Further, none of the components had evaluated its 

efforts to see whether they were effective in increasing the number of women in its 

workforce. Finally, Human Resources Directors/Administrators and other staff from 

each of the law enforcement components identified the same general barriers to 

recruiting women, as mentioned above, but did not specifically identify which

barriers applied to their individual component, even though components’ distinct 

missions and types of work may result in different barriers. Table 5 below 

compares and highlights the differences among the diversity recruitment efforts 

that ATF, DEA, and FBI had in place during our study period. We did not include 

the USMS in the table because unlike ATF, DEA, and the FBI, the USMS does not 

have the excepted service hiring authority that would allow it to address special or

critical needs without having to go through the traditional competitive hiring 

process.

 26 Interviewees said that the higher percentage of female staff in non-Criminal Investigator 

positions, such as Intelligence Analysts, Diversion Investigators, and Inspectors, could mean that 

these types of positions are more attractive to women. These positions are considered law 

enforcement but do not have the same constraints as Criminal Investigator positions. 
14

Table 5 

Diversity Recruitment Efforts at ATF, DEA, and FBI

ATF DEA FBI

Has a Written Agency 

Recruitment Plan Yes No No

Agency Recruitment Plan Has 

Goals for Diversity Recruiting Yes No No

Agency Recruitment Plan Has 

Goals for Recruiting Women Yes No No

Has Numerical Goals for Diversity 

Recruiting Outside of a Formal 

Plan

Yes Yes Yes

Has Numerical Goals for 

Recruiting Women Outside of a 

Formal Plan

No Yes Yes

Has Goals for the Number of 

Female Criminal Investigator 

Applicants

Yes No Yes

Responsibilities for Recruitment 

Activities Are Shared between 

Headquarters and the Field

Yes No Yes

Attends Outreach Events at 

Universities or Advocacy Groups 

for Diversity Recruiting

Yes Yes Yes

Conducts Diversity Recruitment 

Events Yes Yes Yes

Develops Targeted Recruitment

Based on Community 

Demographics

No No Yes

Evaluates Recruitment Efforts No No No

Note: The analysis for the table included a review of documents and interview responses 

from the three components. 

Source: OIG analysis

USMS does not have a recruitment plan because it cannot target recruiting to 

specific populations without excepted service hiring authority. When USMS needs 

to hire a DUSM, it has to issue the job announcement nationwide. The Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) automatically culls the list of applicants using certain 

criteria, including giving priority to veterans (known as veterans’ preference). The 

USMS Human Resources Division Assistant Director told us that this in effect limits 

USMS to hiring from the veteran population, which is predominately male. ATF, 

DEA, and FBI can use excepted service hiring authority for certain positions and 

issue position announcements in specific locations or cities (based on need), which 

increases the diversity of the applicant pool. In March 2018, USMS told us that the 

Attorney General had signed a memorandum to the White House requesting

excepted service hiring authority for USMS but had not yet received a response. 

USMS’s Human Resources Division, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office, 

and Training Division have begun developing strategies for targeted recruitment in 

anticipation of obtaining excepted service hiring authority. 
15

After our fieldwork was completed, FBI and DEA told us that they had taken 

additional steps to increase their diversity recruitment efforts. FBI told us that in 

FY 2017 each FBI field office implemented its own Field Office Recruitment Plan

containing numerical targets and strategies for recruiting women, particularly 

female Criminal Investigators. The field office plans also have targets and 

strategies for recruiting in other diversity categories, such as race. FBI said that 

while it does not have a written component-wide recruitment plan, the Field Office 

Recruitment Plans align FBI’s National Recruiting Priorities with the local goals and

characteristics of the field offices to compose an overall strategy for diversity 

recruiting. Additionally, DEA created an agency-wide recruitment strategy, titled 

One DEA, for Criminal Investigators. Effective for FYs 2019–2023, One DEA 

outlines a plan to target recruitment for Criminal Investigators (which could include 

female investigators or other diverse populations based on the characteristics of the 

field divisions) and to conduct diversity recruitment events. DEA told us that both

the field and headquarters will have roles and responsibilities in the recruitment 

strategy. DEA does not have a component-level recruitment plan for job series 

other than 1811 or Criminal Investigators. FBI’s and DEA’s plans are positive steps 

forward for diversity recruitment, but they are still in the early stages. 

We acknowledge that the Department’s law enforcement components have

taken some steps to increase the diversity of their workforces through recruiting. 

However, it is not clear that their efforts have been designed to overcome the 

barriers to attracting women to federal law enforcement generally or to each

component respectively. For efforts to recruit women to be effective, we believe

that they must take into account, and offer answers to, the specific reasons women 

may have for not applying for these positions. As the USMS acting Director told us, 

“I wish I could survey the women we recruited who decided not to apply to USMS 

to find out [the reasons] why they made that decision. Then we could [have 

strategies] to address those reasons.” 

Lack of Applicant and Hiring Data Inhibits Evaluation of Recruitment Efforts

As we discussed above, to be effective, recruitment efforts must be targeted 

and should be evaluated to determine whether the efforts are accomplishing what 

the components intended. One challenge components may have in doing this is a 

lack of demographic specifics in applicant and hiring data. In attempting to analyze 

applicant and hiring data for our review, we found that no component could provide 

applicant demographic data and only DEA was able to provide hiring data that 

included demographic information, such as gender, for our study period.27 Part of 

the challenge for the components is that the federal government does not require 

applicants to answer demographic questions, making applicant data incomplete. 

Further, hiring data could be unreliable because of the same federal government 

rules—employees are not required to disclose their gender on their onboarding

 27 ATF and USMS were unable to consistently and accurately distinguish staff who were newly 

hired from those who were already employed but filled a vacancy. Due to the technical challenges FBI 

encountered while transferring to a new information technology system, it could not provide applicant 

and hiring data until later in our review. We could not analyze hiring data because reliable and 

comparable data was not available from all components. 
16

Human Resources paperwork. To track a new employee’s gender, a component 

would have to transfer any voluntarily disclosed demographic information from its

hiring system to its personnel system or manually input the information into the 

personnel system. In October 2017, the DEA Human Resource Division Assistant 

Administrator told us that to help evaluate recruitment efforts, in the future she 

wants to determine how many of the applicants who attend recruitment events are 

eventually hired by DEA. The other three law enforcement components indicated 

they would like to be able to track hiring data to evaluate recruitment efforts. 

However, if the components cannot analyze applicants or those selected for a 

position by demographic characteristics, they cannot effectively evaluate the 

success of their recruitment efforts. 

Women Were Often Underrepresented in Criminal Investigator Promotions, 

while the Representation of Women and Men in Professional Staff 

Promotions Varied by Agency

Our analysis of promotions data played a key role in our assessment of 

gender equity because receiving a promotion is a mark of success and career 

achievement. For the period of our review, we found that the share of promotions 

that men and women received did not always match the population of potential 

applicants in the component.28 While we identified several areas of disparity within 

GS-level Criminal Investigator and professional staff promotions, the most 

substantial area of disparity we identified was in female Criminal Investigator 

promotions at DEA and ATF. And, although our analysis focused on GS-level 

promotions, an FBI study identified a concern with an underrepresentation of 

female Special Agents at the SES level.29 Additionally, we observed that in each of 

the four components there were many Criminal Investigator certified applicant lists 

(certs) that had no women on them. Finally, regarding professional staff, at ATF, 

DEA, and USMS we found that women and men sometimes did not receive 

promotions comparable to their population size at the preceding GS level. 

Numerous interviewees and focus group participants spoke about perceived 

inequities in promotion selections when asked how they believed gender inequity 

manifests in their agency. Their responses led us to conclude that promotion 

selections strongly influenced their perceptions of equity overall, and gender equity 

specifically, in their agency. While it was not within the scope of our review to 

determine whether individual promotion selections were based solely on merit, we 

believe that regardless of whether a particular selection was objective or not, the 

 28 We evaluated gender equity in promotion selections based on promotions data provided by 

the four law enforcement components. We did not review individual promotion selections to evaluate, 

either individually or systemically, overall fairness in the promotions process. 

The components were not able to provide the genders of all applicants to each vacancy, 

therefore we used the population of the GS level directly below the vacancy as a best estimate for the 

potential applicant pool. The absence of applicant data limits our ability to determine the exact 

difference between the percentage of women who applied for each promotion and the percentage of 

women who were promoted. 

29 FBI, Leadership Diversity Workforce Study: SES Selection Analysis (FY14–FY16), (October 

2016). We did not analyze SES promotions data because it was inconsistent across components. 
17

disparities we found in the thousands of promotion selections we analyzed could be 

contributing to staff perceptions about fairness in personnel decisions and about 

gender equity. Moreover, as we discuss later in the report, the perception of 

fairness in promotions is an issue for all of the law enforcement components to 

consider because of views throughout these components that the promotions 

processes are biased and unfair. Based on the survey and focus group responses 

discussed below, we believe that such negative perceptions could result in qualified 

staff members not applying for promotions and could adversely affect employee 

morale and, ultimately, diversity in all levels of component leadership. 

Women Were Underrepresented in Criminal Investigator Promotions at ATF, DEA, 

and FBI

We analyzed GS-level Criminal Investigator certs, promotion selections, and 

workforce data at each of the four law enforcement components and identified 

several disparities indicating that women were underrepresented in promotion 

selections between FY 2011 and FY 2016. First, at ATF and DEA, female Criminal 

Investigators were underrepresented in competitive promotions compared to their 

proportion of the population at the next lower grade level, which is the potential 

applicant pool. Second, our data analysis may indicate that women encounter 

difficulty advancing into Criminal Investigator supervisory positions at ATF, DEA, 

and FBI. Lastly, we observed that each component had a substantial percentage of 

certs for first- and second-line supervisory positions that contained no women and 

we note that this may contribute to the underrepresentation we found for women in 

Criminal Investigator promotions. 

Women Were Underrepresented in ATF and DEA Criminal Investigator 

Promotions 

We found, in general, that the share of promotions men received almost 

always equaled or exceeded their share of the population at the next lower grade 

level but that the share of promotions women received was usually less than their 

share of the population at the next lower grade (see Table 6 below). We used the 

next lower grade as a best estimate for the potential applicant pool. We noted the 

largest disparities in DEA promotions to GS-14 and in ATF promotions to GS-15. 

The lack of GS-15 Criminal Investigator promotions for women was particularly 

evident at ATF during FY 2014, when only 1 woman was selected for promotion out 

of 26 selections. In FY 2011 and FY 2016, no women were selected out of 5 and 

18 selections, respectively, and from 2011 to 2016 a total of only 6 women were 

selected for GS-15 Criminal Investigator promotions. 

 
18

Table 6

Average Percentage of Criminal Investigator Populations and Promotions 

by Gender and Grade at ATF, DEA, FBI, and USMS, FY 2011–FY 2016

Grade Populations and 

Promotions

ATF DEA FBI USMS

F M F M F M F M 

GS-12 Population 9 91

GS-13 Promotions 10 90

GS-13 Population 13 87 11 89 20 80 12 88

GS-14 Promotions 9 91 7 93 17 83 11 89

GS-14 Population 12 88 6 94 17 83 11 89

GS-15 Promotions 5 95 6 94 16 84 14 86

Note: We did not include data for GS-12 and 13 positions at ATF, DEA, and FBI because 

their competitive promotion process does not begin until the GS-14 level. The USMS 

process begins at the GS-13 level. 

Source: OIG analysis of ATF, DEA, FBI, and USMS promotions data and NFC data 

Decreasing Numbers of Female Criminal Investigators at Progressively Higher 

GS Levels May Support Staff Perceptions About a Glass Ceiling at DEA and 

Potential Issues for Women at ATF, DEA, and FBI to Advance into 

Supervisory Positions 

We examined the distribution of women in the population at the GS-13 

through 15 levels in all four law enforcement components to assess whether women

may have faced particular difficulty moving into supervisory positions. We found 

that at ATF, DEA, and FBI the percentage of females in the Criminal Investigator

population generally decreased as the grade level increased, while the percentage 

of males generally increased.30 We also heard from interviewees and focus group 

respondents at those three components that they believed there was a “glass 

ceiling” for women that they could not advance past. Unlike the other components, 

at USMS, the proportion of women at Grades 13 and 14 were more or less 

comparable. Further, USMS was the only component in which the proportion of 

women actually increased from GS-14 to GS-15 in 5 of the 6 years of our study 

period. 

 30 We analyzed each law enforcement component’s workforce data by grade and by gender in 

the competitive grades, over our 6-year study period, to observe changes in the proportions of men 

and women.
19

At DEA, the decrease of the percentage of female Criminal Investigators in 

the population from the GS-13 to the GS-14 levels was especially pronounced, 

which may indicate that female 

DEA Criminal Investigators face 

impediments to becoming

supervisors and may support staff 

perceptions about a glass ceiling 

for women. We found that the 

percentage of female DEA Criminal 

Investigators decreased by almost 

half from GS-13 to GS-14 in each 

year of our study period (FY 2011–

2016). There was more 

consistency in the proportions of 

women in the GS-14 and GS-15

Criminal Investigator populations, 

and it appears that once women 

became first-line supervisors, they 

were able to move up to the GS-15 

positions consistent with their 

proportion of the GS-14 population, 

which was similar to their male 

counterparts. 

The FY 2011–2016 

population data for FBI and ATF 

indicate that women in these 

components may be encountering difficulty moving into first-line supervisory 

positions and, additionally, women at ATF may have difficulty moving from a firstline to a second-line supervisor position. At both FBI and ATF, there was a 

decrease in the proportion of women in the GS-13 population compared to the GS14 population, although it was less pronounced than the decrease at DEA discussed 

above. At FBI, the proportion of female Criminal Investigators slightly increased or 

remained the same between the GS-14 and GS-15 populations throughout our 

study period. At ATF, the proportion of women in the population became somewhat

smaller as the grades increased in 4 of the 6 years of our study period. 

 

We note that many factors, such as differing rates of men and women 

applying for promotions or differing qualifications, may contribute to differences in 

the number of promotions that men and women received, and it was beyond the 

scope of our review to assess these other factors. However, our analyses, 

supported by an FBI study on SES promotions (see the text box), indicate that in 

some components, and at certain levels, women may experience more difficulty 

than men in receiving competitive service Criminal Investigator promotions. Our 

review of certs shows that some women applying for GS-14 and GS-15 positions 

were being rated as qualified, so their underrepresentation in promotions does not 

FBI’s Study on SES Promotions

FBI’s Diversity Executive Council, a group of 

19 executives who serve as the “Champions” for 

the FBI’s diversity committees, expressed concerns 

about the lack of women in executive leadership. 

