a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson, House of Representatives

June 2003 EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY

Hiring, Promotion, and 

Discipline Processes 

at DEA

GAO-03-413
During the October 1997 through March 2002 period, African American, 

Hispanic, and white applicants to be special agents passed DEA’s medical 

requirements and interview process at about the same rates. However, 

African American and Hispanic applicants had lower passing rates on (1) the 

test of an applicant’s ability to recall and write about a video of a drugrelated enforcement action and (2) suitability requirements measured 

through a background investigation and other tests. DEA’s hiring 

procedures are based on criteria in federal regulations, professional 

standards, and standards established by subject matter experts. However, 

DEA had not studied its hiring requirements to see why its procedures 

resulted in different selection rates and whether they could be modified to 

reduce differences while maintaining the high standards necessary for 

special agents. 

There were no statistically significant differences in promotion rates among 

the various racial, ethnic, and gender groups during fiscal years 1997 through 

2001. DEA has a rigorous and validated competency-based process that uses 

job simulations to assess capabilities at the target grade level. However, the 

job-relatedness of a key step involving recommending special agents for 

promotion had not been established and our analysis showed that African 

American and Hispanic special agents were recommended for promotion at 

significantly lower rates. Despite differences in recommendation rates, 

DEA’s promotion decisions mirrored the race, ethnic, and gender makeup of 

the agency’s special agent workforce. Additionally, the agency, working 

with a diverse panel of special agents, subsequently developed a revised 

recommendation process. At the time of GAO’s review, DEA and the African 

American representatives were involved in mediation to reach final 

agreement. 

Disciplinary data for fiscal years 1997 to 2001 showed that the proportion of 

African American, Hispanic, and women special agents disciplined for 

misconduct was significantly higher than their representation in the DEA 

special agent workforce. These higher rates reflect that African Americans, 

Hispanics, and women had a significantly higher percentage of allegations of 

misconduct lodged against them and that a significantly higher percentage of 

these allegations were substantiated by investigations and resulted in 

disciplinary action. A recent study by an outside contractor found DEA’s 

disciplinary process to be fair and nondiscriminatory, but that study only 

considered African Americans and whites and not women or other minority 

groups.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

Hiring, Promotion, and Discipline 

Processes at DEA 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-413.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Victor S. 

Rezendes at (202) 512-6808. 

Highlights of GAO-03-413, a report to the 

Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, House 

of Representatives 

June 2003

A 1981 U.S. District Court decision 

found that the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) had 

discriminated against African 

American special agents in a 

number of personnel practices. 

Over the years, the plaintiffs and 

DEA had agreed to remedies in 

many of these areas. However, 

minority representatives continued 

to raise issues in three areas—

hiring, promotion, and discipline. 

GAO was asked to examine DEA’s 

current processes for hiring, 

promoting, and disciplining special 

agents, and provide information 

about racial, ethnicity, and gender 

differences in these three areas. 

GAO recommendations to DEA 

include 

• initiating a process to monitor 

hiring results to identify 

differences in selection rates 

among groups, determine why 

they occur, and what, if 

anything, can be done to 

reduce the differences while 

maintaining high standards 

and 

• expanding the study of 

disciplinary actions taken 

against African American 

versus white special agents to 

determine whether discipline 

is administered fairly to all 

racial, ethnic, and gender 

groups of special agents. 

In commenting on this report, the 

Acting Administrator of DEA 

agreed with our recommendations 

and listed a number of actions 

being taken to implement them. 
Page i GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

The Diversity of DEA’s Special Agent Workforce 10

A Higher Proportion of Minority Applicants Did Not Meet Hiring 

Requirements 15

No Statistically Significant Differences in Promotion Rates 25

DEA’s Discipline Process Has Been Found to Be 

Nondiscriminatory 34

Employee Views on Promotion and Discipline 40

Conclusions 42

Recommendations for Executive Action 44

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 47

DEA Special Agent Workforce Diversity 47

DEA’s Hiring, Promotion, and Discipline Processes 48

Appendix II: Physical Task Test Minimum Requirements 51

Appendix III: Competencies in Assessing GS-13 and GS-14 Special Agents 

for Promotion 52

Performance Rating Competencies for 

GS-13 and GS-14 Special Agents 52

Competencies Measured by Assessment Center Job Simulations 52

Interim Special Agent in Charge/Office Head Recommendation 

Process 53

Proposed SAC/Office Head Recommendation Process 54

Appendix IV: Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration 55

Tables Table 1: Demographic Distribution of the Federal Workforce and 

Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) in DEA, 

Governmentwide, and the Nonfederal Workforce 11

Table 2: Demographics of DEA’s Special Agent Workforce, 

1980-2002 12

Table 3: Distribution of DEA Special Agents in Nonsupervisory, 

Supervisory, and SES Positions by EEO Group, September 

2002 13
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 4: Demographic Profile of Applicants under BA-98-01 and 

BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002 16

Table 5: Percentage of Applicants Meeting Minimum Requirements 

under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to 

March 31, 2002 17

Table 6: Percentage of Applicants Passing Written Assessment 

under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to 

March 31, 2002 18

Table 7: Applicant Interview Passing Rates under BA-98-01 and 

BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002 19

Table 8: Applicant Medical Examination Passing Rates under 

BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to 

March 31, 2002 19

Table 9: Percentage of Applicants Passing the Physical Task Test 

under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to 

March 31, 2002 20

Table 10: Percentage of Applicants Found Suitable under BA-98-01 

and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002 22

Table 11: Percentage of Applicants Found Suitable by the 1811 

Hiring Panel, September 29, 2000, to May 7, 2002 23

Table 12: Overall Selection Rates for Applicants for Whom DEA 

Made Hiring Eligibility Determinations under BA-98-01 and 

BA-20-00, by EEO Group, October 15, 1997, to 

March 31, 2002 24

Table 13: Demographic Profile of Applicants Who Met Minimum 

Requirements and Applicants Hired under BA-98-01 and 

BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002 24

Table 14: Special Agents Participating in the SAPP, 1997-2001 26

Table 15: Average SAPP Scores, 1997-2001 30

Table 16: Frequency of Applicants Appearing on Best-Qualified Lists 

Being Recommended by SACs, 2000-01 32

Table 17: Individuals on at Least One Best-Qualified List from Which 

Promotions Were Made and Individuals Selected for 

Promotion, by EEO Group, Fiscal Years 1997-2001 34

Table 18: Special Agents Disciplined Compared with Special Agent 

Population, by EEO Group, Fiscal Years 1997-2001 36

Table 19: Distribution of Cases of Alleged Misconduct Involving 

Special Agents, by EEO Group, Compared with Workforce 

Representation, Fiscal Years 1997-2001 37

Table 20: Cases of Alleged Misconduct Involving Special Agents That 

Resulted in Disciplinary Action, by EEO Group, Fiscal 

Years 1997-2001 37
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 21: DEA Physical Task Test Minimum Performance 

Requirements 51

Table 22: Performance Rating Competencies for GS-13 and GS-14 

Special Agents 52

Table 23: Competencies Measured by Assessment Center Job 

Simulations in 2001 53

Abbreviations

ARTS Agent Recruiting and Tracking System

EEO equal employment opportunity

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

GS General Schedule

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility 

SAC Special Agent in Charge

SAPP Special Agent Promotion Program

SES senior executive service

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 10, 2003 Lret

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

House of Representatives

Dear Ms. Johnson:

In 1981, ruling on a class action racial discrimination lawsuit brought by 

African American special agents, a U.S. district court found that the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA)1

 had discriminated against the agents 

in a variety of personnel practices. Some 20 years have passed since the 

initial decision, and not all areas covered by the court’s orders have been 

finalized, particularly in regard to promotions. In your role as Chair of the 

Congressional Black Caucus, minority representatives of DEA’s special 

agents continued to raise issues with you about some of the personnel 

practices at DEA. Based on discussions with your office, we agreed to 

(1) develop information on the diversity of DEA’s special agent workforce 

and (2) examine the processes DEA has put in place to provide for fair and 

nondiscriminatory hiring, promoting, and disciplining of special agents and 

provide information about racial, ethnic, and gender differences in those 

three areas. 

With regard to the diversity of DEA’s special agent workforce, we 

developed information by race, ethnicity, and gender for each pay grade 

level. To examine DEA’s processes for hiring, promoting, and disciplining 

special agents, we reviewed policies and procedures and discussed them 

with knowledgeable officials and representatives of groups representing 

minority special agents. To identify the results that have been achieved, we 

analyzed data by race, ethnicity, and gender generally for fiscal years 1997 

through 2001, the 5 most recent fiscal years for which data were available, 

with regard to how applicants fared at each step of DEA’s hiring process, 

promotions of special agents to the General Schedule (GS) grade 14 and 15 

levels, and disciplinary actions taken. Our analyses were not designed to 

prove or disprove discrimination; rather, they were designed to provide 

information about race, ethnicity, and gender differences in personnel 

actions. In analyzing hiring actions, we used the 80 percent rule set out in 

the federal government’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection 

1

DEA, an agency within the Department of Justice, enforces the nation’s controlled 

substances laws and regulations in the United States and worldwide. DEA has 21 domestic 

field divisions with more than 200 offices and 79 foreign field offices in 50 countries. 
Page 2 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Procedures. Under the 80 percent rule, a selection rate for a racial, ethnic, 

or gender group that is less than 80 percent of the selection rate for the 

group with the highest rate is considered a substantially different rate of 

selection that usually requires an employer to study the job relatedness of 

selection procedures. To analyze differences in promotion and disciplinary 

actions, we used standard statistical techniques. We did our work from 

September 2001 through February 2003 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Further details about our 

methodology are discussed in appendix I. 

Results in Brief The diversity of DEA’s special agent (criminal investigator) workforce was 

below overall government workforce percentages but generally 

comparable with the governmentwide population of criminal investigators, 

except for women. In September 2002, whites made up 80.3 percent, 

African Americans 8.2 percent, Hispanics 8.8 percent, Asian/Pacific 

Islanders 2.2 percent, and Native Americans 0.5 percent of DEA’s special 

agents. These percentages compared with governmentwide criminal 

investigator levels of 80.3 percent white, 7.1 percent African American, 8.9 

percent Hispanic, 2.7 percent Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 1 percent Native 

American. Women were 8.3 percent of special agents in DEA but 16.4 

percent of criminal investigators governmentwide. Minority representation 

in DEA’s special agent workforce resembles an inverted pyramid, with 

proportional representation of minority special agents in senior executive 

service (SES) and supervisory special agent positions higher than in 

nonsupervisory positions. In September 2002, minorities represented 36.7 

percent of SES special agents, 23.2 percent of supervisory special agents, 

and 18.4 percent of the nonsupervisory agents. Women, on the other hand, 

were 8.8 percent of the nonsupervisory special agents, which was more 

than their representation among supervisory special agents (6.6 percent) 

but less than their representation among SES special agents (10.2 percent). 

Because of the relatively low representation of minorities and women in 

the lower ranks of special agents, DEA could face problems in enhancing, 

or even maintaining, diversity in the upper ranks in the near future as 

attrition occurs, especially if DEA experiences a high level of retirements 

like that expected governmentwide. However, DEA does not have a clear 

picture of future workforce trends because the agency has not prepared a 

workforce analysis that takes into account the demographics of the 

workforce, including age, grade, retirement eligibility, and expected 

retirements over the next 5-year or longer period. 
Page 3 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Our analysis of DEA’s hiring decisions showed that a higher proportion of 

minority applicants did not meet the requirements to become a special 

agent at some steps in the hiring process. We found that in applying the 80 

percent rule, African American men, Hispanic men, and Hispanic women 

had substantially lower passing rates on the written test intended to 

measure the ability to observe and recall details and write. In addition, 

African Americans (men and women) had substantially lower rates of being 

found suitable for hiring as a special agent, based on the results of 

background investigations, psychological evaluations, and polygraph tests. 