As a result, in October 2016, the FBI conducted a 

study on the female representation in its higher 

ranks. Among other things, the study found that 

women were not being selected for SES Special 

Agent promotions. The FBI determined that the 

inequity in SES promotions was not due to a lack 

of applicants but appeared to be due to potential 

selection bias. 

Following this study, at the direction of former 

FBI Director James Comey (and continued by the 

current FBI Director, Christopher Wray), the FBI 

launched an SES mentorship program in May 2017 

that in part encouraged SES leaders to select a 

mentee of a different gender, ethnicity, or race. In 

March 2018, FBI reported that 92 percent of SES 

employees were serving as mentors. According to 

the Diversity and Inclusion Section Chief, FBI’s 

goal is 100 percent SES participation. 

Source: FBI, Leadership Diversity Workforce Study
20

appear to have been due solely to a lack of qualified applications or a lack of 

interest.31 

Each Component had a Substantial Percentage of Certified Applicant Lists for 

Supervisory Positions That Did Not Contain Any Women 

We also analyzed the certs for each of the first- and second-line supervisory 

vacancies in our study period. Generally, at each of the four components, women 

were selected when there were more of them on the cert than men, and vice versa. 

However, we observed that at ATF and DEA there was a higher percentage of 

GS-14 and GS-15 Criminal Investigator certs that contained no women.32 The 

percentages of Criminal Investigator certs without women was lower at FBI and 

USMS, but it was still around a third of the total number of lists. Table 7 below 

shows the numbers and percentages of women on the certs in the competitive 

grades for each component. 

 31 The promotions data included all applicants who were qualified to make the cert for each 

open position, but we did not evaluate individual applications to determine whether applicants were 

more competitive based on specialized experience or assignments. 

32 Certified applicants are individuals who applied for and were considered eligible for a promotion 

prior to the determination of their qualification status. The qualification status is a category rating such as 

“well qualified” or “highly qualified” based on certain knowledge, skills, and abilities that could be expected 

to enhance performance in a position. OPM, “Category Rating Policy,” www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/human-capital-management/hiring-reform/reference/categoryratingpolicytemplate.pdf

(accessed May 31, 2018). 
21

Table 7

Distribution of Certified Applicant Lists for First- and Second-Line Criminal 

Investigator Supervisor Vacancies, by Percentage of Women on the Certs, 

FY 2011–FY 2015

Certs with 

No Female 

Applicants

Certs with a Percentage

of Female Applicants Total 

Number

1 to of Certs

10%

11 to 

20%

21 to 

30%

31 to 

40%

41 to 

50%

51% 

or 

greater

ATF 72.4% 

(268)

0.5%

(2)

15.1% 

(56) 

3.5% 

(13) 

4.1%

 (15) 

2.2% 

(8)

2.2% 

(8) 370

DEA 55.3%

(745)

16.6%

(224)

22.1% 

(297)

3.6% 

(48)

1.7%

(23)

0.7%

(9)

0.0%

(0) 1,346

FBI 36.8%

(1,973)

7.2%

(388)

22.8%

(1,221)

14.5%

(778)

10.2%

(549)

5.3%

(287)

3.2%

(171) 5,367

USMS 32.5%

(314) 

25.5% 

(238) 

29.6% 

(276) 

7.5% 

(70) 

2.4% 

(22) 

1.1% 

(10) 

0.4%

(4) 933

Notes: The data for this table includes vacancies for the GS-14 through GS-15 positions at ATF, DEA, 

and FBI and the GS-13 through GS-15 positions at USMS, excluding the Chief DUSM positions. The 

competitive process begins at GS-14 for ATF, DEA, and FBI and at GS-13 for USMS. We included only 

lists that clearly identified all applicants’ genders. DEA data does not include vacancies that were 

canceled. 

Source: OIG analysis of ATF, DEA, FBI, and USMS promotions data

The number of women on any certified applicant list could have resulted from 

myriad factors, such as whether women applied to or qualified for the position. 

While we do not know the reasons why there are so many certs with no women, it 

could be contributing to the underrepresentation of women at the GS-14, GS-15, 

and SES levels at all four components. The acting DEA Administrator acknowledged 

that there was a low number of women in senior leadership and noted that, to 

address those disparities, DEA needed more women in GS-14 positions. The acting 

ATF Director also noted that there were not many women in the pipeline to become 

GS-15s at ATF. Similarly, the FBI Director commented that he could not 

automatically “have women in leadership.” He said that qualified women need to 

be in the pipelines now to see changes in the future. If the components are not 

able to determine, and address, the reasons why women are not on the certs for 

first- and second-line supervisor vacancies, we believe that they will encounter 

difficulty increasing the diversity of their leadership. 

Male and Female Professional Staff at ATF, DEA, and USMS Did Not Always Receive 

Promotions Comparable to Their Population Size at the Next Lower GS Level

We conducted the same analysis on professional staff promotions as we did 

on the Criminal Investigator promotions. We compared the proportion of women 

and men selected for promotions with the population size by gender at the next 

lower grade level. We found that at ATF, DEA, and USMS, both female and male 
22

professional staff did not always receive promotions comparable to their population 

size at the next lower GS level.33 Below, we discuss the four disparities we found. 

 

On average, over our 6-year study period, men at ATF made up only 

52 percent of the GS-14 professional staff population but received 68 percent of the 

GS-15 professional staff promotions. One ATF focus group participant said that the 

senior tier had been male dominated since she started at the bureau almost 

30 years before. Other ATF focus group participants echoed that sentiment and 

asserted that there should be more women in upper management. While we did 

not have the data necessary to determine why women were underrepresented in 

GS-15 professional staff promotions, our analysis of certified applicants confirms 

that women applied for these positions and made the certs. 

 

We also found disparities among DEA’s non-Criminal Investigator 

promotions, indicating that women were underrepresented in promotions for

Intelligence Specialists, Chemists, and Diversion Investigators (“core” positions 

other than Criminal Investigator) and men were underrepresented in professional 

staff promotions (professional staff are known as “non-core” positions at DEA).34 

Specifically, from FY 2012 through FY 2016, women made up 54 percent of the GS13 Intelligence Specialists, Chemists, and Diversion Investigators but received an 

average of only 47 percent of the GS-14 promotions for those positions.35 During 

FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 in particular, women received notably low percentages 

of these promotions—ranging from 38 percent to 41 percent. This suggests that 

women working at DEA as Intelligence Specialists, Chemists, and Diversion 

Investigators may have experienced challenges similar to female Criminal 

Investigators in achieving supervisory positions. 

Over the same time at DEA, on average, men made up 31 percent of the 

professional staff workforce but received only 25 percent of these promotions 

across all grades. For supervisory promotions, men made up 48 percent of the 

GS-13 professional staff population but received an average of only 38 percent of 

the GS-14 promotion selections. We did not hear complaints from men in focus 

groups and interviews about their lack of ability to advance in the professional staff

series, but the certified applicant data was not available to determine the number 

of men applying for these jobs.36 

 

At USMS, men were sometimes underrepresented in professional staff 

promotions. On average, men at USMS made up about 35 percent of the 

professional staff workforce from FY 2011 through FY 2016 and received an average 

 33 We could not fully analyze FBI’s professional staff promotions because FBI was able to 

provide only FY 2016 data for these types of promotions. 

34 Staff at DEA are divided into two categories: “core” and “non-core.” Core positions include 

Criminal Investigators, Intelligence Specialists, Chemists, and Diversion Investigators. Non-core 

positions include all other job types. We analyzed Criminal Investigator data separately from the core 

series analysis.

35 DEA was not able to provide FY 2011 data for professional staff promotions. 

36 DEA was able to provide only non-Criminal Investigator certified applicant data for FY 2016. 
23

of 30 percent of the promotions across all professional series, at all grades. 

Unfortunately, USMS was unable to provide certified applicant data for professional 

staff promotions, so we were unable to determine the degree to which men were 

applying for these positions and thus were unable to determine whether gender 

bias could have played a role in the underrepresentation of men in GS-15 

professional staff promotions.

Female Criminal Investigators Frequently Reported Gender Discrimination, 

and Both Men and Women Believed that Personnel Decisions, Including 

Promotions, Were Based on Personal Relationships More than Merit

Fifty-two percent of all survey respondents reported that their agency had a 

gender equitable culture. However, when we analyzed the responses by gender, 

we found that men and women had very different responses. While 63 percent of 

men reported that their agency had a gender equitable culture, only 40 percent of 

women and, more specifically, only 33 percent of female Criminal Investigators, 

reported that their agency was gender equitable. Additionally, 22 percent of all 

female survey respondents and 43 percent of female Criminal Investigators 

responded that they had experienced some form of gender discrimination during 

the previous 5 years. Further, many female staff, especially Criminal Investigators, 

believed that they were treated differently at their office or agency based on their 

gender. 

Throughout our review, we learned that perceptions about gender equity 

depended largely on a staff member’s position type; duty station; and, most 

important, gender.37 Because of this wide variation in response patterns, it is 

difficult to make one broad statement to summarize perceptions about gender 

equity for all employees across the four components. We present staff perceptions

about gender equity to help paint a more complete picture of the components’

culture as it contributed to the staff’s view of the state of gender equity.38 

While Criminal Investigators and professional staff of both genders reported 

witnessing or experiencing differing treatment based on gender at their agency or 

office, female Criminal Investigators reported directly experiencing more frequent 

and negative instances of gender-based treatment than all other staff members. 

And while many men told us that they had never thought of the issue of gender 

equity and did not believe that women were treated differently, women, especially 

female Criminal Investigators, often described examples of discrimination and 

gender bias in ways that demonstrated how important and personal this topic was 

 37 In focus groups, interviews, and the survey, men of all position types had a more positive 

outlook on gender equity than women did. An analysis of the survey responses indicates that the 

disparity in outlook between men and women may be greater for employees in Criminal Investigator 

positions than for other position types. 

38 Whenever we refer to issues raised by focus group participants and interviewees, the 

minimum standard is that multiple staff members from at least two of our four sites and two of the 

four components discussed the topic (unless otherwise stated). However, most of the issues we 

discuss in this section were raised by staff in at least three agencies and three locations. For 

information on our four sites, see Appendix 2. 
24

to them. Many female staff members referred to their component as “male

dominated” or having a “macho” culture, which they believed negatively affected 

them. For example, women said they were treated differently and selected less 

often for promotions and other career-enhancing opportunities as a result of this 

culture. A female Criminal Investigator from DEA said that she accepted the “malecentered” culture at DEA because she was in her “dream job.” However, she felt

that the culture made women feel they had to change who they were to be 

accepted by men and get equal opportunities. 

The stark contrast between men’s and women’s views about treatment based 

on gender is further evident in the survey responses to questions about which 

gender was treated more favorably. Female survey respondents believed that men 

were treated more favorably in a number of career-enhancing opportunities, while 

most male survey respondents believe that both men and women are treated 

equally. Appendix 5 includes a series of survey questions and Criminal Investigator 

responses, by gender, related to differing treatment. 

 

We also identified one negative perception about differing treatment that 

staff members across agencies, position types, and genders held, which is that 

personal relationships, or “who you know,” at an agency had a greater impact on a 

staff member’s career than merit. According to our interviewees and focus group

participants, this often took the form of a component-level “good ol’ boys club” (the 

club), which they believed had a major influence on organizational decisions. 

We found that these perceptions of differing treatment based on gender or 

personal relationships negatively influenced staff’s perception of gender equity and 

equity overall at their agencies or offices. We believe that these perceptions can 

result in negative consequences to the components and their employees in several 

ways. First, the perception that personnel decisions are driven more by “who you 

know” than by merit could negatively affect staff members’ trust and belief about 

equity in their agency and possibly discourage qualified employees from applying 

for promotions or from taking part in career enhancing activities that could benefit 

the agency as well as the employee. To the extent that negative perceptions were 

held by women more than men, this can also impede components’ efforts to 

increase the representation of women at all levels. 

Second, according to researchers, gender discrimination—especially when it 

is in the form of sexual harassment—can have harmful effects on a component’s 

culture, morale, productivity, and staff members’ personal well-being, and can 

result in monetary costs to the component.39 While the vast majority of both male 

and female staff we spoke to and surveyed did not perceive sexual harassment to 

be prevalent, those that did share their, or colleagues’, experiences described many 

negative effects on office or agency culture and perceptions about the component

resulting from the harassment. We found that between FY 2011 and FY 2016 the 

Department paid approximately $4.4 million for EEO cases that resulted in 

 39 Victor E. Sojo et al., “Harmful Workplace Experiences and Women’s Occupational WellBeing: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 40, no. 1 (2016): 1, 16.
25

settlements or findings of gender (or sex-based) discrimination against the four law 

enforcement components. 

A Significant Number of Women—Especially Female Criminal Investigators—

Reported that They Had Experienced Gender Discrimination in Some Form

A significant number of women in interviews and focus groups, and 22 

percent (848) of female survey respondents, reported that they had experienced 

gender discrimination. In nearly all of the 28 female focus groups we conducted, at 

least 1 woman stated that she had experienced discrimination in her component. 

We collected and analyzed FYs 2011–2016 EEO complaint data from all four 

components and found that women were the complainants in 80 percent of the 

895 gender discrimination EEO complaints from all four components.

We found that female Criminal Investigators, as compared to all the women 

who responded to our survey, more frequently reported gender discrimination and 

often had negative perceptions of gender equity.40 Specifically, more than double 

the percentage of female Criminal Investigators, 43 percent, compared with 

18 percent of female professional staff survey respondents, reported experiencing 

gender discrimination at their agency within the previous 5 years. As Table 8 

shows, a significant percentage of female Criminal Investigator survey respondents 

in all of the four components reported experiencing gender discrimination. More 

than half of USMS female DUSMs surveyed reported having experienced gender 

discrimination. 

Table 8 

Female Responses to Our Survey Question: “Have you ever 

experienced discrimination in your agency during the past 

5 years that you believe was based on your gender?”

Yes No Not 

Sure

Total 

Respondents

All Women 22% 62% 16% 3,875

Female 

Criminal 

Investigators

ATF 33% 57% 10% 70

DEA 41% 44% 15% 130 

FBI 43% 43% 14% 348 

USMS 51% 37% 12% 103

Source: OIG survey

All Staff—Especially Female Criminal Investigators—Perceive that Personnel 

Decisions Are Influenced More by Personal Relationships than by Merit 

We found that many staff, but especially women, believe that personal 

relationships at their agency strongly affect career trajectories and, in fact, personal 

 40 OIG was unable to evaluate EEO complaint data for female Special Agents and DUSMs

because this information is not included in the EEO complaint database.
26

relationships that favor certain employees was among the most frequently cited 

examples of an overall agency problem reported to us during focus groups and 

interviews. In our survey, over one-third of female and about one-quarter of male 

respondents believed that their office or agency considered personal relationships 

or affiliations more than merit for career advancement. When we examined 

Criminal Investigator responses specifically, we found that 54 percent of women 

believed that personal relationships mattered more than merit for career 

progression while only 27 percent of men reported that perception. Many staff told 

us that personal relationships can influence nearly every aspect of a person’s 

career, including promotions, details, job assignments, tasks, training 

opportunities, and informal relationships. 

Staff across components, demographic categories, position types, and 

supervisory statuses reported a specific way that the influence of personal 

relationships affected them. This was some form of a “good ol’ boys club” that they 

believe improperly influenced or determined various personnel decisions, including 

promotions.41 Although definitions of the club varied, the common themes included 

that the club was a group of individuals, many of whom had known each other from 

as early as the training academy, who advanced or developed their friends and/or 

other members of the club; that being a part of the club resulted in access to high 

level agency officials, the power to affect personnel decisions, and increased 

opportunity for upward mobility within the agency; and that the club often

consisted of individuals from certain high-profile units or divisions. In addition to 

relationships that had formed at the academy, some staff felt that the club was 

composed of specific racial or ethnic groups who had influence at different times. 

Staff also noted that although most members of the clubs were men, some women 

were included. While staff at all four site visit locations discussed the existence of a 

version of the club, staff at component headquarters and the Washington, D.C., 

field divisions more often discussed it as an impediment to merit-based 

advancement.42 

Even though staff members reported to us that men and women who were 

not part of the club were subject to career limitations, we also identified a 

perception among women that the club had more negative effects on them than on

men. For example, women reported that their gender made the consequences of 

being excluded from the club worse because men who were not part of the club still 

had better access to opportunities than women. Although some men felt that the 

 41 All references to the informal network were made during focus groups and interviews. OIG 

did not specifically ask about a “good ol’ boys club” in our survey. However, we did ask about 

personal relationships and their effect on personnel decisions. We discuss those responses in this 

section.

42 We conducted site visits at component headquarters and at field offices, field divisions, and 

districts in Washington, D.C.; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Seattle, Washington (see Appendix 2). 

Focus group participants and interviewees at headquarters and Washington, D.C. sites raised the topic 

of promotions and the promotions process more often in relation to gender equity, possibly because 

there are a greater number of higher level positions at headquarters. Additionally, staff members told 

us that employees move to headquarters and the Washington, D.C., offices specifically to seek 

promotion. 
27

club had negatively affected them, men did not feel that their gender had played a 

role. In general, women perceived that the club facilitated the development of 

personal connections for its members that resulted in club members having an 

advantage in being selected for promotions or special assignments. 

Whether within or separate from the club, one way that staff members 

develop personal connections and access to influential networks is through informal 

mentoring and social relationships. We found that women, especially female 

Criminal Investigators, perceived that they had less access to informal mentoring 

and social relationships than their male counterparts. Specifically, 42 percent of 

female Criminal Investigator survey respondents reported that they believed men 

were treated more favorably in receiving informal mentoring. 

Focus group participants and interviewees offered possible reasons why men 

could be receiving more informal mentoring than women. Staff often felt that the 

low number of women in senior leadership meant fewer opportunities for women in 

lower grades to build relationships and connections with a female leader. While 

some women told us they wanted a female mentor because they would have a 

shared experience as women in the agency, many women in focus groups and 

interviews told us that ultimately they wanted a positive and productive informal 

mentorship regardless of the gender of their mentor. Additionally, interviewees told 

us that men might be hesitant about or uninterested in mentoring women because 

the mentoring relationship could be misperceived by others. A female DUSM gave 

an example of these misperceptions when she said, “When I am friendly to males 

during the work day in a professional moment, I am perceived as being flirty to get 

an advantage, especially if it’s a supervisor.”

In addition to concerns about a disparity in informal mentoring, a recurring 

theme among female focus group participants and interviewees was a feeling that 

the men in their office excluded them from informal social activities. Thirty-five

percent of female Criminal Investigator survey respondents, but only 8 percent of 

males, reported feeling that they were sometimes or often isolated or ostracized at 

their workplace because of their gender. Similarly, 33 percent of female and 

7 percent of male Criminal Investigator survey respondents reported feeling that at 

least sometimes they had been purposely excluded from activities or meetings 

because of their gender.

Having less access to informal mentoring and social relationships limits an 

employee’s opportunity to network and build relationships with colleagues and 

supervisors. People generally establish informal relationships with others who are 

like them, including having the same gender. Because there are many more men 

than women in law enforcement, women may not be able to develop these social 

and professional connections as easily as men and favoritism based on “who you 

know” may be more detrimental to women’s careers. Below, we outline four types 

of personnel decisions that staff members perceived as being influenced by 

personal relationships. 
28

Promotions 

Approximately 30 percent of all survey respondents, nearly half of female 

Criminal Investigator respondents, and many focus group participants and 

interviewees did not believe that the promotions process was fair to all

employees.43 Men and women most frequently cited unfairness in the promotions 

process as an example of bias or inequity, with women most often saying that bias

was based on gender. Staff often told us, “Promotions [are] about who you know, 

not what you know.” For example, a male focus group participant from DEA stated, 

“It is hard to make the promotions process totally fair. Word of mouth tends to get 

you a promotion after you make the best qualified list.” A comment more 

emblematic of female views came from a female Criminal Investigator at FBI, who 

said, “Inequitable application of procedures contributes to FBI’s gender inequities. 

For promotions, it is the ‘who you know’ factor that will get you promoted 

and...gender discrimination [is] a factor in promotions.” Further, only 48 percent of 

female Criminal Investigator survey respondents felt that men and women have 

equal opportunity to obtain a promotion into a first-line supervisory position, and 

only 38 percent of female Criminal Investigator respondents believed that men and 

women have equal opportunity to be promoted beyond first-line supervisor. 

Comparatively, 70 percent of male Criminal Investigators indicated on the survey 

that men and women have equal opportunity to be promoted to first-line 

supervisor, and 67 percent believed that men and women have equal opportunity 

to be promoted past that level.

Many female Criminal Investigators in focus groups and interviews believed 

that bias existed in two promotion-related areas: (1) time spent in positions prior 

to promoting and (2) standards to promote. For example, nearly half of female 

Criminal Investigator survey respondents believed that males had spent less time in 

positions than females before being promoted. In comparison, about 20 percent of 

male Criminal Investigator survey respondents believed that female Criminal 

Investigators had spent less time in positions prior to being promoted. In focus 

groups and interviews at component headquarters units, female Criminal 

Investigators told us that they believed that men not only spent less time in 

headquarters positions overall, but some men, particularly those who were well 

connected in the agency, spent less time in positions than what agency policy 

required.44 A female supervisory Criminal Investigator at ATF called these 

individuals “fast trackers” who were given “special rules” regarding the amount of 

time they were required to spend in a position before being promoted to a higher 

position. Some male DUSMs felt that women were quickly promoted from mid-level 

to high level management at USMS. 

 43 All four components have merit promotions processes for Criminal Investigator positions 

while only two of the components have these processes for professional staff, and only for higher-level 

positions. We believe as a result, Criminal Investigators more often expressed their views on and 

experiences with these processes, so our discussion focuses more on their perceptions. 

44 ATF, DEA, and FBI each have rotation policies that require supervisory staff to complete a 

specified number of years in a supervisory or higher position at headquarters. USMS does not have this 

policy. We could not analyze the data because the components do not track this information in aggregate. 
29

Aside from time spent in a position before promotion, many staff believed 

that there were different work standards for men and women to advance their 

careers or demonstrate that they were good Criminal Investigators overall. Both 

men and women, but especially female Criminal Investigators, perceived that 

double standards negatively impacted their promotion potential. One female DUSM 

said, “Females are constantly being evaluated because they easily stand out [and

are] judged by different standards than males.” Two female Criminal Investigators

at FBI stated, “Women have to push harder and work three times as hard.” Men 

get promoted just because they want to be; women have to work extremely hard 

and still might not promote.” 

Some men also felt that double standards affected them. A male participant 

from DEA gave an example of a perceived double standard, saying that “females 

get the benefit of the doubt” and “receive promotions faster than males.” 

Both male and female staff described multiple ways that they perceived

selecting officials manipulated the promotions process to improperly select a 

candidate based on personal preference instead of merit.45 We evaluated two of 

those perceived selection methods with quantitative promotions data from the 

components. Interviewees and focus group participants told us that they believed 

that managers overturned career board decisions to select the candidate they 

wanted or did not select anyone for an open position to afford another opportunity 

to fill the position with a handpicked candidate. Contrary to what staff believed, 

our analysis of quantitative promotions data from the components shows that 

leadership or managers rarely overturned promotion selections but the percentage 

of canceled vacancies varied across components.46 During our study period, USMS 

had less than 1 percent, ATF had 2.7 percent, and DEA had 10 percent canceled 

vacancies or non-selections; from FY 2011 through FY 2015, FBI had 23 percent of 

its open positions canceled or result in non-selections.47 While there may be valid 

reasons for canceling a vacancy, the number of cancelations, non-selections, and 

vacancies that are re-advertised may be contributing to the staff members’ 

negative perceptions.48 

 45 Other perceived methods of manipulating the promotions process that we heard from staff 

included the improper use of selective placement factors and short vacancy announcement 

timeframes. 

46 While our data analysis did not support these two particular perceived methods of 

handpicking people for positions, data was not available to analyze other perceived promotions-related 

inequalities.

47 The 10 percent represents 341 of 3,345 DEA vacancies from FYs 2011–2016 and the 

23 percent represents 1,318 of the 5,723 FBI vacancies from FYs 2011–2015. FBI did not provide 

canceled vacancies or non-selections for FY 2016. 

48 Because FBI and DEA had a higher percentage of canceled vacancies than ATF and USMS, 

we asked them for the reasons this might occur. FBI stated that vacancies could be canceled without 

a selection because: there were three or fewer applicants, the hiring unit was reorganized, a 

candidate laterally transferred into the open position, there were budget cuts, the incumbent 

(Cont’d)
30

We believe that lack of 

transparency in, or lack of agency 

communication about, the promotions 

process may have led to some of the 

negative perceptions, whether founded 

or not, that staff had about promotions. 

An October 2017 U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report 

found that staff at USMS “expressed the 

view that poor communication and 

limited transparency about the merit 

promotion process and certain 

management decisions further 

contribute to employees’ negative 

perceptions of the merit promotion 

process.”49 As the criteria to judge the 

promotions process, the GAO report 

referenced the Standards for Internal 

Controls in the Federal Government, 

which says it is management’s job to 

communicate “quality” information 

throughout an organization: “down, 

across, up, and around reporting lines 

to all levels of the entity.”50 Having a 

system for open lines of communication 

that is both regular and accessible to all 

staff and management at all levels in an 

agency could increase transparency and 

improve staff perceptions about 

promotions in their agencies. During 

our review, the components initiated 

some changes that could potentially 

address these negative perceptions, 

which we describe in the text box. 

 

in the position did not leave, there were dual postings of the same vacancy, or the announcement 

contained inaccurate information. According to FBI data, 66 percent of the 823 canceled vacancies 

were re-advertised and could have any of the above listed reasons as to why they were originally 

canceled.

DEA’s reasons were similar: a candidate laterally transferred into the open position, no 

candidates qualified as “best qualified,” there was a very small applicant pool, or there was a small 

number of candidates on the “best qualified list.” 

49 GAO, U.S. Marshals Service: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of Merit 

Promotion Process and Address Employee Perceptions of Favoritism, GAO-18-8 (October 2017), 25,

www.gao.gov/assets/690/687759.pdf (accessed June 1, 2018).

50 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (September 

2014), 60, https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665712.pdf (accessed June 1, 2018).

Component Initiatives to Improve 

Negative Perceptions of the Promotions 

Process 

During the course of our review, ATF, FBI, 

and USMS said that they had made changes to 

their respective promotions processes that 

could potentially address negative perceptions

or improve transparency:

ATF told us in October 2017 that it had 

developed a new questionnaire with 

open-ended questions, allowing staff to 

provide a more robust written narrative 

of their accomplishments when applying 

for promotions. ATF also offered a 

formalized feedback process upon an 

applicant’s request. 

In July 2017, as a part of a renewed 

emphasis on diversity, FBI designed a 

new leadership development and 

selection system for the selection of 

senior leaders in the field. 

The acting USMS Director told us that, in 

October 2017, USMS updated its merit 

promotion plan so that an applicant’s 

promotion package would be rated by an 

impartial, third party contractor to 

increase neutrality and address staff 

concerns about potential conflicts of 

interest and possible bias of raters. 

All of these initiatives are promising, but it is 

too early for us to know whether they will 

address employees’ concerns.

Source: OIG interviews and document review
31

Career-enhancing Opportunities

One-quarter of female Criminal Investigator survey respondents believed 

that men were favored for career enhancing opportunities, such as detail 

assignments, special assignments, and training opportunities.51 Relatedly, in 

multiple focus groups and interviews, women (in both the Criminal Investigator and 

professional staff populations) said that they believed that men were given more 

complex and diverse job assignments. For example, a female DUSM told us that 

men were typically selected for the “harder collateral duties.” She believed that 

this affected women’s future opportunities because selection for collateral duties 

often makes a staff member more competitive for promotion or other advancement 

opportunities. An ATF Criminal Investigator told us that a woman’s career progress 

is hindered by the type of work she is given. She said, “Women don’t get the kind 

of casework [that would] lead to recognition and promotion. Women have to work 

harder to get the same recognition.” Women also told us that they believed that 

men were selected for details and training opportunities more often than women, 

even when women regularly applied for or expressed interest in these 

opportunities. 

Performance Evaluations and Performance Bonuses 

Female focus group participants and interviewees, especially those at 

headquarters and the Washington, D.C. sites said that they believed they had to 

work harder than men to be recognized by supervisors in their performance 

evaluation or to receive a performance bonus.52 Specifically, 53 percent of female 

Criminal Investigators (compared to 69 percent of male survey respondents) 

thought that men and women were treated equally in performance evaluations. 

Women in a few focus groups and interviews expressed particularly strong opinions 

that males continued to receive performance bonuses while they were under 

investigation and women did not.53 

 51 Unlike promotions, we could not analyze quantitative data for personnel decisions such as 

details, special assignments, and training. Thus, our entire analysis of these topics comes from 

survey responses, interviews, and focus groups. However, each topic will likely have an effect on a 

staff member’s perception regarding his or her ability to receive a promotion and make the right 

connections at the component. Therefore, we believe that overall perceptions about gender equity are 

largely influenced by these personnel decisions. 