Overall, DEA hired 13.7 percent of African American applicants, 15.8 

percent of Hispanic applicants, and 22.9 percent of white applicants. The 

proportion of white applicants hired was substantially higher than that of 

the two minority groups. The Uniform Guidelines require employers to 

study the job-relatedness of selection procedures when there are 

substantial differences in the selection rate for any race, ethnic, and gender 

group. Although DEA’s hiring procedures are based on criteria in federal 

regulations, professional standards, or standards established by subject 

matter experts, the agency had not studied why its procedures resulted in 

different selection rates and whether they could be modified to reduce 

differences while maintaining high standards.

Our analysis showed no statistically significant differences in promotion 

rates among the various racial, ethnic, and gender groups. However, issues 

regarding promotions of African Americans to GS-14 and GS-15 special 

agent positions remain in litigation because the court found in 1999 that 

DEA’s promotion process did not fully comply with title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act. Although DEA has a validated process to assess special agents’ 

promotion potential, the 1999 court decision found that a subsequent step 

involving recommendations to the selecting authority by the office heads 

with vacancies of specific special agents on the best-qualified lists had 

resulted in an underrepresentation of African American special agents 

compared with whites, and that this step had not been validated. Interim 

measures modifying the recommendation process had not eliminated this 

situation. Although DEA’s monitoring and reporting of promotion process 

results gave particular attention to African American special agents, our 

analysis also showed that Hispanics were recommended at statistically 

significant lower rates than white special agents, particularly applicants for 

GS-14 positions. Although DEA has developed a recommendation process, 

the agency and the plaintiffs need to resolve issues about implementation 

and procedures for monitoring the results before the proposed process can 

be put in place. In addition, the court must approve the process. 
Page 4 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Our analysis of disciplinary data for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 showed 

that the proportion of African American, Hispanic, and women special 

agents disciplined for misconduct was substantially higher than their 

representation in the DEA special agent workforce and that this difference 

was statistically significant. During fiscal years 1997 through 2001, African 

Americans made up 8.3 percent of the special agent workforce but 

accounted for about 16 percent of the agents disciplined. Similarly, 

Hispanics, while making up 8.9 percent of the special agent workforce 

during the same time period, accounted for about 15 percent of agents 

disciplined. Women, who made up 7.8 percent of special agents during 

fiscal years 1997 through 2001, accounted for about 13 percent of agents 

disciplined. These higher rates reflect that African American, Hispanic, and 

women special agents had a proportionately higher number of allegations 

of misconduct lodged against them and that a higher proportion of these 

allegations were substantiated by investigations and resulted in 

disciplinary actions. DEA does not know why these differences exist nor 

does any study offer a reason for them. However, the results of two studies 

by outside contractors, approved by an oversight group and which we 

found methodologically sound, found DEA’s disciplinary process to be fair 

and nondiscriminatory. The most recent of these studies, however, 

compared only disciplinary actions of African American and white special 

agents. Disciplinary actions related to other minorities and women have 

not been studied since 1986.

Although there were no statistically significant differences in the 

promotion rates among the racial, ethnic, and gender groups and studies 

found DEA’s disciplinary process to be fair and nondiscriminatory, minority 

and women special agents perceived that these processes were not fair and 

had a disparate effect on minorities. The perceptions may have been driven 

in part by a lack of data and other information because DEA did not widely 

share analyses of its promotion and discipline processes with the special 

agent workforce. Sharing such data could help special agents formulate 

informed views about the fairness and equity of the promotion and 

discipline processes.

We recommend that DEA (1) prepare a workforce analysis that takes into 

account expected attrition to guide DEA’s recruiting and hiring, (2) initiate 

a process to monitor hiring process results, (3) monitor promotion 

recommendation rates among the racial, ethnic, and gender groups, 

(4) expand the study of disciplinary actions to include all racial, ethnic, and 

gender groups, and (5) share information about promotion and discipline 

processes with its special agent workforce.
Page 5 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

In commenting on this report, the Acting Administrator of DEA agreed with 

our recommendations and listed a number of actions DEA was taking to 

implement them.

Background Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,2

 it is unlawful for 

employers to discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis 

of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Other civil rights statutes 

prohibit discrimination based on age or disability.3

 Under these laws, it is 

illegal to discriminate in any aspect of the terms and conditions of 

employment, including hiring, firing, disciplinary actions, promotion, pay 

assignments, and training. In addition, for federal civilian employees, 

Executive Order 13087 prohibits discrimination based on sexual 

orientation and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted 

the Civil Service Reform Act of 19784 to prohibit sexual orientation 

discrimination in the federal workplace.5

Intentionally treating people differently on account of their race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability is called “disparate 

treatment.”6

 Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also 

practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because 

of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. Personnel policies that 

are neutral on their face but have a substantially different though 

unintended affect on a group are said to have a “disparate impact” or 

2

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

3

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits discrimination against 

individuals who are 40 years of age or older (29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.), the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals 

with disabilities in the private sector and in state and local governments (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 

et seq.), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against qualified 

individuals with disabilities by the federal government (29 U.S.C. § 791).

4

5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10).

5

An employee or applicant may not file a complaint or lawsuit based on sexual orientation 

discrimination under title VII because that statute does not prohibit this form of 

discrimination. However, an aggrieved person may seek redress through administrative 

processes available to federal employees.

6

Although proof of disparate treatment requires a showing that an employer acted with 

discriminatory motive or intent, discriminatory motive may be inferred from the mere fact 

of differences in treatment. 
Page 6 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

“adverse impact.” In general, the use of any procedure that has an adverse 

impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment actions of members 

of any race, gender, or ethnic group is considered to be discriminatory 

unless the procedure is shown to be job related and consistent with 

business necessity.7

Uniform Guidelines on 

Employee Selection 

Procedures

The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures,

8

 adopted in 

1978 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Civil 

Service Commission (the predecessor agency to OPM), and the 

departments of Justice and Labor, provide a uniform set of principles 

governing use of employee selection procedures and identifying adverse 

impact. The guidelines apply to tests and other selection procedures that 

are used to make employment decisions, including hiring, promotion, and 

discipline. 

Under the guidelines, adverse impact is a substantially different rate of 

selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions that works 

to the disadvantage of a race, ethnic, or gender group. Specifically, a 

selection rate for any group that is less than 80 percent of the selection rate 

for the group with the highest rate is generally regarded as evidence of 

adverse impact. This is not a legal definition of discrimination; rather, it is a 

rule of thumb or guideline that is a practical means of keeping an agency’s 

attention on different selection rates in personnel actions and on the 

procedures they use. Tests of statistical significance may be used in lieu of 

the 80 percent rule. The guidelines call for adverse impact determinations 

to be made for each racial, ethnic, or gender group. 

When adverse impact is identified, the Uniform Guidelines generally 

require employers to conduct validity studies to determine the jobrelatedness of a procedure or its business necessity. The guidelines also 

call for an employer to make a reasonable effort to become aware of 

suitable alternative selection procedures and methods that have as little 

adverse impact as possible and to investigate those that are suitable. The 

guidelines recognize validation strategies of the American Psychological 

Association, and the validation provisions of the guidelines are designed to 

be consistent with the generally accepted standards of the psychological 

7

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k).

8

29 C.F.R. Part 1607.
Page 7 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

profession. One approach is “content validity,” which determines whether 

the selection tests and measures used are representative of the knowledge, 

skills, and abilities necessary for a job.

Litigation History In February 1981, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled 

on a class action lawsuit, commonly known as the Segar case,9

 finding that 

DEA had discriminated against African American special agents.10 The 

court found that DEA’s personnel practices had an adverse impact on 

African American special agents in terms of salary, grade at entry, 

supervisory evaluations, discipline, and promotions. In addition, the court 

found evidence of disparate treatment in work assignments because of the 

way in which DEA used African American special agents for undercover 

operations. The court found no discrimination in the type of appointments 

or in training of special agents, and found that allegations of harassment 

and reprisal were unsubstantiated. The court did not rule on issues relating 

to hiring that DEA and the plaintiff class had already settled. 

The court ordered DEA to change its procedures and conduct validity 

studies on those changes in order to provide for effective, 

nondiscriminatory supervisory evaluation, discipline, and promotion 

systems. To oversee the implementation of its orders, two groups were 

established. One is called the “Working Group.” Its mission is to help 

ensure that the orders of the court requiring DEA to develop and validate 

nondiscriminatory personnel practices are carried out. The Working Group 

is made up of three industrial psychologists—two from OPM and one 

representing the plaintiff class members. The other group is called the 

“Equal Employment Opportunity Monitoring Committee” or Monitoring 

9

Segar v. Civiletti, 508 F. Supp. 690 (D.D.C. 1981), aff’d in relevant part subnom. Segar v. 

Smith, 738 F. 2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied subnom. Meese v. Segar, 471 U.S. 1115 

(1985).

10In 1992, DEA settled a class action lawsuit that Hispanic special agents brought alleging 

discrimination in promotion and assignment practices, as well as other terms of 

employment (Muniz, et al. v. Barr). Terms of the settlement, which expired in 1996, 

included adding an additional SES voting member to DEA’s Career Board, DEA’s 

commitment to the objective of having Hispanic special agents fill this position in 

approximate proportion to their representation in the SES workforce, and putting 

procedures in place regarding wiretap, undercover, and temporary assignments. In addition, 

the settlement recognized that since 1984 DEA had promoted Hispanic special agents 

consistent with their representation in the relevant applicant pool and that DEA was 

committed to the objective of promoting Hispanics in rates roughly equal to the promotion 

rates of similarly situated and qualified non-Hispanics.
Page 8 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Committee. Made up of eight African American special agents representing 

plaintiff class members, this committee monitors DEA’s compliance with 

the court’s orders. The committee also is to help facilitate informal 

resolutions of disputes. 

Over the years, all issues raised in the court’s findings, except with regard 

to the process for promoting special agents to the GS-14 and GS-15 levels 

and creating a career development program, have been resolved through 

court-approved agreements between the plaintiff class and DEA. In 

September 1999, the district court ruled on a motion for compliance 

brought by the plaintiff class that claimed adverse impact in promotions of 

African American special agents to managerial GS-14 and GS-15 positions.11

The plaintiffs argued that there were disparities in two steps of the 

multistep promotion process. They alleged that one step in the process, 

called the Special Agent Promotion Program (SAPP), which involves 

assessing candidates’ job-related knowledge and skills through job 

simulations, had an adverse impact on African Americans, thereby 

decreasing their opportunities to be placed on best-qualified lists for 

promotion. The plaintiffs further argued that they were adversely impacted 

by another step in the process, whereby DEA senior executives—special 

agents in charge (SAC) and other office heads—for the offices advertising 

promotion opportunities, recommended a select few from a best qualified 

candidate list to DEA’s Career Board, the head of which ultimately makes 

promotion decisions. However, the plaintiffs did not claim that there was 

adverse impact in the ultimate number of promotions. According to the 

court decision, the plaintiffs stated that “some of the expected effect of 

denying African American agents spots on the [SAC/office head lists] is not 

visible in the ultimate number of promotions because the Career Board 

tends to ‘overselect’ African American agents when they appear on 

[SAC/office head lists], and also when the Career Board bypasses the 

[SAC/office head list].”