52 We concluded that this belief did not apply to non-monetary awards because staff rarely 

raised the issue of non-monetary awards during focus groups and interviews. When we asked about 

non-monetary awards, staff members seldom indicated that these awards affected their perceptions 

about gender equity. 

53 In a previous report, OIG found that some DEA employees had received a bonus while 

under a misconduct investigation. See DOJ OIG, Bonuses and Other Favorable Personnel Actions for 

Drug Enforcement Administration Employees Involved in Alleged Sexual Misconduct Incidents 

Referenced in the OIG’s March 2015 Report, Evaluation and Inspections Report 16-01 (October 2015). 

See also DOJ OIG, The Handling of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct Allegations by the 

Department’s Law Enforcement Components, Evaluation and Inspections Report 15-04 (March 2015).
32

Men and women differed more widely in their attitudes about bonuses. Only 

40 percent of female and 61 percent of male survey respondents believed that men 

and women were treated equally in monetary performance bonuses.54 Moreover, 

nearly 20 percent of female Criminal Investigator survey respondents, compared to 

6 percent of male Criminal Investigators, felt that they received only verbal 

recognition while their colleagues received bonuses.55 For many women who 

perceived inequity in performance bonuses and evaluations, they believed the 

inequity resulted in women having to work harder and be a more “perfect” 

employee to receive equal recognition. 

Men and Women Reported Other Types of Differing Treatment That Were Not 

Influenced by Personal Relationships 

Work/Life Balance 

Staff at all agencies frequently discussed work/life balance, most commonly 

parenting, in our interviews and focus groups. Staff of both genders specifically 

discussed perceptions of double standards that affected their career in different 

ways. While professional staff we spoke to felt they generally had an adequate 

work/life balance, many Criminal Investigators felt they did not, although they 

often acknowledged that a lack of work/life balance was an inherent part of their 

job. Nonetheless, many female Criminal Investigators said during focus groups and 

interviews that they were more adversely affected by the limited work/life balance 

of a Criminal Investigator position or that they believed they were perceived more 

negatively than men when they used flexible work policies. For example, both men 

and women said that flexible work policies would likely be a greater benefit to 

female agents because of society’s gender roles (such as child-rearing and 

household responsibilities). One thing we heard from both men and women is that

female Criminal Investigators often delayed having children or did not have children 

at all because having children could have affected both their promotion potential 

and the type of unit to which they would be assigned.56 For example, FBI staff 

members stated that after some women had children they were assigned—

sometimes involuntarily—to units that did not handle violent crime and had more 

traditional work hours.57 These staff members told us they believed that these 

 54 Our survey question was worded as follows: “Based on your personal experiences, how do 

you feel that males and females are treated in the following area in your agency: monetary 

performance bonuses.” Because of this wording, we cannot unequivocally say whether responses 

refer to the dollar amount or the receipt of a bonus overall. 

55 The survey question did not refer to the gender of the colleagues who had received 

performance bonuses. Therefore, we can report that men and women answered the question but we 

cannot make conclusions about the gender of the colleagues who are perceived to have received 

bonuses. 

56 We did not hear that men had to make the same choice to delay having or not to have 

children.

57 We were told that some of these types of units were pejoratively referred to as “Mommy 

Squads.” Still, some women we spoke to seemed to appreciate being assigned to them because of the 

work/life balance they offered.
33

units may offer fewer opportunities to gain experience helpful for promotion 

eligibility. 

Female Criminal Investigators often reported feeling as if they had to choose 

between having the type of career they wanted to have and being the type of 

parent they wanted to be. Many interviewees and focus group participants cited 

the long, sometimes unpredictable, hours of Criminal Investigator work, in addition 

to the mobility requirements necessary for attaining a supervisory position, to 

conflict with family responsibilities.58 Some women felt that if they wanted a 

successful career they could not be the “hands-on” parent responsible for daily 

caregiving. Staff told us that they did not feel that male Criminal Investigators had 

to make this choice and that they perceived men as having fewer caregiving 

responsibilities overall. We heard from only a couple of men that they had made 

career choices to focus on family responsibilities. In an interview, a male 

supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal (DUSM) went so far as to call motherhood a 

“career hazard for women [DUSMs].” Similarly, female Criminal Investigators who 

were mothers felt that when they needed time off for child-rearing they were 

perceived as less dedicated than male Criminal Investigators who were fathers. 

One female DUSM said, “If a female needs to go home to take care of her child, she 

gets told she’s not a team player; while a male doing the same thing is told he is a 

‘great dad.’” 

Although the majority of male and female survey respondents believed that 

management supported work/life balance and that work/life balance and alternate 

work schedule options were gender equitable, 6 percent of female and 20 percent 

of male Criminal Investigator survey respondents felt that management treated 

women more favorably regarding work/life balance. Additionally, 12 percent of 

female and 23 percent of male Criminal Investigator survey respondents believed 

that women were treated more favorably by management for alternate work 

schedule options. 

Fitness Standards

While most of the perceptions about differing treatment were related to 

issues that negatively affected women, some staff perceived that men were at a 

disadvantage because of different fitness standards for male and female Criminal 

Investigators. Some men, particularly in USMS, reported to us that lower fitness 

standards for women at the training academy was an example of gender inequity 

 58 These feelings were especially salient for women who desired to advance within the 

component because of the increased duties and responsibilities of a supervisory position. We note 

that in October 2017 the ATF acting Director told us that 3 or 4 years prior he reduced from 2 years to 

1 year the requirement for Criminal Investigators to serve in a headquarters position before becoming 

a supervisor. He believed this may enable all staff to do a headquarters rotation, because it would be 

easier for an employee to do a 1-year detail away from his or her family rather than moving the entire 

family to Washington D.C., for 2 years. He saw this change as being especially helpful for female ATF 

staff who are interested in advancing to supervisor. 
34

negatively affecting men.59 These staff felt that if everyone is required to do the 

same job, fitness standards should be the same for all. However, the majority of

focus group participants and interviewees said that anyone who graduated from the 

academy was qualified to do the job, even though the fitness standards were 

different for men and women. 

Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Have Negative Effects on the 

Components and Their Staffs 

Gender discrimination, especially in the form of sexual harassment, can result in 

costs to the Department, including reductions in morale and productivity, decreased 

staff well-being, and monetary costs from EEO settlements or decisions. A recent 

report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform noted, “the 

overwhelming majority of federal employees refrain from sexual misconduct, but even 

a single instance can create a toxic work environment.”60 The Committee’s conclusion 

was confirmed by the sexual harassment experiences that focus group participants and 

interviewees shared with us—staff described how sexual harassment incidents had farreaching consequences for them and their work environment. 

We found through our analysis of focus group, interview, and survey 

responses that even though sexual harassment was not perceived to be prevalent, 

when it did occur, the situation and surrounding events could have widespread 

negative effects on staff and the agency.61 For example, we spoke with one woman

who alleged that she had been sexually harassed and had experienced retaliation

for reporting and one woman who alleged that she had been groped, both by the 

same supervisor. The first woman told us that she notified her second-line 

supervisor of the discrimination but he did not take any action. We interviewed the

Criminal Investigator who conducted the initial internal investigation into the 

discriminatory behavior. She told us that she did not believe that the component 

leadership was taking the case seriously. We later heard about this supervisor and 

his discriminatory behavior from a component staff member at another location. 

This staff member told us that the case was discussed across the component and 

59 While the fitness standards are different for men and women, both standards ensure that the 

Criminal Investigator is “fit.” This is an example of differing treatment based on differing abilities that tries to 

produce equity between genders. In tactical units, where specialized or different physical standards beyond 

just being “fit” are required to successfully perform specific duties, men and women have the same standards. 

60 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Tables of 

Penalties: Examining Sexual Misconduct in the Federal Workplace and Lax Federal Responses,

115th Congress, 1st sess., October 29, 2017, 6.

61 In a report issued in 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

concluded that many individuals did not label certain forms of unwelcome, sexually based behaviors as 

“sexual harassment,” even if they viewed them as problematic or offensive. EEOC, Select Task Force 

on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace (June 2016), 9.
35

had undermined the staff’s confidence that the agency would address 

harassment.62 

We also found that women were more likely to report experiencing this form 

of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent of the survey respondents who reported 

experiencing gender discrimination within the previous 5 years identified sexual 

harassment as the most recent type of discrimination they experienced, and women 

made up over 80 percent of those respondents. Our finding is further supported by 

EEO complaint data showing that while only 1 out of 10 gender discrimination cases 

in our EEO complaint dataset included sexual harassment as a claim type, 9 out of 

10 sexual harassment cases were filed by women. 

Interviewees and focus group participants also described the costs of gender 

discrimination, sexual harassment, or inequity and the negative effects of the 

resulting hostile work environment. Women at each of the four law enforcement 

components told us that they had personally experienced, or felt they were likely to 

experience, lower morale, a general disappointment in their agency, a reduction in 

work performance, distrust of colleagues or management, or increased use of 

personal leave to help them deal with the ramifications of gender discrimination or 

inequity. Female staff also told us that gender discrimination can make them 

become ill, more isolated, and fearful of retaliation. One female employee told us 

that she would become physically sick on her way to work because of how she was 

treated and that she eventually had to obtain a doctor’s note allowing her to 

telework to alleviate the issue. Similarly, another interviewee stated that she is 

now on antianxiety medication because of the way she was treated in her office. 

The findings of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) support the 

statements of interviewees and focus group participants regarding the costs of 

sexual harassment.63 One MSPB report described the personal costs of sexual 

harassment, saying, “for employees who experience it, sexual harassment takes its 

toll in the form of mental and emotional stress and even loss of income.”64 Another 

MSPB report described the numerous monetary costs of sexual harassment: “the 

cost of job turnover, sick leave that the victims say they used as a result of the 

62 We reviewed the Final Agency Decision for the first woman’s EEO complaint, in which the Department

substantiated discrimination. The Department ordered the component to promote the complainant, pay her 

attorney’s fees, determine compensatory damages, and train the responsible management officials. 

63 We also reviewed an article that summarized results from 88 separate studies of harmful 

workplace experiences that affect women; altogether, these combined studies included more than 

70,000 women. The article concluded that intensely stressful events, such as sexual harassment, or 

situations causing chronic stress, such as a hostile work environment, can impair a person’s well-being 

and have been associated with depression, anxiety disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder, 

among others. Victor Sojo et al., Harmful Workplace Experiences and Women’s Occupational Wellbeing: A Meta-Analysis (2016), 1, 16.

64 MSPB, Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements (May 2011), 47.
36

harassment, the cost of the individual productivity decreases reported by victims, 

and the estimated productivity lost by work groups in which harassment occurs.”65 

In addition, our analysis of 313 EEO cases that resulted in settlements or 

findings of discrimination against one of the four law enforcement components 

showed that the components paid approximately $4.4 million between FY 2011 and 

FY 2016 for gender-based (or sex-based) discrimination complaints. The 

components made those payments to resolve complaints in which the Department, 

the EEOC, or a judge had substantiated discrimination or to settle complaints 

without a substantiation of discrimination. These 115 gender discrimination and 

sexual harassment cases made up approximately 31 percent of all discrimination 

complaint payments.66 Further, almost 80 percent of the complainants in the 

115 EEO cases with a basis of gender discrimination were female. 

Dissatisfaction with and Mistrust About the EEO Process and Fear of 

Retaliation May Limit the Utility of the Process as a Tool to Address 

Discrimination

We found that staff of all genders, positions, supervisory statuses, and across 

the law enforcement components had negative perceptions about the EEO 

process.67 These perceptions included the stigma of filing an EEO complaint, fear of 

retaliation, lack of confidence or trust in an EEO office or process, and the 

significant time commitment involved in the EEO process. Many staff in focus 

groups, interviews, and in the survey told us that they had experienced but did not 

report discrimination or that they would not use the EEO process if they 

experienced discrimination in the future. Staff’s reluctance to report is a concern 

because it could undermine the purpose of the EEO office and process and could 

result in artificially low numbers of reported discrimination and harassment. 

Underreporting could also hinder the components’ ability to address individual 

instances of discrimination and harassment and the conditions that allow such 

behavior to occur.68 

Our testimonial evidence supports our concern that gender discrimination 

may often not be reported to the EEO office. In focus groups and interviews, many 

staff members who told us that they had experienced discrimination said they did 

not report it. Additionally, of the 14 percent (1,164) of survey respondents who 

reported experiencing gender discrimination, 43.6 percent (507) indicated that they 

took no action to address the discrimination, including filing an EEO complaint. 

When we asked in interviews, focus groups, and the survey why they did not take 

 65 MSPB, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Trends, Progress, Continuing 

Challenges (October 1995), 23.

66 The EEO cases that resulted in settlement or finding of discrimination against the 

component that we evaluated may have had more than just “sex” selected as a basis.

67 See Appendix 3 for more information about the EEO complaint process.

68 While we looked into gender discrimination specifically, these factors may extend more 

broadly to other discrimination bases such as race, age, and disability.
37

action, respondents of both genders most frequently stated that they did not 

believe it would make a difference, that they were afraid of retaliation, or that they 

had concerns about confidentiality. 

Additionally, a significant number of staff in interviews, focus groups, and the 

survey told us they would be reluctant to report discrimination if they experienced it

in the future.69 In our survey, close to 45 percent of respondents said that they 

would not or were unsure whether they would use the EEO process to resolve 

discrimination. This includes 68 percent of female Criminal Investigators, compared 

to 42 percent of male Criminal Investigators. Table 9 outlines the responses by 

women in each component and overall. 

Table 9 

Female Responses to Survey Question: “Would you 

go through the EEO process if you experience

any type of discrimination in the future?”

Yes No Not Sure

Total 

Number of 

Respondents

All Women 50.4% 15.1% 34.5% 3,851

All Female Criminal 

Investigators 32.3% 23.8% 43.8% 650

Female 

Criminal 

Investigators

ATF 34.3% 14.3% 51.4% 70

DEA 38.8% 24.0% 37.2% 129

FBI 30.1% 24.6% 45.3% 349

USMS 30.4% 27.4% 42.2% 102

Source: OIG survey

In the survey, the women who said that they would not or were unsure whether 

they would go through the EEO process frequently chose fear of stigma and 

retaliation and length of time as the reasons. We heard most often from focus 

group participants and interviewees, and some survey respondents, that a lack of 

confidence in the EEO process would deter them from filing a complaint if they 

experienced discrimination. Below, we discuss each of these issues, as well as 

initiatives to improve the EEO processes within their agencies. 