In its ruling, the court noted that the use of the SAPP caused an adverse 

impact despite its having been validated. Although the court did not 

conclude that the use of the SAPP violated title VII, it ordered DEA to 

implement a career development program to reduce the acknowledged

11Segar, et al. v. Reno, et al., C.A. No. 77-81 (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 1999).
Page 9 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

disparate impact of the SAPP.12 The court found that the process for 

recommendations made by SACs and office heads did have an adverse 

impact on African American special agents. In its analysis, the court said 

that “the fact that some of the discriminatory effect of the use of 

[SAC/office head recommendations] may not appear in ultimate hiring 

decisions, because the Career Board appears to be more likely to select 

African Americans when they do appear, does not excuse the use of a 

discriminatory device earlier in the process.” The court concluded that the 

SAC/office head recommendation process violated title VII, and enjoined 

DEA from using such recommendations in making promotion decisions 

until their use had been validated as job related. As a result, DEA 

suspended promotions to GS-14 and GS-15 special agent positions. DEA 

and the plaintiffs subsequently entered into a court-approved agreement in 

January 2000 allowing DEA to temporarily use SAC/office head 

recommendations for promotion decisions in accordance with certain 

terms and conditions, until DEA created a permanent, validated process for 

using SAC/office head recommendations. 

At the time of our review, DEA, working with the plaintiff class and other 

employees, had developed a recommendation process. The Working Group 

approved this process, which met the requirements of content validity as 

described in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

13

A diverse six-person panel of senior managers appointed by the DEA 

Administrator and under the direction of an industrial psychologist 

accomplished validation. In terms of job-relatedness, panel members first 

individually reviewed descriptions of each competency to be assessed in 

the SAC/office head recommendation process and the weight each 

competency would receive. The panel then analyzed the knowledge, skills, 

and abilities required for GS-14 and GS-15 special agent positions; rated 

their importance to these positions; and individually linked the knowledge, 

12DEA has since developed training and career development manuals for GS-13, GS-14, and 

GS-15 special agents, which the Working Group and the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Monitoring Committee approved for issuance.

13Uniform Guidelines’ standards for content validity include (1) conducting a job analysis 

that identifies the important work behaviors required for successful performance of the job 

in question and their relative importance, and also identifies the knowledges, skills, and 

abilities used in work behaviors and the relationship between each knowledge, skill, or 

ability and each work behavior, (2) describing the selection procedure, (3) providing 

evidence showing that the content of the selection procedure is representative of important 

aspects of performance on the job for which the candidates are to be evaluated, and 

(4) considering alternative procedures.
Page 10 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

skills, and abilities to the competencies.14 The panel members followed the 

same process for tasks required of GS-14 and GS-15 special agents. Final 

agreement between the plaintiffs and DEA, particularly with regard to 

procedures for monitoring the implementation of the recommendation 

process, and approval by the court remained to be accomplished as of 

March 2003. 

The Diversity of DEA’s 

Special Agent 

Workforce 

In September 2002, 4,481 (about 51 percent) of DEA’s 8,726 employees were 

criminal investigators (in the 1811 occupational series), better known as 

special agents. Special agents conduct investigations, perform surveillance, 

infiltrate drug trafficking organizations, confiscate illegal drugs, arrest 

violators, collect and prepare evidence, and testify in criminal court cases. 

Data from DEA showed that in September 2002, whites made up 80.3 

percent, African Americans 8.2 percent, Hispanics 8.8 percent, 

Asian/Pacific Islanders 2.2 percent, and Native Americans 0.5 percent of 

the agency’s special agents. Women made up 8.3 percent of DEA’s special 

agents. The diversity of DEA’s special agent workforce was below overall 

government workforce percentages but generally comparable with the 

governmentwide population of criminal investigators, except for women 

whose representation was about half that of criminal investigators 

governmentwide. (See table 1.)

14The knowledge, skills, abilities, and tasks were developed by an outside contractor that 

performed a job analysis of the special agent position. 
Page 11 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 1: Demographic Distribution of the Federal Workforce and Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) in DEA, 

Governmentwide, and the Nonfederal Workforce 

Source: OPM and DEA.

Note: Racial and ethnic categories include men and women; the women category includes women of 

all races and ethnicities. 

a

Includes accident investigators, police officers, traffic officers, police department chauffers, private 

investigators, detectives, criminal investigators, and narcotics investigators. 

Table 1 is not a measure of the appropriateness of DEA’s diversity but 

rather a comparison of it with other law enforcement groups. The table 

includes another common measure of diversity—the nonfederal law 

enforcement labor force—that is derived from the decennial census and 

includes individuals working in nonfederal law enforcement and securityrelated occupations that OPM, EEOC, and the Department of Labor 

consider comparable to the 1811 occupational series. In addition to the 

governmentwide criminal investigator workforce, DEA compares its 

special agent workforce to the nonfederal law enforcement labor force. 

The overall minority representation in DEA’s special agent workforce is 

comparable to the nonfederal law enforcement labor force, although there 

is some variation in the representation of the various minority groups. DEA 

has a lower representation of Native Americans and African Americans 

while having a higher representation of Asian/Pacific Islanders and 

Hispanics. Representation of DEA’s women special agents is lower, 

compared with the nonfederal law enforcement labor force. However, 

there are several limitations to these data. First, these figures are dated in 

that they are based on the 1990 census. Figures based on the 2000 census 

will not be available until the fall of 2003, according to an official with 

OPM’s Office of Diversity. Additionally, the data are based on a wide variety 

of police, detective, and public service occupations that include traffic 

officers and police department chauffeurs as well as criminal investigators 

and narcotics officers. A further problem with the nonfederal law 

enforcement labor force data is that they do not distinguish educational 

attainment of those working in comparable 1811 occupations—DEA 

requires a 4-year college degree.

Asian/Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women

Overall federal workforce (September 2002) 4.5% 17.6% 6.9% 2.0% 69.0% 44.0%

Criminal Investigators

DEA (September 2002) 2.2% 8.2% 8.8% 0.5% 80.3% 8.3%

Governmentwide (September 2002) 2.7% 7.1% 8.9% 1.0% 80.3% 16.4%

Nonfederal (1990 census)a 1.0% 11.4% 6.5% 0.8% 80.3% 12.0%
Page 12 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Workforce Trends—1980-

2002

Over the last two decades, the overall representation of minorities in DEA 

special agent positions hardly changed, increasing from 19.1 percent in 

1980 to 19.7 percent in 2002, while the representation of women increased, 

from 2.3 percent in 1980 to 8.3 percent in 2002. While minority 

representation in DEA’s special agent workforce showed increases during 

the 1980s, it decreased after 1990. Only Asian/Pacific Islanders continued to 

increase throughout the 1980-2002 time frame. (See table 2.) 

Table 2: Demographics of DEA’s Special Agent Workforce, 1980-2002 

Source: Fiscal years 1980-2000, OPM. Fiscal year 2002, DEA.

Note: Racial and ethnic categories include men and women; the women category includes women of 

all races and ethnicities.

a

As of September for each year indicated.

When looked at from a grade standpoint, minority representation in DEA’s 

special agent workforce resembles an inverted pyramid. Representation of 

minority special agents in Senior Executive Service (SES) and supervisory 

special agent (GS-14 and GS-15) positions is higher than in nonsupervisory 

(GS-7 to GS-13) ranks. (See table 3.) In September 2002, 36.7 percent of 

DEA’s SES special agents, 23.2 percent of supervisors, and 18.4 percent of 

nonsupervisory special agents were members of minority groups. This was 

particularly noticeable for African American and Hispanic special agents. 

African Americans were 12.2 percent of SES special agents, 10.4 percent of 

supervisors, and 7.5 percent of nonsupervisory special agents, while 

Hispanics were 22.4 percent of SES special agents, 10 percent of 

supervisors, and 8.2 percent of nonsupervisory special agents. For women, 

the situation was similar in that women made up 10.2 percent of SES 

special agents, which was higher than their representation in the 

nonsupervisory and supervisory ranks. However, their representation in 

the nonsupervisory ranks (8.8 percent) was higher than their 

representation among supervisors (6.6 percent). Table 3 shows the 

Yeara

Asian/Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American

Total

minorities White Women

1980 1.1% 7.9% 9.5% 0.6% 19.1% 80.9% 2.3%

1985 1.2% 9.2% 9.9% 0.8% 21.1% 78.9% 7.2%

1990 1.4% 10.0% 10.0% 0.8% 22.2% 77.8% 7.1%

1995 1.9% 9.5% 9.7% 0.6% 21.7% 78.3% 7.6%

2000 2.1% 8.2% 8.9% 0.6% 19.8% 80.2% 8.0%

2002 2.2% 8.2% 8.8% 0.5% 19.7% 80.3% 8.3%
Page 13 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

distribution of DEA special agents in nonsupervisory, supervisory, and SES 

positions by equal employment opportunity (EEO) group in September 

2002.

Table 3: Distribution of DEA Special Agents in Nonsupervisory, Supervisory, and SES Positions by EEO Group, September 2002

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data. 

Note: Racial and ethnic categories include men and women; the women category includes women of 

all races and ethnicities.

The implication of the inverted pyramid is that DEA could face problems in 

enhancing, or even maintaining, diversity in the agency’s upper ranks in the 

near future as supervisory and SES special agents retire or otherwise leave 

DEA. The extent of future attrition in DEA’s upper ranks (and at all levels) 

is unclear because DEA has not performed a sufficient workforce analysis. 

However, if governmentwide estimates are any indication, DEA could be 

facing high levels of attrition. According to our estimates, 27 percent of 

federal criminal investigators on board in fiscal year 1998 were expected to 

retire from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2006.15

Our work in the human capital area, as discussed in A Model of Strategic 

Human Capital Management, found that high-performing organizations 

identify their current and future human capital needs and then create

Positions Total

Asian/Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American

Total

minorities White Women

SES

Number 49 0 6 11 1 18 31 5

Percentage 100% 0.0% 12.2% 22.4% 2.0% 36.7% 63.3% 10.2%

Supervisory--GS-14 and 15

Number 1,009 19 105 101 9 234 775 67

Percentage 100% 1.9% 10.4% 10.0% 0.9% 23.2% 76.8% 6.6%

Nonsupervisory--GS-7 to 13

Number 3,423 78 256 282 13 629 2794 301

Percentage 100% 2.3% 7.5% 8.2% 0.4% 18.4% 81.6% 8.8%

15U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over 

the Next 5 Years Illustrates the Need for Workforce Planning, GAO-01-509 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 27, 2001).
Page 14 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

strategies for filling these needs.16 In May 2001, the Office of Management 

and Budget instructed each federal agency to provide information on the 

demographics of its workforce, including age, grade, retirement eligibility, 

and expected retirements over the next 5 years, and attrition, including 

trends in recent retirements over the past 5 years. 17 Such an analysis could 

guide the development of DEA’s recruiting and hiring plans and strategies 

for a diverse special agent workforce. However, DEA’s workforce analysis 

is limited to examining attrition data for the previous 24 months to estimate 

the coming year’s hiring needs. The agency has not developed estimates on 

the number of its special agents who are or will become eligible for 

retirement or reach mandatory retirement age18 over the next 5 years or 

longer and how this could affect the diversity of the special agent 

workforce at the supervisory and SES levels and future recruiting needs. 

DEA has faced challenges in meeting its special agent workforce needs. As 

we will discuss later in this report, in addition to the high percentage of 

applicants failing to meet DEA’s hiring standards during the 1997-2002 time 

frame covered by our review, a large number of applicants dropped out of 

the hiring process. DEA officials said that many of them dropped out 

because of the lengthy hiring process, which, the officials said, was 

averaging about 2 years. As a result, DEA was left with a relatively small 

pool of candidates meeting its hiring standards from which the agency 

could hire. In fact, virtually everyone who made it through all the steps in 

the hiring process was offered employment. DEA officials said that it 

would be preferable to have a larger pool of suitable candidates from which 

the agency could select. Because the agency is concerned about having lost 

quality candidates that could have enhanced the agency’s skills base and 

diversity due to the long hiring process and not having a larger pool of 

suitable candidates from which to choose, DEA implemented hiring 

process changes in December 2002 in an attempt to reduce the time to hire 

a special agent. In February 2003, the coordinator of the hiring project said 

it was too early to tell the extent to which time efficiencies were being 

realized. 

16U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).

17OMB Bulletin No. 01-07, May 8, 2001.

18Special agents can retire at any age with 25 years of service or at age 50 with 20 years of 

service and reach mandatory retirement at age 57.
Page 15 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

A Higher Proportion of 

Minority Applicants 

Did Not Meet Hiring 

Requirements

DEA’s multistep recruitment and hiring process is intended to assess 

whether an applicant demonstrates the competencies, physical and 

psychological fitness, and personal integrity and character required of a 

DEA special agent. Following an initial qualifications review for basic 

requirements like education and citizenship, an applicant must pass a 

written assessment, interview, medical examination, and physical task test. 

An applicant is also subject to psychological testing, a polygraph 

examination, and a background examination, which are used to make a 

suitability determination.19 Using the 80 percent rule, we found that a 

higher proportion of minorities, particularly African Americans and 

Hispanics, did not meet the requirements to become a special agent in all 

the steps in DEA’s hiring process except for the interview and medical 

examination steps. Overall, minority special agent applicants were selected 

at lower rates, compared with white applicants. The Uniform Guidelines

require an employer to study the job-relatedness of selection procedures 

when there are substantial differences in the selection rate for any race, 

ethnic, or gender group. DEA’s hiring procedures appear job related and 

consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection 

Procedures in that they are based on criteria in regulations, professional 

standards, or standards established by subject matter experts. However, 

the agency had not studied the effects of these procedures on minorities 

and women and whether the procedures could be modified to lessen the 

differences without compromising the high standards necessary to perform 

the job successfully. 

Qualifications Review As the first step in the special agent hiring process, DEA reviews and rates 

applications20 to determine whether an applicant meets minimum 

requirements for the special agent position—a bachelor’s degree and 

19Applicants meeting minimum eligibility requirements receive conditional offers of 

employment. Applicants passing all phases of the hiring process receive final offers of 

employment.

20DEA solicits applicants by recruiting at colleges, including colleges with high minority and 

women enrollments; placing ads in publications targeting minority audiences; and reaching 

out to law enforcement organizations, professional associations (e.g., Asian American 

Police Officers Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, 

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and Women in Federal Law 

Enforcement), and advocacy groups (e.g., Blacks in Government). In addition, DEA’s special 

agent vacancy announcement is posted on USAJOBS, the Web site for federal jobs 

(http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/).
Page 16 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

specialized skills or substantive experience, especially in law 

enforcement.21 DEA officials said that the experience requirement was a 

barrier to recruiting minority and women college graduates with diversified 

skills.22 As a result, in May 2000, DEA changed its policy so that applicants 

with bachelor’s degrees in special skills areas—economics, accounting, 

computer science/information systems, certain foreign languages,23

finance, mechanical/electrical/telecommunications engineering, or 

criminal justice—would meet minimum requirements without having 

additional experience. 

We reviewed DEA's actions on applications received under the two most 

recent vacancy announcements—BA-98-01 and BA-20-00.24 The proportion 

of minority applicants increased from 27 percent for BA-98-01 to 31 percent 

for BA-20-00. Similarly, the proportion of women applicants increased, 

from 12.7 percent under BA-98-01 to 16.4 percent under BA-20-00. Table 4 

shows the demographic distribution of applicants reviewed and rated 

under both vacancy announcements. We show the results separately for 

BA-98-01 and BA-20-00 because of the revised qualifications under 

BA-20-00.

Table 4: Demographic Profile of Applicants under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002 

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

21DEA also determines whether an applicant meets other eligibility requirements (e.g., must 

be a U.S. citizen) and has no disqualifying criminal or drug use history disclosed on the 

application form.

22In rating applications, DEA had awarded points for education and experience. The number 

of points awarded for a bachelor’s degree alone did not enable an applicant to meet 

minimum requirements. Points awarded for experience varied based on the type and length 

of experience. For example, more points were awarded for law enforcement narcotics and 

investigative experience, compared with professional/administrative experience.

23The languages are Spanish, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic, Nigerian, Chinese, and Japanese, 

with fluency verified.

24BA-98-01 was open from October 15, 1997, through March 7, 2000, and BA-20-00 opened on 

May 8, 2000, and remained open during our review. 

Asian/Pacific Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Total

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

BA-98-01 0.4% 3.2% 2.4% 10.7% 1.3% 8.2% 0.1% 0.7% 8.5% 64.5% 12.7% 87.3%

BA-20-00 0.6% 3.6% 3.6% 11.0% 2.6% 8.4% 0.1% 0.8% 9.5% 59.8% 16.4% 83.6%
Page 17 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

The extent to which DEA found that applicants met its minimum 

requirements was uneven. Applications from African American women, in 

particular, were much less likely to meet DEA’s minimum education and 

experience requirements, even after BA-20-00 changed the criteria for 

awarding credit for special skills. We show the results separately for BA-98-

01 and BA-20-00 in table 5 below because of the revised qualifications 

under BA-20-00.

Table 5: Percentage of Applicants Meeting Minimum Requirements under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 

2002

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

Written Assessment Applicants who meet DEA’s minimum qualifications requirements must 

then pass a written assessment of their ability to (1) observe and recall 

details, (2) organize the details in a writing sample, and (3) write in a 

grammatically correct manner. The assessment, which consists of showing 

applicants a videotape of a simulated “drug bust” and asking them to write 

a narrative describing what was observed, was developed by subject matter 

experts and tested to help ensure job-relatedness. The written assessment 

is administered, and applicants’ narratives are first reviewed and rated, in a 

field division. Later, headquarters staff review the narratives, in order to 

help assure DEA-wide consistency with established rating standards. 

Because of concerns about low passing rates of African American and 

Hispanic applicants, based on the recommendation of an advisory panel of 

subject matter experts, DEA changed scoring criteria under BA-20-00 by 

reducing the number of details from the videotape that applicants were 

expected to recall and identify. At the same time, however, responding to 

senior special agents’ concerns that newer special agents lacked the 

writing skills necessary for preparing investigation reports and other 

documents, DEA required that applicants pass all three parts of the written 

assessment, not two, as had been the policy under BA-98-01. These changes 

resulted in lower passing rates for all applicant groups. However, the 

passing rates for African American men, Hispanic men, and Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Total

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

BA-98-01 62.5% 82.7% 56.6% 73.6% 79.1% 86.9% 70.0% 77.6% 66.9% 75.6% 66.1% 76.7%

BA-20-00 75.8% 85.0% 56.0% 65.3% 74.7% 79.8% 75.0% 72.1% 72.7% 78.4% 69.4% 77.0%
Page 18 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

women under BA-20-00 were substantially lower compared with white 

women, who had the highest passing rate. In table 6 below, we show the 

passing rates separately for BA-98-01 and BA-20-00 because of the changes 

to the written assessment under BA-20-00.

Table 6: Percentage of Applicants Passing Written Assessment under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 

2002

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a

Small number of applicants precluded meaningful application of the 80 percent rule. 

DEA officials had not studied the effects of the changes to the written 

assessment and were unaware of the lower pass rates. However, they said 

the lower pass rates might be an unintended result of requiring applicants 

to pass all three parts. 

Interview A panel of three special agents at a field division office interviews 

applicants who pass the written assessment. The interview follows a 

structured format of 21 questions to elicit responses to evaluate an 

applicant’s abilities in (1) structuring work activities, (2) demonstrating 

interpersonal skills, (3) tolerating stress, (4) evaluating information, and 

(5) communicating orally. Special agents and Office of Personnel staff 

involved in recruiting developed the interview questions and pilot tested 

them to help assure their job-relatedness.25 The interview panel rates 

applicants in accordance with established standards and the Special Agent 

Recruitment Unit staff in headquarters later reviews ratings to check that 

panelists adequately documented their assessment and adhered to the 

rating standards. 

As table 7 shows, interview-passing rates showed relatively little variation, 

with about 90 percent of all applicants passing. 

Asian/Pacific Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Total

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

BA-98-01 a 89.0% 93.5% 84.6% 87.5% 80.3% a a 94.5% 91.9% 93.7% 89.5%

BA-20-00 a 76.4% 78.9% 71.3% 64.5% 63.4% a a 91.8% 82.9% 84.2% 79.2%

25The questions are modified periodically to protect the integrity of the testing process.
Page 19 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 7: Applicant Interview Passing Rates under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a Small number of applicants precluded meaningful application of the 80 percent rule. 

Medical Examination Applicants who pass the written assessment and interview are scheduled 

for a medical examination and, if they pass, are scheduled for the physical 

task test. According to DEA’s Chief Medical Officer, the medical 

examination follows standards developed by the Federal Law Enforcement 

Medical Program Division of the Public Health Service, based on a 1999 

survey of the physical demands of a special agent’s job. Prior to 1999, DEA 

followed OPM-prescribed medical standards. About 95 percent of 

applicants passed the medical exam and there was little difference in the 

pass rates among the applicant groups, as table 8 shows.

Table 8: Applicant Medical Examination Passing Rates under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002 

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a

Small number of applicants precluded meaningful application of the 80 percent rule. 

Physical Task Test The physical task test is the next step for applicants who have passed the 

interview and medical examination. This test, intended to measure an 

applicant’s ability to participate in physical activity during Basic Agent 

Training, consists of six tasks—pull-ups, sit-ups, push-ups, shuttle run,26

Asian/Pacific Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Total

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

BA-98-01 a 87.7% a 92.5% a 89.9% a a 90.8% 91.6% 90.6% 91.3%

BA-20-00 a 91.4% 85.7% 89.0% a 82.6% a a 90.1% 90.1% 88.9% 89.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Total

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

BA-98-01 a 92.2% a 96.0% a 97.0% a a 96.1% 93.6% 96.1% 94.2%

BA-20-00 a 97.8% 96.8% 98.0% a 96.4% a a 99.0% 96.4% 98.1% 96.5%

26The shuttle requires the applicant to start from a resting position on his/her back and jump 

up and run 60 yards up and back around traffic cones set on the floor.
Page 20 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

2-mile run, and, until March 2003, the handgun trigger pull.27 (See app. II for 

physical task test minimum requirements.) According to the Chief of DEA’s 

Health Services Unit and the unit’s Health Fitness Specialist, the physical 

task test format (except for the trigger pull test) is based on standards 

developed by the Cooper Institute,28 which reports that the fitness tests it 

recommends for law enforcement have been validated through scientific 

research to be job related. With regard to the handgun trigger pull, a DEA 

official formerly with DEA’s Firearms Training Unit said that the unit 

developed the trigger pull standard based on tests of Basic Agent Training 

students. 

Overall, men had a higher passing rate on the physical task test than 

women.29 African American applicants passed the physical task test at rates 

lower than other groups. In fact, African American applicants had a 

significantly lower passing rate under BA-20-00, as table 9 shows.30

Table 9: Percentage of Applicants Passing the Physical Task Test under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 

2002 

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a

Small number of applicants precluded meaningful application of the 80 percent rule. 

DEA officials had not studied physical task test trends and did not know 

which test tasks accounted for lower pass rates. The Chief of DEA’s Health 

Services Unit and the unit’s Health Fitness Specialist said that they would 

27DEA eliminated the trigger pull test based on recommendations from the DEA Firearms 

Training Unit.