Stigma Associated with Filing an EEO Complaint

During numerous interviews and focus groups and through our survey, staff 

members told us that filing an EEO complaint or reporting discrimination often 

results in stigmatization. Many indicated that they would never file a complaint 

because they believed that the stigma would negatively affect their career. In the 

survey, 69 percent of female and 45 percent of male Criminal Investigators who

 69 In addition to filing an EEO complaint, employees can report discrimination to a 

management official, an internal affairs unit, the DOJ OIG, an agency Ombudsman, or the Office of 

Special Counsel.
38

would not or were unsure whether they would file an EEO complaint cited the 

stigma associated with filing as a reason. Notably, 71 percent of female Criminal

Investigators at FBI and 74 percent at USMS reported this. Additionally, a few

interviewees told us that they had witnessed clearly gender-related discrimination 

against colleagues and that their colleagues had decided not to file an EEO 

complaint due to fears that they would be stigmatized and that their careers would 

be negatively affected. For example, a Chief DUSM we interviewed told us that he 

recently had sent a female DUSM on a special protection detail assignment and 

later found out that her Group Supervisor had assigned her to do the laundry. The 

Chief DUSM felt this was a form of discrimination. He asked the female DUSM 

whether she wanted to pursue an EEO complaint against the Group Supervisor, but 

he said she decided not to file a complaint because she thought it could damage her 

career. He added in the interview that most employees, especially women, would

not file an EEO complaint because they are afraid of being stigmatized. In addition, 

some participants who did file an EEO claim told us that they felt stigmatized for 

doing so. 

During our focus groups and interviews, participants often told us that they 

heard staff use pejorative terms such as “complainers” and “troublemakers” to refer 

to people who filed EEO complaints, which shows that EEO complainants can be 

perceived negatively. For example, some interviewees and focus group participants 

expressed the view that employees abused the EEO process to “cover up poor 

performance” and used it as a “crutch” for negative performance ratings or as a 

“smokescreen for not doing any work.” A male DEA Special Agent in Charge (SAC) 

told us that he had seen some female employees with legitimate discrimination 

cases not file EEO claims because they were afraid that others would think they 

filed to counter a bad performance review. Many used terms such as “frequent 

fliers” or those who “pull the EEO card” to describe employees who they believed 

took advantage of the EEO process. This in and of itself can further damage the 

credibility of the EEO process because some feel that it is so “bogged down by false 

complaints” that it is generally inefficient and ineffective. A common perception we 

heard from both male and female focus group participants and interviewees was 

the notion that employees often misused the EEO process to obtain a different 

position or assignment. 

Fear of Retaliation for Reporting Discrimination or Filing an EEO Complaint 

Another reason that staff members reported being reluctant to file an EEO 

complaint was that they believed they would be retaliated against and that this 

retaliation could ruin their professional career. In fact, 42 percent of the survey 

respondents listed retaliation as a reason for deciding not to go through the EEO 

process or for being unsure whether they would file an EEO complaint. Of the 

1,164 survey respondents who indicated they had experienced gender 

discrimination, 15 percent (177) of respondents stated that they believed they had 

been retaliated against for reporting the discrimination. 

In one of our focus groups, a female FBI Supervisory Special Agent told us 

that a male supervisor had told her that no one wanted to work with her because 
39 

she was pregnant. She said that even though she requested to carry on her normal 

duties as a Special Agent, that supervisor assigned her various administrative 

responsibilities, such as filing paperwork, and blocked her request to transfer to a 

different squad. She said that when she consulted with the EEO office, the EEO 

staff member told her that she had a clear discrimination case but instructed her 

not to file if she did not wish to be “blackballed forever.” 

The EEO complaint dataset that we reviewed showed that complainants 

frequently reported retaliation in connection with their EEO complaint.70 We 

reviewed 895 open and closed EEO cases at the four law enforcement components 

with “sex” as one of the bases and found that 40 percent of the cases involved 

“reprisal” in connection to the EEO complaint.71 Figure 2 shows the percent of 

cases that included reprisal as a basis for each of the four components. 

Figure 2 

Percentage of Sex-based EEO Cases That Included 

Reprisal as Another Basis, FYs 2011–2016 

Source: OIG analysis of EEO complaint data from ATF, DEA, FBI, and USMS 

Of those 40 percent of cases that included “reprisal,” the top five claims that 

complainants reported were “non-sexual harassment,” “hostile work environment,” 

“performance evaluations/appraisal,” “promotion/non-selection,” and “assignment 

 70 According to the EEOC, retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the 

federal sector and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases. EEOC, “Facts About 

Retaliation,” www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm (accessed June 1, 2018). 

71 An employer’s actions could be considered retaliation if, because of the employee’s EEO 

activity, the employer reprimands the employee or gives a performance evaluation that is lower than 

it should be, transfers the employee to less desirable position, engages in verbal or physical abuse, 

threatens to or actually makes negative reports to authorities (such as reporting immigration status or 

contacting the police), increases scrutiny, spreads false rumors, treats a family member negatively, or 

makes the person’s work more difficult. EEOC, “Facts About Retaliation.” 

43%

39%

25%

55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

USMS

FBI

DEA

ATF
40

of duties,” which all suggest some form of negative employment action.72 In 

addition, for all male and female survey respondents who experienced gender 

discrimination during the previous 5 years, working in a hostile work environment 

was the most frequently selected type of discrimination. We also reviewed all 

closed EEO complaint cases from the four law enforcement components during our 

study period that resulted in a settlement or a finding of discrimination by the 

Department, EEOC, or a judge, and we found that gender discrimination and 

reprisal were closely linked. Of the 313 cases we reviewed, 141 cases (45 percent) 

had “reprisal” as a basis and 58 of those 141 cases (41 percent) had both “sex” and 

“reprisal” as bases.73 

The findings of EEOC’s Annual Report on the Federal Work Force for 2013 

closely align with our own finding about retaliation in the Department’s law 

enforcement components.74 According to EEOC: 

Nearly half of all complaints filed during FY 2013 [in the federal sector] 

were retaliation complaints, with 42 percent of findings of 

discrimination based on retaliation. In fact, retaliation has been the 

most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector 

since fiscal year 2008. In addition, the number of discrimination 

findings based on a retaliation claim has outpaced other bases of 

discrimination.75 

Long Duration of the EEO Process

In addition to the fear of stigma and retaliation, we found that the length of time 

that the EEO process often took deterred staff from reporting discrimination. All types of 

staff in the focus groups, interviews, and the survey indicated time as a reason they 

would not file an EEO complaint. In the survey, 25 percent of the respondents who said 

they would not or were unsure whether they would file an EEO complaint reported 

length of the time as a reason. The EEO cases during our study period, from filing to 

closure, on average, lasted 763 days at ATF, 738 days at DEA, 461 days at FBI, and 

 72 When filing an EEO complaint, the complainant may indicate the types of discrimination, 

known as “claim type,” which are different from the bases of discrimination. Claim types include 

termination; suspension; directed or denied reassignment; sexual or non-sexual harassment; 

assignment of duties; pay, including overtime; training; performance evaluations/appraisals; duty 

hours; promotion/non-selection; reprimand; appointment/hire; examination/test; time and 

attendance; reasonable accommodation disability; terms/conditions of employment; removal; 

demotion; and hostile work environment. 

73 We cannot confirm from the data we received whether the allegations of reprisal in these 

cases were substantiated. 

74 EEOC Office of Federal Operations, Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Part 1: EEO 

Complaints Processing (Fiscal Year 2013), www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2013/upload/Final-FY2013-Annual-Report-Part-I.pdf (accessed June 1, 2018). 

75 EEOC, “Retaliation–Making It Personal,” www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation_considerations.cfm

(accessed June 1, 2018). 
41

633 days at USMS.76 There were also numerous extreme cases at each agency, with 

one of the lengthiest cases taking over 9 years to conclude. 

 Some staff told us that they 

believed that the EEO process 

favored the agencies because the 

agencies had more time and 

resources. One male supervisory 

Special Agent we interviewed 

stated that he had overheard 

lawyers from his agency’s Office of 

the General Counsel say that the 

agency has more time and 

resources than the complainants, 

which allows the agency to “wait 

them out.”77 One female DUSM 

told us that her EEO case took 10 

years to go to trial and was settled 

only after she had retired from the 

agency. According to her, the 

agency could have settled with her 

early on for a low sum of money 

and a step increase but the agency 

decided to pursue the case and 

ended up paying her a much larger 

settlement. 

 Some of the EEO Officers we 

interviewed told us that mediation 

is one option the agency and 

complainants have to resolve EEO 

disputes in a shorter timeframe, as 

discussed in the text box. 

76 We calculated the overall length of each EEO case by determining the number of days 

between the “open date” and “close date” the components provided for each case and included all 

cases that were closed at different stages in the EEO process within our study period. Each EEO office 

is responsible for EEO complaint timelines during the counseling, mediation, and investigation steps of 

the process. However, after a complainant requests a hearing or an agency decision, the length of the 

process is controlled by an Administrative Judge, the Department’s Complaint Adjudication Office, or 

the EEOC. 

77 Pursuing an EEO complaint can be costly. One EEO complainant we interviewed told us that she 

had to take a second mortgage on her home in order to pay the legal fees incurred during her EEO case.

The Benefits of Mediation through the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

According to EEOC, all federal agencies are 

required to have an Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program that is voluntary; confidential; 

enforceable by the parties if an agreement is 

reached; and led by a neutral person, like a 

mediator, who has no personal interest in the 

dispute. Mediation through ADR is one option that 

staff and agencies can use to resolve EEO disputes 

within a shorter timeframe. While not every type of 

EEO case is suitable for ADR, the program offers 

“both the complainant and the agency the 

opportunity for a fast and informal settlement of the 

dispute” in some cases, according to EEOC. 

FBI, which manages the DOJ Mediator Corps 

Program, told us that as of March 2018 the Mediator 

Corps was made up of about 137 collateral duty 

mediators, from all components, who provided 

informal resolution to address and resolve 

workplace disputes from all federal agencies. The 

Mediator Corps serves cases from DOJ components 

first and, if workload allows, will accept cases from 

other federal agencies. 

Our data showed that only about 17 percent of 

the open and closed cases at these agencies chose

ADR and even fewer cases were resolved in 

mediation. The majority of the cases that resolved 

through ADR were from the FBI. An EEO official at 

the FBI told us that the FBI’s more frequent use of 

ADR is one of the agency’s strengths. She stated 

that they have made a concerted effort to publicize 

ADR and help staff know that ADR is a good way to 

resolve an issue.

Sources: EEOC and DOJ Justice Management 

Division documents; OIG interviews and data 

analysis
42

Lack of Confidence in EEO Offices and Staff and Misunderstandings About the EEO 

Process

We spoke with staff members who were familiar with the EEO process and 

found that they generally did not have confidence in their EEO office’s ability to 

professionally, impartially, and effectively handle discrimination cases. They also 

did not believe that the office would maintain their confidentiality and share 

information about them only with responsible management officials, as required by 

policy.78 Of the survey respondents who said they would not or were unsure 

whether they would file an EEO complaint after experiencing discrimination, 

26 percent reported that they believed that their agency’s EEO office was not 

effective at handling allegations of discrimination, 21 percent reported that they 

believed that their agency’s EEO office staff “is not impartial or neutral,” and 

31 percent said that they had concerns about their EEO office’s ability to maintain 

confidentiality. Together, these beliefs and concerns show that many staff lack 

confidence in their EEO office to effectively handle discrimination complaints. Some 

staff questioned whether their EEO office was able to be objective, given that EEO 

offices are staffed by agency employees, which could pose an inherent conflict of 

interest. Others cast doubt on the EEO staff’s ability to handle matters 

professionally. 

Many told us that they thought that the EEO complaint process is generally 

“broken” and that the EEO process’s inability to effectively address discrimination 

contributes to employees continuing to engage in discriminatory behavior. For 

example, one female DEA staff member, whose EEO complaint against her 

supervisor came to a resolution through the mediation process, told us that she did 

not receive assistance from the EEO office sufficient for her to understand what to 

do during the process. She said that she therefore agreed to the mediation terms 

but did not feel that she had sufficient knowledge to make a fully informed decision. 

We also note that some focus group participants and interviewees did not 

have a clear understanding of their agency’s misconduct reporting and discipline 

procedures as they related to the EEO complaint process. Although employees are 

required to take training on the Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), which contains some 

information about EEO and discrimination, and some agencies present information 

about the EEO Office and process in new employee orientation training, 

misperceptions persist.79 One EEO official from ATF told us that he believed the 

EEO office needed to train more employees on the EEO process. Without additional 

78 Human Resources Order DOJ 1200.1, Part 4: Equal Employment Opportunity, 

www.justice.gov/jmd/hr-order-doj-12001, June 15, 2015 (accessed May 30, 2018).

79 The No FEAR Act is intended to reduce the incidence of workplace discrimination within the 

federal government. It requires federal agencies to “be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination 

and whistleblower protection laws in part by requiring that each agency post on its public website 

certain statistical data relating to EEO complaints filed with the agency.” OPM, “Information 

Management: No FEAR Act,” www.opm.gov/information-management/no-fear-act (accessed June 1, 

2018).
43

training or communication about employees’ rights and how the EEO process works, 

lack of knowledge may deter employees from reporting discrimination. 

Initiatives to Improve the Effectiveness of the EEO Process 

During our review, the FBI and DEA EEO offices instituted changes in training 

and communication to help alleviate some misperceptions about the EEO process 

and improve staff knowledge on EEO office roles and responsibilities. For example, 

the FBI Assistant Director for EEO told us that her office is educating the FBI 

workforce on exactly what can and cannot be resolved through the EEO process. 

She said that the FBI EEO office has made a series of changes to improve 

communication with staff and parties to an EEO complaint. According to the 

Assistant Director, the FBI EEO office now routinely contacts senior leadership 

officials and SACs to inform them about trends in EEO cases in their field offices 

and the agency to help them better understand EEO issues. Additionally, the 

responsible management official in an EEO complaint receives letters from the EEO 

Office at different points in the formal complaint process advising him or her to 

contact the EEO Office with any questions or concerns. The Assistant Director said 

that EEO office staff can access a case management system to instantly obtain the 

status of a complaint and can inform responsible management officials of any major 

changes in a case. She told us that she is using EEO data to drive decision making 

for improvements to the EEO process and is working on a data visualization tool 

through which qualitative and quantitative EEO case information can be reviewed 

and analyzed. 