28The Cooper Institute is nationally recognized for aerobics research and work with fitness 

programs for law enforcement, public safety, and the military.

29Failure of the initial physical task test is not automatically disqualifying. Applicants are 

given 30 days to retake and pass the test. Data we analyzed reflect the latest physical task 

test results. 

30For this analysis, we combined men and women of each race because of the small number 

of minority women.

Asian/Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men

BA-98-01 73.9% 66.9% 77.7% a 81.9% 73.2% 79.8%

BA-20-00 78.3% 64.6% 70.9% a 81.2% 64.2% 80.5%
Page 21 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

examine test results for the physical task test components as they look into 

updating the physical task test to be consistent with contemporary 

standards. 

Suitability Applicants passing the physical task test are scheduled for polygraph and 

psychological tests and a background investigation to assess their 

character and conduct. DEA special agents trained as polygraphists 

administer the polygraph test in accordance with standardized techniques 

and procedures for conducting polygraph examinations established by the 

Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.31 For quality assurance, senior 

polygraphists in DEA headquarters review test results, including the 

audiotape made during each polygraph session. For the psychological 

assessment, a licensed psychologist under contract with DEA reviews two 

validated written psychological tests32 and DEA’s Life Experiences 

Inventory completed by the applicant, interviews the applicant, and 

prepares an overall assessment, which a DEA psychologist reviews. DEA 

contracts with OPM to do full-field background investigations on special 

agent applicants in accordance with federal regulations.33 The investigation 

develops information through interviews with coworkers, employers, 

friends, educators, neighbors, and other individuals; a personal interview 

with the applicant; and records checks of investigative files and other 

records held by federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement and 

court records. In addition, an applicant is subject to a financial review, 

including a credit bureau check.

The results of the polygraph and psychological tests and the background 

investigation are considered together for a suitability determination. 

Suitability determinations are made in accordance with federal

31This institute establishes standards for federal agency polygraph programs and trains all 

federal polygraph examiners. In addition, the institute conducts ongoing evaluations of the 

validity of polygraph techniques used by federal examiners and inspects federal polygraph 

programs to ensure compliance with both those techniques and procedures. The institute 

last inspected DEA’s polygraph program in January 2001 and found the program’s policies 

and procedures were in compliance with the standards for a federal government polygraph 

program.

32The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, a test of adult psychopathology, and 

the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire, a personality assessment instrument.

335 C.F.R. parts 731, 732, and 736.
Page 22 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

regulations34 by the approving official in the Office of Personnel or, where 

there is a question about an applicant’s suitability,35 by a three-person panel 

called the “1811-hiring panel.”36 DEA officials said that the panel approach 

helps to assure consistency in applying criteria in cases in which there is 

some question about an applicant’s suitability. To come to a determination 

about an applicant’s suitability, the three panel members must be in 

agreement. If the approving official or the panel approves an applicant, he 

or she is offered employment. 

Our analysis of suitability determinations showed that, overall, DEA found 

67 percent of applicants, for whom a suitability determination was made, 

suitable to be special agents, with women found suitable at higher rates 

than men. However, the approval rate for African Americans—55.2 

percent—was substantially lower. (See table 10.)37

Table 10: Percentage of Applicants Found Suitable under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002 

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a

Small number of applicants precluded meaningful application of the 80 percent rule. 

The approving official and current and former 1811 panel members said 

that they had not examined the results of their decisions and could not 

345 C.F.R. 731.202.

35According to the criteria, factors that may be considered a basis in finding an individual 

unsuitable include misconduct or negligence in employment; criminal or dishonest conduct; 

alcohol abuse; and illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other controlled substances.

36The approving official in the Office of Personnel and the two permanent members of the 

1811-hiring panel have received training in making suitability determinations, as have some 

rotating panel members. In addition, during 2002, field division staff began to receive 

suitability determination training. Field divisions make suitability recommendations to the 

Office of Personnel. 

37For this analysis, we combined men and women for each race because of the small 

numbers of minority women. We also combined the results under both announcements 

because only about 2 percent of the applicants who underwent a suitability review were 

applicants under BA-20-00. 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men Total

73.9% 55.2% 66.4% a 68.6% 74.8% 66.2% 67.0%
Page 23 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

explain why African Americans fared worse than other applicants or 

whether specific disqualifying factors predominate among one group. They 

also said that, generally, they were not aware of an applicant’s race when 

making their determinations. Since the panel was established in 1997, at 

least one and sometimes two of the three panel members have been 

minorities.

Because the 1811 hiring panel makes about 80 percent of the suitability 

determinations, we developed information about the panel’s decisions. Our 

analysis of the panel’s data found that the panel approved about 49 percent 

of applicants it reviewed, while finding about 36 percent of African 

Americans suitable. (See table 11.) 

Table 11: Percentage of Applicants Found Suitable by the 1811 Hiring Panel, September 29, 2000, to May 7, 2002

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a

Small number of applicants precluded meaningful application of the 80 percent rule. 

Data showed that most (82.7 percent) of the applicants whose suitability 

was adjudicated by the panel presented multiple issues for adjudication. 

The most frequently identified issues related to an applicant’s 

psychological assessment (60.6 percent of referred files), polygraph 

examination (36.4 percent), driving record (27 percent), not being 

recommended by a SAC (26.5 percent), admissions such as drug use on the 

Life Experiences Inventory (22.4 percent), and credit issues (17 percent). 

Among African American applicants, the most frequently identified reasons 

related to the psychological assessment (69.6 percent), not being 

recommended by a SAC (34.8 percent), driving record (30.4 percent), credit 

issues (21.7 percent), and admissions on the Life Experiences Inventory 

(17.4 percent). The panel’s database did not show the basis for its 

decisions. 

Final Hiring Results As of March 31, 2002, from the 10,748 applications found to meet its 

minimum requirements under announcements BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, DEA 

hired 793 applicants, while rejecting 3,038 applicants who did not pass the 

written assessment, interview, medical or physical task test, or were found 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander

 African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men Total

50.0% 36.2% 55.3% a 50.9% 57.8% 48.1% 49.1%
Page 24 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

unsuitable. The remaining 6,917 applicants had opted out or were still in 

process. Overall, we found that about 20 percent of applicants on whom 

DEA made a final eligibility determination met the special agent hiring 

standards and were selected for training. However, we found that 

minorities met DEA’s hiring standards at lower rates than white applicants, 

with African American and Hispanic applicants meeting the standards and 

being selected at substantially lower rates. (See table 12.) 

Table 12: Overall Selection Rates for Applicants for Whom DEA Made Hiring Eligibility Determinations under BA-98-01 and BA20-00, by EEO Group, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a Small number of applicants precluded meaningful application of the 80 percent rule. 

DEA’s hiring decisions were somewhat less diverse, compared with the 

pool of applicants that met DEA’s minimum education, skills, and 

experience requirements. As table 13 shows, African Americans, Hispanics, 

and women represented a smaller proportion of the special agents hired 

under BA-98-01 and BA-20-00, compared with applicants who initially met 

minimum requirements, while the proportion of whites increased. 

Table 13: Demographic Profile of Applicants Who Met Minimum Requirements and Applicants Hired under BA-98-01 and BA-20-

00, October 15, 1997, to March 31, 2002

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

Asian/Pacific 

Islander

 African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men Total

18.7% 13.7% 15.8% a 22.9% 20.0% 20.3% 20.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Total

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

Meeting minimum requirements

Number 45 405 232 1,080 200 992 13 76 876 6,829 1,366 9,382

Percent 0.4% 3.8% 2.2% 10.0% 1.9% 9.2% 0.1% 0.7% 8.2% 63.5% 12.7% 87.3%

Hired

Number 3 31 7 72 12 71 2 1 62 532 86 707

Percent 0.4% 3.9% 0.9% 9.1% 1.5% 9.0% 0.3% 0.1% 7.8% 67.1% 10.8% 89.2%
Page 25 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

DEA offers employment to virtually all applicants who make it all the way 

through its hiring process. Because the agency is concerned about having 

lost quality candidates that could have enhanced the agency’s skills base 

and diversity due to the long hiring process (which had been averaging 

about 2 years) and not having a larger pool of suitable candidates from 

which to choose, DEA made reforms to its recruiting and hiring process 

that had been implemented agencywide by December 2002. The reforms 

include giving the field more responsibility for managing the hiring process 

and avoiding time-consuming back-and-forth actions between the field and 

headquarters. For example, field recruiters are to conduct criminal history 

and credit records checks to identify unqualified applicants before, rather 

than after, an application package is forwarded to headquarters, in order to 

reduce the number of application packages reviewed. These preliminary 

records checks will also help eliminate the need for costly background 

investigations when an applicant is identified as unqualified, according to 

DEA. In addition, background investigations are to be initiated earlier in 

the process and by field offices, which also are to review the investigation 

results, perform necessary follow-up, and make preliminary suitability 

recommendations. Previously, background investigations had been 

managed by headquarters, which referred follow-up questions to the field. 

In addition, suitability determinations will be made before security 

clearance reviews are conducted. This will help reduce the security 

clearance backlog, which had been a major contributor to delays in the 

hiring process, and reduce the need to update stale applicant information 

when suitability determinations are made. 

No Statistically 

Significant Differences 

in Promotion Rates

DEA’s process for promoting special agents to GS-14 and GS-15 positions 

has been in place since 1992. The first step is the Special Agent Promotion 

Program (SAPP), which uses a supervisor’s performance rating and job 

simulation exercises at an assessment center to measure the candidate’s 

knowledge and abilities to perform at the next grade level and determine 

which applicants for promotion are placed on a best-qualified list. The SAC 

or head of an office with a vacancy is asked to review the qualifications of 

best-qualified applicants and recommend his or her top choices to DEA’s 

Career Board, the head of which ultimately makes promotion decisions. 

Our analysis showed that although African American and Hispanic special 

agents received promotion recommendations at lower rates than white 

agents, particularly for promotions to GS-14, there were no statistically 

significant differences in promotion rates among the various race, ethnic, 

and gender groups. 
Page 26 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Special Agent Promotion 

Program

The SAPP establishes which GS-13 and GS-14 special agents can compete 

for promotions. The SAPP is an annual process that was developed by an 

outside consultant in response to the 1981 Segar decision. The Working 

Group reviewed and approved its development. From 1997 to 2001, 1,355 

GS-13 and 423 GS-14 special agents participated in the SAPP. 38 Of the GS13s participating in the SAPP, 25.5 percent were minorities—mostly African 

American and Hispanic—and 7.4 percent were women. Among the GS-14s, 

28.4 percent were minorities—mostly African American and Hispanic—and 

8.5 percent were women. Table 14 shows the demographics of the GS-13 

and GS-14 special agent SAPP participants for 1997 through 2001.39 In our 

analysis of promotion-related results, we combine men and women for 

each race because of the small number of minority women.

Table 14: Special Agents Participating in the SAPP, 1997-2001

Source: SAPP reports for 1997 through 2001.

The SAPP has two components: the performance rating on the 

competencies needed at the next higher grade level and testing at an 

assessment center in which job simulations are used to measure a special 

agent’s knowledge and abilities needed at the next level. 

38To participate in the SAPP, a GS-13 must have 3 years in grade while a GS-14 is required to 

have 4 years in grade. 

39Included in these totals are retest candidates. A special agent is eligible to take the SAPP 

again 2 years after his or her last participation. Of the 1,355 GS-13 SAPP participants, 406 (30 

percent) were retest candidates, while 103 (24 percent) of the 423 GS-14 SAPP participants 

were retest candidates. 

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Total Women Men

GS-13

Participants 24 152 161 9 999 1,355 100 1,255

Percentage of total 

participants

1.8% 11.2 11.9 0.7 73.7 100.0 7.4 92.6

GS-14

Participants 10 56 51 3 303 423 36 387

Percentage of total 

participants

2.4% 13.2 12.1 0.7 71.6 100.0 8.5 91.5
Page 27 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

In the performance rating, special agents are evaluated on job-related 

competencies (see app. III) on a scale from 1 (unacceptable) to 5 

(exceptional). An agent’s most recent supervisor prepares the rating, which 

is reviewed by a SAC or office head to help ensure that performance 

standards are uniformly applied. Data for 1997 through 2001 show that 

average performance rating scale scores for SAPP participants were nearly 

uniformly exceptional—almost a perfect 5—for all groups, with no 

statistically significant differences in the scores among the various groups. 

In this regard, the 2001 SAPP report40 found that the rating scores did not 

differentiate between highly effective and less effective performers and 

showed little if any correlation to assessment center tests of similar 

competencies. Because performance rating scores for those who 

participate in the assessment center are uniformly high and do little to 

differentiate among candidates, a candidate’s assessment center score is 

the primary determinant of promotion competitiveness. 

The assessment center replicates a day in the life of a special agent through 

exercises simulating the job at the next higher level. DEA conducts two 

assessment centers each year, one for GS-13s aspiring to GS-14 level 

positions and another for GS-14s aspiring to become GS-15s, which are 

administered under a contract DEA awards annually.41 The assessment 

centers consist of role-play, in-basket,42 and, for GS-14s, oral presentation 

exercises simulating the job at the next higher level to measure a 

candidate’s performance in a variety of competencies. In 2001, GS-13 

special agents were evaluated on 12 competencies in assessment center 

simulations while GS-14 special agents were evaluated on 9 competencies. 

(See app. III.) The original job simulations were developed following a 

content-oriented validation strategy consistent with the Uniform 

Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and the Principles for 

Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures.43 This was done by

402001 DEA Special Agent Promotional Programs (SAPPs) for Grades 14 and 15: Revision 

and Administration. Prepared for the Drug Enforcement Administration by Fields 

Consulting Group, Inc. (McLean, Va.: Sept. 2001).

41The same contractor was involved in the administration of the 1998-2002 SAPPs.

42The in-basket contains contents similar to those that are found in the in-basket for the job 

that is being tested.

43Principles for Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures was adopted by the 

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, a division of the American 

Psychological Association, to provide guidelines for the evaluation, development, and use of 

testing instruments. 
Page 28 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

detailing special agents’ job tasks and the knowledge and abilities required 

to perform those tasks, establishing linkages between job tasks and the 

knowledge and abilities required, and demonstrating linkages between the 

required knowledge and abilities and selection procedures.44 The 2001 

SAPP report noted that there is extensive literature documenting the 

validity of job simulations for predicting supervisory and managerial 

performance and that simulation measures are viewed as having a 

potentially high degree of content validity, thereby reducing the possibility 

of discrimination.

DEA special agents trained by the contractor serve as assessors. To 

minimize the degree of candidate/assessor familiarity and partiality when 

assigning candidates to assessors, the assessment centers director collects 

familiarity and partiality ratings from assessors to determine the extent to 

which assessors know a promotion candidate and how impartially the 

assessors believe they could evaluate the candidate. Another way of 

fostering fairness is through the representation of minorities and women 

among the assessors. Overall, during the 1997-2001 period, the proportion 

of minority and women assessors for both the GS-14 and GS-15 assessment 

centers exceeded the proportion of minorities and women participating in 

the GS-14 and GS-15 SAPPs.45 As a check on how assessors carry out 

exercises and developed scores, the assessment centers director reviews 

videotapes of exercises, evaluates assessors’ notes, and independently 

scores candidates’ performances. In addition, the director surveys 

candidates and prepares a report on the results of each assessment center. 

The report analyzes overall scores for each assessment center and scores 

by competency and exercise, comparing the scores of African Americans 

and whites and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics and whites,46 to identify 

44An updated job analysis was completed in June 2002 and will be considered in revising the 

SAPP for 2003.

45Minorities accounted for about 35 percent of assessors in the GS-14 SAPP, while 

approximately 26 percent of participants were minorities. Women were 8.4 percent of GS-14 

SAPP assessors, while 7.4 percent of participants were women. For the GS-15 SAPP, 

minorities accounted for about 38 percent of assessors versus about 28 percent of 

participants, while women were 9.7 percent of assessors versus 8.5 percent of participants.

46The scores of Asian/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans are not analyzed because their 

small numbers are insufficient for reliable statistical analysis, according to Working Group 

members. The Validation and Analysis Unit Chief and Working Group members said gender 

analysis is not performed because early analysis found no statistically significant 

differences between women and men. A Working Group member said, however, that 

analysis of assessment center results should include women.
Page 29 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

competencies in which larger and smaller race/national origin effects were 

observed and suggest possible areas for concentrating test improvement, 

training, and developmental efforts. In this regard, the contractor made a 

number of revisions each year from 1997 through 2001 to the assessment 

centers exercises in an attempt to reduce differences.47

The Working Group plays an integral role in the assessment centers. 

Working Group members said that they oversee the development of the 

exercises, approve the design of the annual assessment centers, monitor 

the proceedings, and review and approve the overall results. As part of 

their oversight, they said that they meet with participants to get their 

feedback and review videotapes of the role-play exercises to determine if 

they were conducted fairly and properly. They described the assessment 

centers as first-class operations that meet standards for fair treatment and 

valid procedures. They also said that differences in scores among groups 

have not been statistically significant and that differences in scores among 

the candidates are due to factors other than the testing procedures. The 

Working Group members said that the strengths of the assessment centers 

are that the exercises appropriately reflect results of job analysis, the 

assessors are well trained, the assessors’ ratings and the rating measures 

are reliable, and the process is checked for adverse impact using statistical 

tests. Overall, they said that the assessment center process is a valid way of 

selecting a supervisor because it asks candidates to perform supervisory 

tasks. Moreover, OPM has described the SAPP as a “success story” in its 

use of leadership competencies in making supervisory selections.48

The performance rating and assessment center scores each account for 

half in developing an overall SAPP score for each candidate. As table 15 

shows, white participants generally had somewhat higher SAPP scores, 

although the differences from the other groups were not statistically 

significant, according to the Working Group. Men tended to have higher 

scores in the GS-14 assessment center, but women tended to have higher 

scores in the GS-15 assessment center.

47For example, because race/national origin score differences were attributed to the inbasket exercises of both assessment centers, the in-basket exercises were revised over the 

1997-2001 period for both assessment centers. Among the revisions were reducing the 

number of items in the in-basket, strengthening the relationship of in-basket items to 

dimensions measured, and increasing the time allowed for the exercise. 

48U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Supervisors in the Federal Government: A WakeUp Call (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001).
Page 30 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 15: Average SAPP Scores, 1997-2001

Source: DEA.

a

No member of group participated.

The SAPP scores are used to establish score bands that determine which 

special agents make the best-qualified list for GS-14 and GS-15 vacancies.49

Under the SAPP, the size of the score band for GS-14 positions is 10 points, 

while the score band for GS-15 positions is 11 points. The actual score band 

for a particular vacancy is determined by the applicant with the highest 

SAPP score. For GS-14 positions, for example, if the highest-scoring 

applicant has a SAPP score of 95, the score band for that vacancy is 86 to 

95; and applicants with scores of at least 86 would be placed on the bestqualified list. Similarly, if the highest-scoring applicant for a GS-15 vacancy 

has a SAPP score of 95, the score band for that vacancy is 85 to 95, and 

applicants with scores of at least 85 would be placed on the best-qualified 

list. 

Year

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men

GS-14 assessment center

1997 87.33 83.92 80.57 87.50 86.20 86.18 85.12

1998 81.67 82.88 83.74 91.00 86.14 84.11 85.36

1999 85.67 82.85 85.51 83.00 85.36 84.44 85.17

2000 85.71 82.85 81.83 81.00 85.96 84.13 85.35

2001 82.20 83.53 82.75 a 86.13 85.06 85.28

GS-15 assessment center

1997 a 81.08 85.32 a 86.57 86.88 85.32

1998 84.50 81.75 84.80 a 86.63 88.00 84.81

1999 82.50 80.45 84.50 93.00 86.29 81.75 85.41

2000 92.00 83.90 82.75 a 85.63 87.50 84.82

2001 81.40 84.87 80.09 86.00 85.99 87.20 85.14

49The score bands are designed to help ensure that candidates having similar levels of 

knowledge and abilities are not penalized because of errors of measurement. The use of 

score bands is based on the rationale that the measurement of abilities using predictor tests 

results in some error with each candidate. The measurement error associated with tests 

means that small differences in scores do not allow one to definitively say that one 

candidate will do better than another on a job.
Page 31 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

SAC/Office Head 

Recommendations

Once a best-qualified list is assembled for a particular vacancy, it is sent to 

the office with the vacancy to obtain the SAC’s (or office head’s) 

recommendations for promotion. The SAC’s recommendation is solicited 

because DEA believes that he or she is more familiar with the requirements 

of the position to be filled and is in a better position to assess candidates’ 

qualifications from their biographical and other information. A SAC 

typically recommends three individuals. The SAC/office head 

recommendation process was at the heart of the September 1999 district 

court decision that found that the process had not been validated and 

resulted in African American applicants receiving recommendations at 

statistically significant lower rates that whites. In addition to not having 

been validated, there was no format in place at the time of the 1999 

decision to assure that SACs evaluated candidates using knowledge, skills, 

and abilities relevant to the vacant job. Following the court decision, which 

required DEA to either drop the SAC/office head recommendation process 

or stop making promotions to GS-14 and GS-15 special agent positions until 

the use of the recommendations could be validated as job related, DEA and 

the plaintiffs reached a court-approved agreement allowing SAC/office 

head recommendations and promotions under certain terms and 

conditions until a permanent, validated process could be implemented. The 

interim process, which was implemented in January 2000 and was still in 

place as of March 2003, requires that a SAC provide information about why 

a candidate is better suited for the position under consideration, including 

his or her experience and success in job-related competencies (see app. 

III), when making recommendations.

Despite the changes to the process, differences in SAC/office head 

recommendation rates for applicants seeking promotion to GS-14 and GS15 positions continued. For GS-14 and GS-15 vacancy announcements that 

resulted in a promotion during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, we analyzed the 

number of times applicants on the best-qualified list received SAC/office 

head recommendations, compared with the number of times applicants 

appeared on best-qualified lists. (An applicant can apply for multiple 

positions and appear on multiple best-qualified lists.) We found that for 

promotions to GS-14, African American and Hispanic special agents 

received SAC/office head recommendations at statistically significant 

lower rates than white special agents. For GS-15 positions, African 

American special agents received SAC/office head recommendations at 

statistically significant lower rates than whites. Table 16 shows the 

frequency of applicants on best-qualified lists being recommended by 

SACs, 2000-2001.
Page 32 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 16: Frequency of Applicants Appearing on Best-Qualified Lists Being Recommended by SACs, 2000-01

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

a

Small numbers of applicants do not allow for statistical analysis.

At the time of our review, DEA, working with members of the Monitoring 

Committee and other special agents, had developed a revised 

recommendation process. The Working Group approved the revised 

process and said that it met the requirements of content validity as 

described in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. A 

major change under this process requires that a panel of three GS-14, GS15, or SES special agents at the location with a vacancy review and rank 

applicants on a best-qualified list based on job-related competencies (see 

app. III) and any special requirements of the position. The SAC would make 

his or her promotion recommendations from this list, providing a 

comprehensive justification in recommending an individual not ranked 

among the top three applicants. As part of its review and evaluation of the 

proposed process, DEA’s plan for oversight of the SAC/office head 

recommendation process included tracking the race of each person 

(1) appearing on a best qualified list, (2) recommended by a SAC, and 

(3) selected for promotion, and report these results periodically to the 

Segar plaintiffs’ counsel. However, the plan did not specifically include 

tracking results by gender. At the end of our fieldwork, the plaintiffs and 

DEA were involved in mediation efforts in order to reach final agreement 

on the recommendation process, particularly with regard to procedures for 

monitoring the implementation of the process. Approval by the court is 

required to complete settlement on this issue. 