DEA’s EEO Officer told us that since 2016, in response to increased EEOC 

sanctions for outstanding complaints, she has made changes to improve timeliness 

of EEO investigations. She said that she terminated a contract Investigator who 

was not meeting timelines or producing high quality investigations and that she 

reviews open complaints weekly to ensure that they move forward. She also told 

us that, to address staff feelings of mistrust in the EEO office and process, she was 

taking steps to address concerns that some SACs were obtaining EEO case 

information, which the staff believed would allow a SAC to retaliate. She 

acknowledged that the perception of retaliation could have a chilling effect that 

would inhibit EEO reporting. She said that to preserve neutrality and address 

negative perceptions of bias, the EEO office changed to a regional counseling 

structure so that counselors do not counsel staff from their own region. She also 

said that DEA has revamped its EEO supervisory training to clarify the supervisor’s 

responsibility to report misconduct and instances of harassment instead of taking 

no action or “pass[ing] off” the responsibility to the staff to report their allegations 

to DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility. 
44

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

We found that views about gender equity, bias, and treatment in the four law 

enforcement components varied by position type and gender and that women in 

Criminal Investigator positions consistently reported distinctly more negative

perceptions and experiences than other types of employees. While overall staff

generally believed that their components were gender equitable, when we analyzed 

survey and focus group responses by gender, we found that women, especially 

female Criminal Investigators, overwhelmingly did not hold this view. Whereas the 

majority of men in our focus groups and interviews told us that they had not 

previously thought about gender equity or discrimination, many women, especially 

Criminal Investigators, described their experiences with discrimination and gender

bias in a manner that showed how significant and personal this topic was to them. 

We found that one reason women in the law enforcement components may 

have negative perceptions of gender equity is that they were underrepresented in 

the Criminal Investigator workforce overall and even more so in supervisory and 

leadership positions. During the 6-year scope of our review, there were few women 

leading field offices, field divisions, or districts and even fewer women in 

headquarters executive positions leading operational units. Further, we found that 

the components have taken limited actions to increase the number of women at all 

levels of the organizations. For example, we identified recruitment as an important 

way for components to address the underrepresentation of women in their 

agencies. But although the components are taking steps to develop and implement 

recruitment plans designed to increase the diversity of their agencies, we found 

that they have not identified all the barriers to recruiting women that their 

individual agencies may face. Unless they tailor their efforts specifically to address 

their component’s barriers to recruiting women, these efforts may have limited 

success. 

Our analysis of promotions data plays a key role in our assessment of gender 

equity because numerous interviewees and focus group participants spoke about 

bias and inequity in promotion selections when describing equity, and gender equity 

specifically, in their organization. We identified several areas of disparity within 

GS-level Criminal Investigator and professional staff promotions, including that 

female Criminal Investigators were underrepresented in promotions. The most 

notable disparities we found were in female Criminal Investigator promotions at 

DEA and ATF. We also found that a substantial number of men and women 

believed that promotions and other personnel decisions are generally based more 

on who you know and personal connections than on merit. We believe that, 

regardless of whether the basis for a particular selection was fair, the disparities we 

found between the share of population and the number of promotions can 

contribute to negative perceptions about the promotions process and about gender 

equity overall. 
45

We find it concerning that 22 percent of all women and 43 percent of female 

Criminal Investigators reported to us in the survey that they had been 

discriminated against based on their gender. Additionally, in almost all the 

interviews and female focus groups we conducted, women reported to us that they 

had experienced some type of gender discrimination. They identified several types 

of personnel decisions, such as promotions and career-enhancing assignments, in 

which this could occur. We also identified a stark contrast between the perceptions 

of men and women when our survey asked which gender was treated more 

favorably in different work-related situations and opportunities. Female survey 

respondents overwhelmingly believed that men were treated more favorably in a 

number of career opportunities, while most male survey respondents believe that 

both men and women were treated equally. 

We believe that these negative perceptions are important for components to 

address because such perceptions could discourage qualified staff members from 

applying for promotions and could lower employee morale. Additionally, 

components incur costs from discrimination and harassment, including reductions in 

morale and productivity, decreased staff well-being, and monetary costs from 

settlements of complaints. 

Based on our findings related to the EEO process, we believe that

underreporting could be obscuring the scope of discrimination in the law 

enforcement components. Many staff told us that they would not or were unsure 

whether they would report discrimination, and some told us that they had 

experienced discrimination but had not reported it. Staff identified several factors 

that affected their decision: fear of stigma, fear of retaliation, the length of the 

EEO process, and a general lack of confidence in the EEO offices. Underreporting 

and ineffective handling of EEO claims undermines employee trust and confidence 

that components will address discriminatory behavior. 

Senior executive leadership for each of the components told us that they 

wanted to improve staff diversity to reflect the communities they serve and bring 

varied perspectives to the work of the component. Component leadership 

commitment to a diverse and inclusive workforce is critical, but components must 

also include accountability for promoting this culture at all levels within the 

organization. 

Recommendations

To address the concerns and negative perceptions related to gender equity in 

the law enforcement components, we recommend that each law enforcement 

component: 

1. Assess recruitment, hiring, and retention activities to identify barriers to 

gender equity in the workforce. 

2. Develop and implement component-level recruiting, hiring, and retention 

strategies and goals that address the identified barriers to gender equity in 

the workforce. 
46

3. Develop and implement a plan to track and analyze demographic information 

on newly hired staff and applicants, as appropriate, to evaluate recruitment 

strategies. 

4. Identify and take steps to address barriers to advancement for women within 

the component and among different job types.

5. Develop and implement methods to improve the objectivity and transparency 

of the merit promotion process.

6. Develop and implement methods to address perceptions of stigmatization 

and retaliation associated with the Equal Employment Opportunity complaint 

process.
APPENDIX 1

47

THE OIG SURVEY TOOL
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
APPENDIX 2

55

METHODOLOGY OF THE OIG REVIEW

Standards 

OIG conducted this review in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency’s Quality Standards for Inspection and

Evaluation (January 2012).

Interviews and Focus Groups

The team conducted 49 interviews with current Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) headquarters 

personnel in Human Resources, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices, and

diversity and inclusion to gain an understanding of recruitment, hiring, promotions, 

EEO complaint process, awards, and any programs related to diversity. We also 

conducted an interview with the Justice Management Division (JMD) Equal

Employment Opportunity staff to help us understand the EEO process in the federal 

government. Additionally, we interviewed members of women’s groups and 

diversity groups at each of the four law enforcement components. We interviewed 

43 staff members who had contacted OIG for interviews or were referred to us by 

other interviewees. We also interviewed the heads of each of the four components 

to gain their perspectives on issues related to gender equity. 

We conducted interviews and focus groups at all four components at

headquarters and at field sites in Washington, D.C.; Seattle; and New Orleans. We 

chose the four sites based on a series of factors, including size, location, and 

workforce demographics. 

We organized the focus groups by different characteristics, including gender, 

position type, agency, and supervisory status so participants would feel more 

comfortable speaking. We received from each component staff listings for the four

sites and organized them into eight types of focus groups according to demographic 

category. We randomly selected staff members from the lists and invited a 

maximum of 20 for each focus group, depending on the number of nonrespondents. If fewer than 20 staff members met the demographic characteristics 

of a focus group, we invited all members of the group to participate. Not all 

invitees attended the focus group sessions. We conducted interviews with focus 

group invitees who either could not attend the session or who asked to be 

interviewed separately by OIG. We also interviewed office leadership from each 

component at the three field sites. Table 10 below outlines the number and types 

of focus groups and interviews at the site visits. 
56

Table 10

Number of Interviews, Focus Groups, and Focus Group Participants 

Gender

Number of 

Individual 

Interviews

Number of 

Focus Groups

Number of 

Participants in 

Focus Groups

ATF

Male 15 8 31

Female 18 6 18

Subtotal 33 14 49

DEA

Male 21 7 22

Female 11 7 23

Subtotal 32 14 45

FBI

Male 20 7 17

Female 11 10 46

Subtotal 31 17 63

USMS

Male 21 7 35

Female 16 5 36

Subtotal 37 12 71

TOTALS 133 57 228

Source: OIG focus group data

Survey 

 We deployed an online survey to the entire population of staff members in 

the four components. The online survey included demographic and perceptionbased questions, and we emailed staff to invite them to participate (see Appendix 1

for the survey tool). JMD provided us with email addresses for the staff members 

of all four components. We received 1,238 undeliverable emails and emails from 

307 staff members indicating they were unable to access the survey. We worked 

with the components’ offices of information technology to attempt to solve the 

technical issues and fix any incorrect email addresses. The survey was open for 

3 weeks, and we received 8,140 complete responses. Table 11 below has the 

survey response rates for all four components by gender and for the 1811 (Criminal 

Investigation) job series. 
57

Table 11

OIG Survey Response Rates by Component

Total 1811

Number of 

Invitations 

Sent Out

Response 

Rate (No. of 

Responses)

Male Female Total 1811 1811 Male 1811 

Female 

ATF 5,151 15%

(796) 433 348 293 216 70

DEA 8,450 27%

(2,308) 1,243 1,037 845 698 131

FBI 36,554 11%

(3,925) 1,728 2,129 964 598 349

USMS 4,877 23%

(1,111) 736 361 701 588 103

Total 55,032 15%

(8,140) 4,140 3,875 2,803 2,100 653

Note: The total number of 1811 responses does not equal the sum of male and female 1811 

responses because some respondents did not indicate their gender.

Source: OIG survey data

Additionally, 11 staff members sent us emails sharing information and opinions 

related to the topic of gender equity. We compiled these responses and analyzed 

them separately.

Data Analysis

 We requested and reviewed datasets from the four law enforcement 

components, including: hiring, promotions, awards, Senior Executive Service 

probation, training classes, EEO complaints, and EEO cases that were settled or 

decided against a component. We determined that the hiring data provided by the 

components was not complete and that we had not received enough information 

that would allow us to draw conclusions. Additionally, we did a preliminary analysis 

of honorary and cash awards by demographic characteristics, including gender. 

However, based on interviews, focus groups, and survey responses, we learned 

that staff at all four components were not aware of individual awards that other 

staff received and staff never brought up awards in our discussions about gender 

equity. Therefore, we concluded that staff did not consider awards an important 

contributor to their perception of gender equity. We also analyzed a dataset from 

JMD, produced from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center 

(NFC) data, which included demographic and workforce information for the four 

components. All the datasets included data from fiscal year (FY) 2011 through 

FY 2016. 

We also reviewed the JMD Finance Staff publication, “DOJ Employment 

Factbook,” which summarizes NFC data into a series of tables describing the 

Department’s workforce. Specifically, we reviewed the tables related to female 

employment and employment of specific job types, from FY 2006 through FY 2016, 

to identify any changes over the past decade. While each component may have 

workforce data from its own staffing information technology systems, we used NFC
58

data and the DOJ Employment Factbook, which is created with NFC data, to ensure 

the workforce data we analyzed and presented was methodologically consistent and 

comparable across the four law enforcement components and across all years in our 

study period. 

Policy and Document Review

We reviewed federal laws, as well as policy, procedures, and guidance 

related to recruitment, hiring, promotions, career boards, awards, training, EEO, 

diversity and inclusion, discrimination, and gender equity for the federal 

government, Department of Justice, and the four law enforcement components. 

We reviewed a small number of documents related to specific EEO complaints and 

decisions on discrimination cases. 

Prior Work Related to Gender Equity in Federal Law Enforcement Agencies 

OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office have not conducted any 

previous reviews of gender equity in federal law enforcement agencies. To gain a 

broader understanding of gender equity in the overall workplace and in law 

enforcement specifically, we reviewed several federal reports and academic articles 

pertaining to gender, gender-related issues in the workplace, and gender-related 

issues in law enforcement. This body of work helped to inform our methodological 

approach, as well as to provide more context for particular aspects of gender 

equity. 
APPENDIX 3 

59

THE SEVEN STAGES OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINT PROCESS

1. The employee receives counseling from the Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) office and can enter into Alternative Dispute Resolution, also known as 

mediation, between management officials and the employee alleging 

discrimination. 

2. The employee alleging discrimination may file a formal complaint against the 

agency with the EEO office. 

3. The agency reviews the complaint and conducts, or contracts for, an 

investigation, the results of which are provided to the employee.

 

4. The employee can ask for a decision from the agency, the Department’s 

Complaint Adjudication Office, or a hearing with a U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative judge.

5. Once the agency receives the administrative judge’s decision, it issues a final 

order that informs the employee about whether the agency agrees with the 

administrative judge and whether the agency will grant any relief that the 

judge has ordered. 

6. The employee can appeal the agency’s final order to the EEOC and/or

request reconsideration of an unfavorable appeal decision, 

7. After the employee completes the administrative complaint process described 

in first six steps, he or she can file a lawsuit in federal district court if he or 

she is still dissatisfied with the process and the outcome.
APPENDIX 4 

60

THE MERIT PROMOTION PROCESSES 

OF THE FOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS

Each of the four components has its own processes for promoting Criminal 

Investigators and professional staff. In Table 12, we compare and contrast the 

basics of each type of promotion process.

Table 12

Promotion Process Elements at ATF, DEA, FBI, and USMS for

Criminal Investigators and Professional Staff

ATFa DEAb FBI USMS

CI PS CI PS and Other 

Core Staff CI PS CI PS

Career 

Ladder Ends GS-13 GS-13 GS-13 Varies GS-13 Varies GS-12 Varies

Exam 

Required No No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Board 

Process Yes Yes Yes

Yes for Core 

Staff

No for Other 

Professional 

Staff

Yes

No, but 

may use 

expert 

panel to 

narrow 

candidate 

list

Yes No

Candidate 

Ranking 

Process 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Note: CI stands for Criminal Investigator, and PS stands for professional staff. 

a While ATF does not require an exam for Criminal Investigators to advance to the GS-13 level, it does 

require an evaluation process known as the Electronic Promotion Assessment Center. Each staff member

receives a score after completing the evaluation process, and that score is incorporated into the promotion 

assessment process. 

b DEA classifies its core series positions as Special Agent (or Criminal Investigator), Intelligence Analyst, 

Diversion Investigator, and Chemist.

Source: FBI, DEA, ATF, and USMS policy documents
APPENDIX 5 

61

OIG SURVEY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR RESPONSES RELATED 

TO DIFFERING TREATMENT

Table 13

Survey Questions and Responses about Differing Treatment

Survey Question

Criminal 

Investigator 

Respondents 

by Gender

Females 

Treated 

Favorably

Males And 

Females 

Treated Equally

Males 

Treated 

Favorably

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in 

promotions past the highest 

point in a career ladder?

FEMALE CI 1% 19% 44%

MALE CI 12% 55% 5%

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in 

informal mentoring?

FEMALE CI 1% 34% 42%

MALE CI 10% 64% 4%

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in 

special assignments that 

enhance a career?

FEMALE CI 0% 35% 47%

MALE CI 11% 67% 4%

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in detail 

assignments that enhance a 

career?

FEMALE CI 0% 36% 44%

MALE CI 10% 69% 4%

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in 

training opportunities that 

enhance a career?

FEMALE CI 0% 57% 29%

MALE CI 8% 76% 3%

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in 

performance evaluations?