Career Board Selections Promotion decisions for GS-14 and GS-15 special agent positions are made 

following deliberations by DEA’s Career Board. The Career Board’s 11 

voting members, who are DEA senior executives, make promotion 

recommendations by majority vote to the Career Board Chair, who

Recommended for

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men

GS-14 promotions 28.2% 6.0% 6.8% 16.7% 15.2% 11.7% 12.9%

GS-15 promotions 33.3% 5.5% 8.2% a 10.8% 12.6% 9.6%
Page 33 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

ultimately has responsibility and authority to make the selection decision.50

DEA makes promotion decisions on a position-by-position basis when 

vacancies become available, with a best-qualified list assembled for each 

vacancy based on applicants’ SAPP scores. However, minorities and 

women do not appear on a substantial portion of best-qualified lists 

because they do not apply for particular vacancies or because their SAPP 

scores are not high enough to place them among the best qualified.51

We analyzed the results of 641 promotions to GS-14 positions and 204 

promotions to GS-15 during fiscal years 1997 through 2001 and found that, 

despite differences in SAC/office head recommendation rates, there were 

no statistically significant differences in the rates at which the Career 

Board selected minorities and women for promotion. Our analysis showed 

only small differences in the rates at which African American, Hispanic, 

and white special agents were selected for promotion to GS-14 and GS-15 

positions. The numbers of Asian/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans 

eligible for promotion were too small for statistical analysis. Although 

women were somewhat less likely than men to be selected for promotion, 

this difference was not statistically significant. Table 17 shows the number 

of individuals on best qualified lists from which promotions were made and 

the number selected for promotion by EEO group for fiscal years 

1997-2001.

50In November 2002, the Career Board was increased from 10 to 11 voting members. At the 

same time, the number of SACs sitting on the board increased from 4 to 6, each serving timelimited tenures. The Administrator said that he made these changes to achieve rotation, 

greater participation, and transparency. 

51African Americans were represented on 71.5 percent, Hispanics on 57.4 percent, and 

women on 58.2 percent of GS-14 best-qualified lists from which promotions were made 

during fiscal years 1997 through 2001. In addition, African Americans were represented on 

87.3 percent, Hispanics on 81.9 percent, and women on 65.2 percent of GS-15 best-qualified 

lists from which promotions were made during this period.
Page 34 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 17: Individuals on at Least One Best-Qualified List from Which Promotions Were Made and Individuals Selected for 

Promotion, by EEO Group, Fiscal Years 1997-2001

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

DEA’s Discipline 

Process Has Been 

Found to Be 

Nondiscriminatory

DEA’s centralized disciplinary system was put in place in 1984 and, in 1988, 

was found to meet the court’s requirements for being effective and 

nondiscriminatory.52 The three-tiered system separates the responsibilities 

for investigating an allegation, proposing disposition, and making a final 

agency decision. Our analysis of disciplinary data for fiscal years 1997 

through 2001 showed that the proportion of African American, Hispanic, 

and women special agents disciplined was substantially higher than their 

representation in the DEA special agent workforce. This situation reflects 

that African American, Hispanic, and women special agents had a 

proportionately higher number of allegations of misconduct lodged against 

them and that a higher proportion of these allegations were substantiated 

by investigations and resulted in disciplinary action. Nonetheless, the 

results of two studies by outside contractors, approved by the Working 

Group, found DEA’s disciplinary process to be fair and nondiscriminatory. 

DEA’s Validated Discipline 

System 

DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is responsible for 

investigating all allegations of integrity violations (illegal or improper 

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men

Promotions to GS-14

Individuals on best-qualified lists 20 98 95 10 740 73 890

Number selected 14 64 65 7 491 44 597

Percentage selected 70.0% 65.3% 68.4% 70.0% 66.4% 60.3% 67.1%

Promotions to GS-15

Individuals on best-qualified lists 4 33 41 2 241 25 296

Number selected 1 20 26 1 156 14 190

Percentage selected 25.0% 60.6% 63.4% 50.0% 64.7% 56.0% 64.2%

52The court approved a stipulation between the parties that the disciplinary system met the 

court’s requirements. 
Page 35 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

conduct) and the vast majority of allegations of misconduct involving 

violations of DEA’s Standards of Conduct.53 OPR investigations are findings 

of fact and do not contain conclusions or recommendations.

The Board of Professional Conduct reviews investigation files in order to 

propose a disposition for a matter.54 In each case,55 two board members 

independently review the investigation report, the employee’s official 

personnel record, and how similar cases have been handled, and propose a 

disposition using the preponderance of the evidence standard.56 Board 

members are also to consider mitigating and aggravating factors known as 

the Douglas factors—derived from a Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB) 57 decision—in determining the appropriateness of a disciplinary 

action.58 The board’s chairman reviews their recommendations and the 

investigative file and issues the board’s proposed disposition. The board 

can propose that a special agent be cleared of alleged charges, receive a 

letter of caution,59 or be disciplined (receive a letter of reprimand, or be 

suspended, demoted, or removed).

The final agency decision is made by one of two deciding officials in 

headquarters using the preponderance of the evidence standard, after 

independently reviewing the proposed action and the investigation file and 

53The Department of Justice Inspector General reviews all complaints OPR receives and can 

decide to take the investigative lead.

54Investigations involving senior executives are forwarded to the Department of Justice for 

disposition. 

55The board also reviews investigations of shooting incidents, accidents involving official 

government vehicles, and damage or loss of government property.

56The degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a 

whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than 

untrue.

57MSPB hears and decides appeals by federal employees of actions taken against them by 

their agencies.

58Curtis Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280, 5 MSPB 313 (1981). The factors 

include the nature, seriousness, and notoriety of the offense; the position of the employee; 

past work and disciplinary record; effect of an offense on the employee’s ability to perform 

his or her job; and consistency with the agency’s penalty guide.

59A letter of caution is nondisciplinary in nature and issued in situations in which a charge is 

not sustained but the employee needs to be warned about the appearance of impropriety or 

situations in which a charge is sustained but does not warrant disciplinary action.
Page 36 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

consulting with employee relations specialists and the DEA Chief Counsel’s 

office. The deciding officials also apply the Douglas factors and other legal 

precedents. As part of the final decision process, an employee is provided 

the opportunity to review all evidence and make written and/or oral 

responses to the disciplinary charges. 

Higher Proportion of 

African American, Hispanic, 

and Women Special Agents 

Disciplined

Our analysis of disciplinary data for fiscal years 1997 to 2001 showed that 

the proportion of African American, Hispanic, and women special agents 

disciplined was substantially higher than their representation in the DEA 

special agent workforce and that this difference was statistically 

significant. During this period, African American special agents accounted 

for 16.2 percent of the agents disciplined, while making up 8.3 percent of 

the special agent workforce; Hispanics were 15.2 percent of agents 

disciplined, while making up 8.9 percent of the special agent workforce; 

and women were 12.7 percent of special agents disciplined but 7.8 percent 

of the special agent workforce. Table 18 shows special agents disciplined, 

compared with special agent population, by EEO group for fiscal years 

1997-2001.

Table 18: Special Agents Disciplined Compared with Special Agent Population, by EEO Group, Fiscal Years 1997-2001

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

We identified two factors that help explain why a higher proportion of 

African American, Hispanic, and women special agents were disciplined. 

One factor is that a proportionately higher number of allegations of 

misconduct were lodged against African American, Hispanic, and women, 

compared with their representation in the special agent workforce. These 

differences, shown in table 19, were statistically significant.

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men Total

Total disciplined 9 66 62 0 271 52 356 408

Percentage of total 

disciplined

2.2% 16.2% 15.2% 0.0% 66.4% 12.7% 87.3% 100.0%

Representation in special 

agent workforce

2.0% 8.3% 8.9% 0.6% 80.3% 7.8% 92.2% 100.0%
Page 37 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 19: Distribution of Cases of Alleged Misconduct Involving Special Agents, by EEO Group, Compared with Workforce 

Representation, Fiscal Years 1997-2001

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

The second factor that helps explain why a higher proportion of African 

American, Hispanic, and women special agents are disciplined is that a 

higher proportion of allegations levied against them are found after 

investigation to have merit and lead to disciplinary action. These 

differences, shown in table 20, were statistically significant.

Table 20: Cases of Alleged Misconduct Involving Special Agents That Resulted in Disciplinary Action, by EEO Group, Fiscal 

Years 1997-2001 

Source: GAO analysis of DEA data.

Note: Does not include cases administratively closed without a final decision.

a

Although the percentage of cases involving Asian/Pacific Islanders resulting in disciplinary action is 

larger than the figures for African Americans, Hispanics, and women, this percentage is not statistically 

different from the percentage for whites.

b

Small numbers prevented statistical analysis of allegations and disciplinary actions.

DEA does not know why nor does any study offer a reason why African 

American, Hispanic, and women special agents had proportionately higher 

numbers of allegations of misconduct lodged against them or why a higher 

proportion of these allegations were substantiated by investigations and 

resulted in disciplinary actions. 

Concerns with DEA’s 

Disciplinary Data

In performing our analysis, we found discrepancies between the 

disciplinary data maintained by the DEA Chief Counsel’s office that were

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic Native American White Women Men

Percentage of allegations 1.5% 12.8% 13.3% 0.1% 72.3% 10.5% 89.5%

Representation in special 

agent workforce

2.0% 8.3% 8.9% 0.6% 80.3% 7.8% 92.2%

Total

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

African

American Hispanic

Native

American White Women Men

Percentage of cases 

resulting in discipline 47.0% 64.3%a 59.5% 53.4% b 43.2% 57.1% 45.8%
Page 38 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

reported to us and data the DEA Office of Equal Opportunity reported to 

the Monitoring Committee. We brought these discrepancies to DEA’s 

attention, and significant time was needed to develop corrected data. The 

corrected data showed that data reported by the Chief Counsel’s office 

were incomplete while data reported by the Office of Equal Opportunity 

counted some cases twice. Accurate and reliable data are important to 

DEA monitoring its disciplinary process. At the time of our review, DEA 

was looking into but had not developed a process to help ensure accurate 

and reliable reporting of disciplinary data.

Studies Have Found DEA’s 

Disciplinary Process to Be 

Fair and Nondiscriminatory 

Two studies done by outside contractors, which we found to be 

methodologically sound, have found DEA’s disciplinary process to be fair 

and nondiscriminatory. The first study, done under a contract awarded by 

the Working Group in order for DEA to comply with the court order in the 

Segar case, analyzed 318 disciplinary cases for the period September 1982 

through June 1986 to determine whether disciplinary action taken was 

consistent with the offense or offenses committed and whether special 

agents were treated alike regardless of race.60 Of the 318 cases, 239 cases 

(75.2 percent) involved white special agents, 32 (10.1 percent) involved 

African Americans, 36 (11.3 percent) involved Hispanics, and 11 (3.5 

percent) involved other racial/ethnic groups. The percentage of African 

American and Hispanic special agents disciplined was higher than their 

representation in the special agent workforce. African Americans, who 

were 10.1 percent of the agents disciplined, made up about 8.5 percent of 

the special agent workforce during the period, and Hispanics, who were 

11.3 percent of the agents disciplined, made up 10.2 percent of the special 

agent workforce. Women were 3.2 percent of agents disciplined while 

making up 7.6 percent of the special agent workforce.