FEMALE CI 0% 53% 26%

MALE CI 10% 69% 2%

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in 

management support for 

work/life balance?

FEMALE CI 6% 62% 15%

MALE CI 20% 67% 1%

How do you feel males and 

females are treated in 

management support of 

alternative work schedule 

options?

FEMALE CI 12% 44% 7%

MALE CI 23% 52% 1%

Source: OIG Survey
APPENDIX 6 

62

ATF’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
63
64
65
66
67
APPENDIX 7 

68

OIG ANALYSIS OF ATF’S RESPONSE

The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this report to the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for its comment. ATF’s 

response is included in Appendix 6 to this report. OIG’s analysis of ATF’s response 

and the actions necessary to close the recommendations are discussed below. 

Please provide a status update on the six recommendations by October 18, 2018.

Recommendation 1: Assess recruitment, hiring, and retention activities to 

identify barriers to gender equity in the workforce.

Status: Resolved. 

ATF Response: ATF concurred with the recommendation and stated that it 

will review and identify policies and practices that could serve as barriers to 

recruiting, hiring, and retaining a diverse workforce. ATF will then modify policies 

and practices to ensure a more conscientious approach toward diversity/gender 

hiring. ATF stated that it will implement proactive and targeted recruitment, hiring, 

and retention strategies through its 25 Diversity and Career Impact Program (DCIP) 

recruiters. ATF will share the strategies and results with DCIP members through a 

newsletter and an annual DCIP conference. In April 2018, ATF’s Diversity and 

Inclusion Branch acquired a full-time Management Analyst to capture and analyze 

recruitment data derived by DCIP recruiters. ATF said that it will use this data to 

enhance recruitment strategies and direct targeted recruitment efforts. ATF will 

also implement a “Stay Survey” to assess employee perceptions on their options to 

remain employed with ATF and will use the survey to facilitate focus groups to 

determine other areas of employee concern and solicit suggestions for 

improvement. 

OIG Analysis: ATF’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on ATF’s review of policies and practices that could serve as 

barriers to recruitment, hiring, and retaining a diverse workforce. Additionally, 

provide an update on the work of the Diversity and Inclusion Branch Management 

Analyst responsible for analyzing recruitment data, as well as how ATF is using the 

analysis to enhance recruitment strategies and direct targeted recruitment efforts. 

Finally, please provide an update on the implementation, and results if applicable, 

of the Stay Survey and the focus groups and how ATF is using or will use the 

results of the survey and focus groups.

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement component-level recruiting, 

hiring, and retention strategies and goals that address the identified barriers to 

gender equity in the workforce.

Status: Resolved. 

ATF Response: ATF concurred with the recommendation. ATF stated that

in May 2018 it convened a DCIP working group that established a formalized 

training program for all DCIP recruiters. The training program focuses on 

innovative strategies to attract ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity. ATF said that 
69

the working group also developed multimedia and social media materials to attract 

and target a diverse applicant pool. ATF expects to deploy the multimedia/social 

media tools and deliver the training program in FY 2019. ATF said that it had also 

developed a number of initiatives to address retention in the workplace, including a 

New Employee Onboarding System to improve integration of new employees of all 

professions. Additionally, ATF continues to operate a number of Employee 

Resource Groups to provide important feedback and information on the 

perspectives of minority populations in ATF and to assist management in 

formulation hiring and retention strategies. 

OIG Analysis: ATF’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide information about the training program for DCIP recruiters, including but 

not limited to the content, number of sessions, and number of attendees. Please 

provide an update to the development and implementation of the multimedia and 

social media materials and additional information about how the Employee 

Resource Groups are providing feedback to ATF to help with hiring and retention 

strategies. 

Recommendation 3: Develop and implement a plan to track and analyze 

demographic information on newly hired staff and applicants, as appropriate, to 

evaluate recruitment strategies.

Status: Resolved. 

ATF Response: ATF concurred with the recommendation and stated that it 

will compare outreach and recruitment effort data collected by the Diversity and 

Inclusion Branch’s newly hired Management Analyst with Human Resource and 

Professional Development Dashboard data. The Human Resource and Professional 

Development Dashboard provides biweekly workforce diversity data, Special 

Agent/Industry Operations Investigator hiring data, and workforce diversity 

forecasting. ATF stated that the Dashboard will be available to ATF executives and 

will increase transparency by allowing each division to see its workforce 

composition. 

OIG Analysis: ATF’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update and additional information on the comparison of outreach and 

recruitment effort data with the Human Resource and Professional Development 

Dashboard data, including how ATF is going to use the results of the comparative 

analysis.

Recommendation 4: Identify and take steps to address barriers to 

advancement for women within the component and among different job types.

Status: Resolved. 

ATF Response: ATF concurred with the recommendation. ATF stated that it 

will develop partnerships with colleges and universities that have diverse 

populations to create a “farm system” of recruiting for ATF Special Agent positions 

by using internships and mentorship programs. ATF also said that members of the 
70

Senior Executive Service (SES), managers, and supervisors participated in a 

mentoring program operated by the Office of Human Resources and Professional 

Development, Leadership and Professional Development Division. The mentoring 

program assists ATF employees at all grade levels with career development and 

attempts to connect the employees with experienced leaders and peers who can 

offer insight and advice to help the employees achieve their goals. ATF stated that 

it had 39 employees participating in its mentoring program during FY 2017. 

OIG Analysis: ATF’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the development of partnerships with colleges and 

universities to create a farm system for recruiting. Additionally, please provide an 

update on the mentoring program, including the number of participants for FY 2018 

and how the program is helping ATF address barriers to advancement for women.

Recommendation 5: Develop and implement methods to improve the 

objectivity and transparency of the merit promotion process.

Status: Resolved. 

ATF Response: ATF concurred with the recommendation and stated that 

since the inception of this OIG review it has implemented a number of actions to 

improve the selection process for managers. First, ATF revised its Merit Promotion 

Board process for GS-15 supervisory positions. To avoid having ad hoc boards, 

there are now two standing boards: one for Special Agents and one for all other 

job series. ATF said that it is important to have standing boards because 

employees may perceive that ad hoc boards are convened to “stack the deck” for or 

against certain applicants. The new standing boards make selections for numerous 

positions, including positions that become vacant without prior notice, which ATF 

said neutralizes the possibility of pre-selection. To improve transparency, the 

GS-15 board process also includes a feedback component through which an 

unsuccessful applicant may receive a telephone debriefing from a board member to 

find out how the applicant can improve his or her interview performance. 

Second, ATF stated that it had updated its SES selection process by creating 

standing rating and ranking panels that score applications using a consistent 

scoring scheme and standing executive resources boards that interview applicants. 

There are separate rating and ranking boards and executive resources boards for 

Special Agent in Charge (SAC) positions and non-SAC positions. ATF said that 

there is also a feedback component in the SES selection process that is the same as 

the GS-15 board process.

OIG Analysis: ATF’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide information about the two standing Merit Promotion Boards for GS-15 

positions and the executive resource board for SES positions, including but not 

limited to the frequency of meetings, a description of the process for each board, 

how membership of each board is determined, and the length of the term board 

members serve. Additionally, please provide a description of how each boards’ 

process ensure objectivity in selection, as well as any feedback ATF has received 
71

about the feedback component to improve transparency. Also, please provide any 

other initiatives to improve transparency in the merit promotion process.

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement methods to address 

perceptions of stigmatization and retaliation associated with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity complaint process.

Status: Resolved. 

ATF Response: ATF concurred with the recommendation and said that it 

will implement a series of initiatives described below. 

To address stigma associated with filing an EEO complaint, ATF will conduct 

training sessions for staff and supervisors educate the workforce on the 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) process, emphasizing neutrality and 

employees’ rights to confidentiality. 

To address fear of retaliation for reporting discrimination or filing an EEO 

complaint: 

a. ATF will continue to hold the workforce accountable for a discrimination 

and harassment free workplace and for complying with the ATF EEO and 

anti-harassment policies. The ATF Deputy Director will issue an EEO 

Policy Statement in FY 2018.

b. ATF’s Associate Deputy Director will issue a video message describing 

ATF’s commitment to EEO principles and support of the process. The 

video message will reiterate the zero tolerance policy related to 

harassment, including sexual harassment, and inform employees that ATF 

will not tolerate retaliation for participation in EEO activities. 

c. ATF will develop and issue Anti-Retaliation Guidance for the workforce.

d. The ATF Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO), after receiving 

a formal EEO complaint, will send each named management official an 

email outlining his or her roles and responsibilities in the process, 

describing what changes or actions could be considered retaliatory, and 

how to avoid problematic situations. 

e. ATF will annually train all managers and supervisors on the new AntiRetaliation Guidance. 

f. ATF will continue to have the Office of Chief Counsel, Management 

Division, review proposed employment actions to ensure that 

management bases its actions on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 

ATF will increase communication to the workforce on the benefits of 

mediation. OEEO will send each complainant a separate correspondence 

reminding them that mediation is available even during the formal stage of 

the EEO complaint process. ATF said that it will also work with the 

Department’s Complaint Adjudication Office to streamline the process for 

issuing Final Agency Decisions. OEEO will also continue to review reports of 
72

investigation to ensure that the record is complete for adjudication before 

sending it to the Complaint Adjudication Office. 

OEEO staff will receive training on “Maintaining Impartiality in the EEO 

Process, Both in Appearance and in Existence” to increase employee 

confidence in OEEO. 

To address staff misunderstanding of the EEO process and the role of the 

OEEO staff, ATF will increase training on the EEO process in the New 

Employee Orientation, New Supervisors Training, and during OEEO training 

to field offices. 

The Chief of the OEEO will continue to brief ATF senior executives on any 

changes in the EEO program areas, trends in complaint data, and assistance 

needed from agency executives. 

OIG Analysis: ATF’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide the following:

an update on training sessions on the EEO process for staff and supervisors 

emphasizing neutrality and rights to confidentiality, including a description of 

content, number and dates of classes, and number of participants;

a copy of the Deputy Director’s EEO Policy Statement or an update on when 

it will be issued;

a script or copy of the Associate Deputy Director’s video message or an 

update on the development of the video message;

a copy of the Anti-Retaliation Guidance or an update on the development of 

the guidance;

sample emails that OEEO has sent to management officials outlining roles 

and responsibilities;

an update on the development of staff training on Anti-Retaliation Guidance, 

including a description of content and plans for implementation; 

an update on communications to the staff on the benefits of mediation, the 

number of complainants that have chosen mediation since communications 

were issued, and the number of complaints that were resolved in mediation;

an update on communication with the Department’s Complaint Adjudication 

Office and any initiative to streamline the process; 

an update on the development of training for OEEO staff, including a 

description of content and plan for implementation; 

an update on the increase in sessions/content on the EEO process in the New 

Employee Orientation, New Supervisors Training, and OEEO training to the 

field, including a description of content and how it was increased from prior 

sessions; and
73

an update on the OEEO Chief’s briefing to senior executives on any changes 

in the EEO program areas, including a description of trends, changes in the 

program, and assistance needed from executives.
APPENDIX 8 

74

DEA’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
75
76

 
APPENDIX 9 

77

OIG ANALYSIS OF DEA’S RESPONSE

The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this report to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) for its comment. DEA’s response is included in 

Appendix 8 to this report. OIG’s analysis of DEA’s response and the actions 

necessary to close the recommendations are discussed below. Please provide a

status update on the six recommendations by October 18, 2018. 

Recommendation 1: Assess recruitment, hiring, and retention activities to 

identify barriers to gender equity in the workforce. 

Status: Resolved. 

DEA Response: DEA concurred with the recommendation. DEA stated that 

it had formed a working group composed of personnel from the Human Resources 

Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Office, and Office of Compliance to work 

on assessing recruitment, hiring, and retention activities. As of May 21, 2018, the 

working group was examining sources of existing data to use for the assessment. 

During the week of May 21, 2018, DEA presented the results of this OIG review to 

80 recruiters from across the country and across job series at DEA’s annual 

Recruiters’ Conference. DEA’s executive leadership sought input from the

80 recruiters to obtain their perspectives on barriers that may exist. The working 

group was also planning to interview members from several employee groups (e.g., 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) coordinators, DEA’s Diversity Committee, and 

DEA’s Field Advisory Committee) to obtain their perspectives on barriers to gender 

equity. Once the working group has completed its assessment, it will prepare a 

strategy for approval by executive management.

OIG Analysis: DEA’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the development of the working group’s strategy, including a 

copy of the strategy, the results of the assessment, and any results from the input 

of recruiters and employee groups.

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement component-level recruiting, 

hiring, and retention strategies and goals that address the identified barriers to 

gender equity in the workforce.

Status: Resolved. 

DEA Response: DEA concurred with the recommendation. DEA said that 

once the working group described in its response to Recommendation 1 completes 

its review, it will prepare a strategy (to include goals for addressing identified 

barriers to gender equity in the workforce) for approval by executive management.

OIG Analysis: DEA’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the development of the working group’s strategy. Once the 

strategy has been completed, please provide a copy and a description of how it will 

be implemented.
78

Recommendation 3: Develop and implement a plan to track and analyze 

demographic information on newly hired staff and applicants, as appropriate, to 

evaluate recruitment strategies. 

Status: Resolved. 

DEA Response: DEA concurred with the recommendation. DEA said that it 

was able to track demographic data on some, but not all, applicants. DEA will 

evaluate how to collect demographic data for recruitment activities in all job series 

and then develop a plan to track and analyze demographic information on newly 

hired staff and applicants, as appropriate, to evaluate recruitment strategies.

OIG Analysis: DEA’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the evaluation of how to collect demographic data for 

recruitment and a copy of the evaluation results, if available. Also please provide 

an update on the development and implementation of the plan to track and analyze 

demographic information on newly hired staff and applicants to evaluate DEA’s 

recruitment strategies.

Recommendation 4: Identify and take steps to address barriers to 

advancement for women within the component and among different job types. 

Status: Resolved. 

DEA Response: DEA concurred with the recommendation. DEA stated that 

it will leverage the working group described in Recommendation 1 to assess 

recruiting activities, as well advancement barriers for women. The working group’s 

activities will include focus groups, surveys, data analysis, and benchmarking. 

OIG Analysis: DEA’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the development of the working group’s strategy for

addressing barriers to advancement for women, including a copy of the strategy 

and a description of the barriers to advancement that women may encounter at

DEA. 

Recommendation 5: Develop and implement methods to improve the 

objectivity and transparency of the merit promotion process. 

Status: Resolved. 

DEA Response: DEA concurred with the recommendation. DEA stated that 

it was limited in its ability to unilaterally modify the merit promotion process but 

that it will review its current merit promotion process to look for ways to improve 

objectivity and transparency and evaluate strategies to build trust in the merit 

promotion process for all employees in all series DEA-wide. 

OIG Analysis: DEA’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the status of the merit promotion process review and the 

steps that DEA will take to improve transparency and objectivity and to build trust 

in the DEA merit promotion process. 
79

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement methods to address 

perceptions of stigmatization and retaliation associated with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity complaint process.

Status: Resolved. 

DEA Response: DEA concurred with the recommendation. DEA said that 

over the previous 2 years it had renewed its emphasis on educating employees 

about the EEO complaint process, including a renewed focus on education about the 

process. In response to this recommendation, DEA will ensure that employees are 

aware of the multiple paths to report gender discrimination and harassment. DEA 

said that it will also continue to develop and implement methods to address 

perceptions of stigmatization and retaliation associated with the EEO complaint 

process and will report back to the OIG with its progress.

OIG Analysis: DEA’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on how DEA is educating the workforce on EEO and describe the

methods being used to address perceptions of stigmatization and retaliation 

associated with the EEO complaint process. 
APPENDIX 10

80

FBI’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
81
82
APPENDIX 11

83

OIG ANALYSIS OF FBI’S RESPONSE

The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this report to the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for its comment. FBI’s response is included in 

Appendix 10 to this report. The OIG’s analysis of the FBI’s response and the 

actions necessary to close the recommendations are discussed below. Please 

provide a status update on the six recommendations by October 18, 2018.

Recommendation 1: Assess recruitment, hiring, and retention activities to 

identify barriers to gender equity in the workforce. 

Status: Resolved. 

FBI Response: FBI concurred with the recommendation and stated that it 

will continue to assess recruitment, hiring, and retention activities. FBI reported 

that women had been one of the two main foci of Special Agent recruiting during 

the previous 3 years. FBI has seen a small increase in the number of female 

applicants to the Special Agent position, but the numbers do not meet its goal. FBI 

is also incorporating unconscious bias into its recruitment training this year.

OIG Analysis: FBI’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on FBI’s actions to assess recruitment, hiring, and retention 

activities and information on the identification of barriers to gender equity. Also, 

please provide the curriculum for the unconscious bias training session content that 

will be included in recruitment training. 

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement component-level recruiting, 

hiring, and retention strategies and goals that address the identified barriers to 

gender equity in the workforce.

Status: Resolved. 

FBI Response: FBI concurred with the recommendation and stated that it 

sets a national recruiting plan every year that includes setting “stretch application 

targets” for each recruiter. The recruiters work with their own field division’s 

executive management team to determine how to meet the targets established in 

the plan. Additionally, FBI reported that it was running targeted social media and 

advertising campaigns to increase female applicant engagement and was 

considering pairing with an academic partner to identify additional barriers to 

recruiting women.

OIG Analysis: FBI’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide a copy of the national recruiting plan with the stretch application targets for 

each recruiter, copies of the targeted social media and advertising campaigns, and 

updates on the possible partnership with an academic partner to identify additional 

barriers to recruiting women.
84

Recommendation 3: Develop and implement a plan to track and analyze 

demographic information on newly hired staff and applicants, as appropriate, to 

evaluate recruitment strategies.

Status: Resolved. 

FBI Response: FBI concurred with the recommendation and will develop 

and implement a plan to track and analyze demographic information on newly hired 

staff and applicants.

OIG Analysis: FBI’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update to the development and implementation of the plan to track and 

analyze demographic information on newly hired staff and applicants, including a 

copy of the plan, if available. 

Recommendation 4: Identify and take steps to address barriers to 

advancement for women within the component and among different job types. 

Status: Resolved. 

FBI Response: FBI concurred with the recommendation and will identify 

and take steps to address barriers to advancement for women.

OIG Analysis: FBI’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

describe how FBI will identify and take steps to address barriers to advancement for 

women. 

Recommendation 5: Develop and implement methods to improve the 

objectivity and transparency of the merit promotion process.

Status: Resolved. 

FBI Response: FBI concurred with the recommendation and stated that it 

will develop and implement methods to improve the objectivity and transparency of 

the merit promotion process. The FBI also stated that it was developing training for 

hiring managers focusing on what to consider before filling a professional staff 

position and how to run a successful career board; FBI will incorporate unconscious 

bias content into the training.

OIG Analysis: FBI’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the development of the training for hiring managers, 

including the content of the training and plan for implementation. 

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement methods to address 

perceptions of stigmatization and retaliation associated with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity complaint process.

Status: Resolved. 
85

FBI Response: FBI concurred with the recommendation and stated that it 

has taken actions to address it. In October 2017, the FBI Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity Affairs (OEEOA) developed and launched an in-person 

training titled “Mythbusters: EEO Edition”; FBI provided OIG with a copy of the 

training slides. The training discusses misconceptions that employees and 

management may have about the EEO process and specifically addresses 

perceptions of stigmatization and retaliation. FBI reported that during FY 2018 the 

Assistant Director of the OEEOA provided this training in the field and at 

headquarters supervisory and all-hands meetings and in April 2018 provided it to 

all FBI Special Agents in Charge (SAC) during the annual SAC Conference. FBI also 

reported that OEEOA has provided 100 percent of all new Senior Executive Service 

(SES) members and SACs onboarding briefings about EEO regulations, reporting 

requirements, the complaint/investigation process, and available services for the 

workforce. FBI stated that OEEOA analyzes trends in EEO complaints and 

addresses any issues when appropriate, reaching out to division heads to offer 

training. OEEOA also provides tailored presentations when requested; FBI provided 

OIG with a copy of presentation slides for the topic of sexual harassment.

OIG Analysis: FBI’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. Please 

provide an update on the “Mythbusters: EEO Edition” training sessions, including 

number and dates of classes and number of participants during FY 2018. Also 

provide the description or content of the onboarding briefing OEEOA provides to 

new SES members and SACs. Finally, provide any reports or memorandums or 

compilations of trends in EEO complaints that OEEOA has analyzed and descriptions 

of how OEEOA has assisted division heads in addressing specific issues. 
APPENDIX 12

86

USMS’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
87
88
89
90
APPENDIX 13

91

OIG ANALYSIS OF USMS’S RESPONSE

The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this report to the U.S. 

Marshals Service (USMS) for its comment. USMS’s response is included in 

Appendix 12 to this report. OIG’s analysis of USMS’s response and the actions 

necessary to close the recommendations are discussed below. Please provide a

status update on the six recommendations by October 18, 2018.

Recommendation 1: Assess recruitment, hiring, and retention activities to 

identify barriers to gender equity in the workforce. 

Status: Resolved. 

USMS Response: USMS concurred with the recommendation and stated 

that it currently assesses its intake pools to the extent possible. USMS described 

the challenges it encounters in getting a diverse applicant pool for law enforcement 

positions because its competitive hiring procedures require the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) to refer preference-eligible applicants first and then 

other applicants. USMS concurred with OIG’s determination that a lack of hiring 

authorities was a possible barrier to attracting women to USMS. USMS said that it 

had been actively seeking the authority to hire under excepted service appointment 

provisions pursuant to 5 C.F.R. Chapter 1, Subpart B, Part 213 (Schedule B) since 

early FY 2017. Excepted service hiring authority would allow USMS to do more 

targeted recruiting using a smaller number of applicants, with a goal of improving 

the diversity of the applicant pool.

USMS stated that OPM currently provides the applicant statistics needed to 

track the diversity of USMS’s applicant pools. In addition to this, USMS will 

continue to track the effectiveness of its applicant sourcing, how many staff it hires, 

and retention statistics. USMS said that if it were granted excepted service hiring 

authority its Human Resources Division would partner with its Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity (OEEO) to implement a national recruiting strategy to 

include specific outreach to women and other minority groups.

OIG Analysis: USMS’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. 

Please provide the status of USMS’s excepted service hiring authority request and 

describe how USMS will track the diversity of applicant pools from OPM statistics 

and evaluate the effectiveness of its recruitment efforts. Also, describe how USMS 

will track recruitment, hiring, and retention to identify barriers to gender equity in 

in the workforce. 

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement component-level recruiting, 

hiring, and retention strategies and goals that address the identified barriers to 

gender equity in the workforce.

Status: Resolved. 
92

USMS Response: USMS concurred with the recommendation. USMS stated 

that it was seeking the authority to hire its entry-level Deputy U.S. Marshals under 

excepted service appointment provisions, as referred to in its response to 

Recommendation 1. USMS said that if it were approved for excepted service hiring 

authority, it planned to implement a national recruiting strategy that would include 

specific outreach to minority groups, as mentioned in its response to 

Recommendation 1, and that it hopes that excepted service appointments would 

allow it to target a more diverse applicant pool. USMS further stated that if it were

not granted excepted service hiring authority for its law enforcement positions, it 

would research and consider the use of a bona fide occupational qualification. 

OIG Analysis: USMS’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. 

Please provide an update on USMS’s request for excepted service hiring authority 

and the status of the development or implementation of the national recruiting 

strategy that would address the barriers to gender equity in recruitment and hiring, 

including a copy of the strategy.

Recommendation 3: Develop and implement a plan to track and analyze 

demographic information on newly hired staff and applicants, as appropriate, to 

evaluate recruitment strategies. 

Status: Resolved. 

USMS Response: USMS concurred with the recommendation. USMS stated 

that it currently tracks demographic information on all of its law enforcement 

applicants and hires with the data OPM provides. As USMS mentioned in its 

responses to Recommendations 1 and 2, it is working on a national recruiting 

strategy to track the success of its recruiting efforts, focusing on where and how it

recruits to improve its representation of women and minority groups.

OIG Analysis: USMS’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. 

Please provide an update on the development and implementation of the national 

recruiting strategy to track the success of recruiting efforts, including a copy of the 

strategy if available.

Recommendation 4: Identify and take steps to address barriers to 

advancement for women within the component and among different job types. 

Status: Resolved. 

USMS Response: USMS concurred with the recommendation. USMS 

stated that women were underrepresented in Criminal Investigator positions and 

that it believed that the lack of excepted service hiring authority hindered its

efforts to expeditiously address this critical need. USMS stated that there were 

no barriers or “glass ceilings” to advancement for women once they were on 

board, and that it will continue to provide developmental and training

opportunities that support the career advancement of female Criminal

Investigators, as well as women across all professional series. USMS said that by 
93

the close of FY 2018 employees would be provided the opportunity to enhance

their professional skills, to network, and to build mentoring relationships at the

following national training conferences:

Women in Federal Law Enforcement, 

Federally Employed Women, 

National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, and

International Association of Women Police.

OIG Analysis: USMS’s actions are partially responsive to the 

recommendation. While OIG did not conclude that there were issues with women 

advancing into supervisory positions at USMS based on our analysis of promotions 

data, there may still be barriers to advancement for women that other data analysis 

could reveal. We note that we received testimonial evidence from female USMS 

Criminal Investigators that they believed such barriers exist and many described 

problems advancing past certain levels. To fully address the recommendation, 

please describe how USMS will identify and address real and/or perceived barriers 

to advancement for women in USMS. Further, describe how the training and 

development opportunities given to female staff members are expected to enhance

their professional skills, networking, and mentoring relationships. 

Recommendation 5: Develop and implement methods to improve the 

objectivity and transparency of the merit promotion process. 

Status: Resolved. 

 

USMS Response: USMS concurred with the recommendation. USMS stated 

that its Human Resources Division was redesigning the operational merit promotion 

process and replacing the existing experience-based system with a competencybased assessment when evaluating candidates for GS-1811 13, 14, and 15 

positions. USMS stated that the redesigned merit promotion process is a significant 

improvement to objectivity because it uses independent third-party raters instead 

of USMS employees to assess candidate qualifications, removing the subjectivity of 

the process. The third-party assessors receive customized training on applying the 

USMS benchmarks, which meets the industry-standard assessor rating 

methodology, and regular refresher training to ensure continued consistency in

applying benchmarks. The process includes quality assurance monitoring, and the 

results of the monitoring are shared with USMS on a prescribed schedule. USMS 

reported that the GS-1811-13 process has already been completed and is in use, 

the GS-1811-14 process will be completed by the end of calendar year 2018, and 

the GS-1811-15 process will be completed by the end of calendar year 2019.

USMS said that to improve transparency, employees receive a feedback 

report after completing their assessment. USMS also provides conversion 

instructions so employees can determine how their competency scores will 

contribute to their overall promotion application. This specific feedback is in 

addition to the anonymous, ranked promotion score that USMS currently posts for 

the candidates on an internal USMS website. This ranked list helps applicants 
94

determine their comparative standing for promotion readiness within the candidate 

pool. In addition, USMS said that its Training Division, in partnership with its

Human Resources Division, has undertaken a strategic initiative to implement 

training plans specifically designed for the new competencies being developed for 

the GS-1811 13, 14, and 15 positions, so that employees can ensure they are 

taking the steps needed to develop themselves in preparation for promotional 

opportunities.

OIG Analysis: USMS’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. 

Please provide an update on the status of the GS-1811 14 and 15 assessment 

processes. In addition, please provide an update on the development of the 

strategic initiative for GS-1811 13, 14, and 15 position competency training plans. 

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement methods to address 

perceptions of stigmatization and retaliation associated with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity complaint process.

Status: Resolved. 

USMS Response: USMS concurred with the recommendation. USMS stated 

that in FY 2017 its OEEO, in partnership with its Training Division, developed and 

implemented a “Diversity and Harassment Prevention” online training module. 

USMS stated that the training, which is administered to all employees on a 2-year 

cycle, highlights employee and management responsibilities for prevention of 

harassment/retaliation associated with the EEO complaint process and recommends 

behavioral tools that support a diverse and cohesive work environment. USMS also 

said that OEEO is developing strategies to expand site visits to district offices 

throughout the nation. District site visits allow OEEO staff to meet one on one with 

employees and managers to discuss their needs, concerns, and perceptions 

associated with the EEO complaint process. USMS expects that OEEO will conduct 

five or more site visits by the close of FY 2019.

OIG Analysis: USMS’s actions are responsive to the recommendation. 

Please provide a copy of the training curriculum and information on how many 

employees have taken the training since it was implemented in FY 2017. Also 

provide an update on the status of OEEO’s site visits, including a list of sites visited, 

dates of visit, and future plans. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

Suite 4760

Washington, DC 20530-0001

 

Also at Oversight.gov

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG) is a 

statutorily created independent entity whose mission is to detect and deter 

waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and to 

promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s operations.

To report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct regarding DOJ 

programs, employees, contractors, grants, or contracts please visit or call the

DOJ OIG Hotline at oig.justice.gov/hotline or (800) 869-4499.

Website Twitter YouTube

oig.justice.gov @JusticeOIG JusticeOIG