The study’s results, issued in April 1987 and approved by the Working 

Group, concluded that, based on statistical analysis, there appeared to be 

no discrimination against minorities in general, and African Americans in 

particular, with regard to the number of individuals recommended for 

discipline, the severity of the proposed punishment, or the severity of the 

actual punishment carried out as related to the severity of the offense. The 

study also found a strong relationship between the severity of the charge 

and the discipline ultimately meted out. The study found that although 

60A Study of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Current Conduct and Discipline 

System, Advanced Research Resources Organization, Bethesda, Md.: Apr. 1987.
Page 39 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

African American special agents were charged on average with more 

serious offenses than white special agents, there were no statistically 

significant differences in the discipline decisions as a function of the 

severity of the charges. Although the study did not identify the cause for 

African Americans being charged with more serious offenses, it raised but 

did not examine whether, race, type of assignment, or small sample size of 

the study could have been factors.

The second study, done at the request of the Monitoring Committee and 

Working Group, examined whether there were differences in the discipline 

administered to white versus African American special agents during 

calendar years 1994-2000.61 Of 365 disciplinary cases of special agents 

during this period, 237 (64.9 percent) involved whites, 58 (15.9 percent) 

involved African Americans, 58 (15.9 percent) involved Hispanics, 6 (1.6 

percent) involved Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 3 (0.8 percent) involved 

Native Americans. There was no race information in 3 cases. In addition, no 

breakout by gender was reported. The study methodology was developed 

so that the results could be applied to any protected group, but because the 

study was done in the context of the Segar case, only discipline 

administered to African American and white special agents was analyzed. 

According to the report, issued in August 2001 and approved by the 

Working Group, there were no statistically significant differences in the 

imposition of discipline between African American and white special 

agents for any offense or violation category. The study also concluded that 

the data “decisively and unequivocally” showed no differences between 

African American and white special agents in terms of the severity of the 

punishment administered, which the study said confirmed the integrity of 

the discipline process. Although the data reported by the study showed that 

the percentage of African American special agents disciplined (15.9 percent 

of agents disciplined) was higher than the group’s representation in the 

workforce (less than 9 percent), the study did not analyze the relationship 

between the number of African Americans disciplined and their 

representation in the special agent workforce.62

61Frank J. Landy, Drug Enforcement Administration Discipline System Study, SHL Landy 

Jacobs: Litigation Support Group, Boulder, Colo.: Aug. 8, 2001.

62The situation was similar for Hispanic special agents. Although less than 9 percent of the 

special agent workforce, Hispanics accounted for 15.9 percent of the agents disciplined 

during the study period.
Page 40 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

The integrity of DEA’s discipline process from a legal perspective was also 

evident in MSPB decisions. Employees can appeal removals, demotions, 

and suspensions of more than 14 days to MSPB and, during, fiscal years 

1997-2001, MSPB decided the cases of 28 DEA special agents.63 Of the 28 

cases, MSPB affirmed DEA’s actions in 24 cases (85.7 percent), affirmed 

some or all of the charges and mitigated the penalty in 2 cases (7.1 

percent), and reversed DEA’s actions in 2 cases (7.1 percent). In 

comparison, governmentwide, MSPB reversed 22 percent of agency 

decisions in fiscal year 2001. A Justice Department review of fiscal year 

1997 Justice cases before MSPB found that, among department 

components, DEA had the highest affirmation rate, which was attributed to 

the quality of documentation and evidence supporting charges. The report 

said that DEA’s centralized disciplinary system provides for impartiality 

and consistency in developing defensible disciplinary actions. 

Employee Views on 

Promotion and 

Discipline

As agreed with your office, during our review, we spoke with minority and 

women special agents, including members of the Monitoring Committee as 

well as members of the Hispanic Advisory and Asian-American Advisory 

Committees, to obtain their views on promotion and discipline issues.64 Our 

work has found that high-performing organizations promote a diverse and 

inclusive workforce and have workplaces in which perceptions of 

unfairness are minimized.65 However, comments of many of the minority 

and female special agents with whom we spoke indicated that they 

believed trust and fairness were lacking with regard to the promotion and 

discipline processes. For example, members of these committees said they 

perceived that their groups were underrepresented in promotions to GS-14 

and GS-15 and that selection outcomes were frequently based on “who you 

63Includes initial appeals and Board reviews of initial decisions regarding the same 

individual.

64We recognize that the views of the members of the committees may not necessarily 

represent the views of their constituents. Also, there was no group of nonminority special 

agents to which we could speak. We recognize that the views of nonminority special agents 

could be different from the views of the minority agents. 

65For a discussion of this and other attributes of high performing organizations, see U.S. 

General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-

373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002); Human Capital: Practices That Empowered 

Employees, GAO-01-1070 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2001); and Human Capital: Key 

Principles from Nine Private Sector Organizations, GAO/GGD-00-28 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 31, 2000).
Page 41 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

know.” These special agents said that candidates, especially in field 

divisions, may have been disadvantaged because of a lack of personal 

knowledge of an agent among the board members. The November 2002 

change to increase the number of SACs serving as rotating members was 

made to address this concern. Another concern the minority special agents 

expressed was about the board’s racial, ethnic, and gender representation. 

However, in January 2003, the Career Board included two African 

Americans, two Hispanics, one Native American, and six whites; one of the 

members was a woman. During the 1997-2002 time frame, the board had a 

similar makeup. 

One additional concern of many of the minority special agents with whom 

we spoke was the perceived unfairness in the discipline process. These 

agents said that they believed that minorities were subject to more scrutiny 

and, as a result, were disproportionately investigated for misconduct. A 

number of the agents also said that they perceived that there were 

inconsistencies in punishment meted out, with minorities receiving harsher 

punishment. Our work showed that African American, Hispanic, and 

women special agents had a proportionately higher number of allegations 

of misconduct lodged against them and that a higher proportion of these 

allegations were substantiated by investigations and resulted in 

disciplinary actions. However, the results of two studies by outside 

contractors, approved by an oversight group and which we found 

methodologically sound, found DEA’s disciplinary process to be fair and 

nondiscriminatory. 

The perceptions minority and women special agents have with regard to 

fairness in promotions and discipline may be driven by an absence of data 

and other information. For example, DEA had not shared the racial analysis 

of its promotion actions or SAC/office head recommendations with its 

special agent workforce, except the Monitoring Committee.66 Our analysis 

of promotions to GS-14 and GS-15 special agent positions for fiscal years 

1997 through 2001 showed no statistically significant differences in the 

promotion rates among the racial, ethnic, and gender groups. In addition, 

DEA only shared the results of the 2001 discipline study, which found no 

statistically significant differences in the imposition of discipline between 

African American and white special agents, with the Monitoring 

66Because the Segar case had remained under court supervision, DEA provided the 

Monitoring Committee with the results of promotion decisions, breaking out the data by 

African American, white, and other, though not by gender. 
Page 42 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Committee. On the other hand, although the study methodology was 

developed so that the results could be applied to any protected group, the 

study was done in the context of the Segar case and examined only 

discipline administered to African American and white special agents. 

However, it appears that discipline actions taken against Hispanics were to 

have been included in the study, according to a memo from a former DEA 

Administrator to the Hispanic Advisory Council. Neither council members 

nor DEA officials could explain why this did not occur. 

As we discuss in our exposure draft A Model of Strategic Human Capital 

Management, our work in the human capital area has shown that leading 

organizations promote an inclusive workforce by seeking employee input 

and using that input to adjust their human capital approaches.67 DEA has 

taken, or plans to take, some steps in this regard. One step was that, as 

DEA’s study of a valid SAC/office head recommendation process 

progressed, the agency involved minorities, in addition to Monitoring 

Committee representatives that had been involved, and women. Also, the 

November 2002 changes to the structure of the Career Board were based 

on input from the Monitoring Committee and other special agents, and, 

according to the Administrator’s memo announcing the change, were 

intended to bring transparency and greater participation to the promotion 

process. Furthermore, in March 2002, the Administrator established an 

ombudsman office68 to address workplace conflicts, facilitate fair and 

equitable resolutions to concerns, and serve as an advisor and information 

and communications resource. The ombudsperson said that she had 

handled a variety of matters, mostly involving special agents, including 

issues concerning performance appraisals and Career Board decisions to 

reassign agents.

Conclusions At some steps of DEA’s hiring process, a higher percentage of minorities do 

not meet the requirements to become a special agent, with African 

American and Hispanic applicants hired at substantially lower rates 

compared with white applicants. DEA has not analyzed why some groups 

of applicants have lower passing rates and whether alternative procedures 

67GAO-02-373SP.

68For additional information about ombudsmen in the federal workplace, see U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Human Capital: The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution, GAO01-466 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2001).
Page 43 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

could lessen these differences without compromising the high standards 

necessary to perform the job successfully. Furthermore, because a large 

number of applicants drop out or do not meet hiring standards, DEA offers 

employment to virtually all applicants it finds suitable, leaving the agency 

with little choice in whom it hires. DEA has not performed a workforce 

analysis that takes into account expected attrition of the special agent 

workforce, especially due to retirements, that could help the agency plan 

for a sufficiently large pool of suitable special agent candidates with 

diverse cultural and skills backgrounds from which it could selectively 

hire. 

Promotions of special agents to supervisory GS-14 and GS-15 positions 

have not shown statistically significant differences among groups. 

However, DEA’s rigorous promotion process has been subject to litigation 

surrounding the SAC/office head recommendation process, the step in the 

overall promotion process that had not been validated. DEA has since 

developed a revised recommendation process and proposed a monitoring 

process that the agency and the plaintiffs are discussing to reach 

agreement about and which still must be court approved. However, the 

proposed monitoring process does not take gender into account. 

The proportion of African American, Hispanic, and women special agents 

disciplined for misconduct was substantially higher than their 

representation in the DEA special agent workforce. However, two studies 

have found DEA’s discipline process to be valid and fair, but neither of the 

studies addressed differences in the rates at which different groups were 

disciplined, and the second study compared only disciplinary actions 

involving African American and white special agents. Reliable data would 

be necessary to carry out a study covering all race, ethnic, and gender 

groups, and our analysis of disciplinary actions was delayed by the lack of 

reliable data. Although DEA eventually developed corrected data, the 

agency has not developed a process to maintain accurate and reliable 

disciplinary data.

Finally, minority and female special agents with whom we spoke generally 

perceived that the promotion and discipline processes lacked fairness. 

Perceptions of unfairness can be almost as corrosive to the workplace as 

actual instances of unfair treatment and can undermine trust. Because DEA 

did not widely share analyses of promotion and disciplinary actions with its 

special agent workforce, agents were hindered in formulating informed 

views about the fairness and equity of the promotion and discipline 

processes. This situation would continue under DEA’s proposal for 
Page 44 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

monitoring the promotion process because reporting of outcomes would 

be limited to the African American special agents plaintiff group. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Administrator of DEA direct that

• a process be initiated to monitor the results of decisions at the various 

steps in the hiring process to identify differences in selection rates 

among groups, and where substantial differences are found, determine 

why they occur and what, if anything, can be done to reduce the 

differences while maintaining the high standards necessary for the job 

of special agent;

• a workforce analysis be done, which takes into account retirement 

eligibility, expected retirements, and other attrition, to guide the 

development of DEA’s recruiting and hiring plans and strategies; 

• the plans to monitor the results of the SAC/office head recommendation 

process by race and ethnicity be expanded to include monitoring by 

gender; 

• steps be taken to develop, maintain, and ensure the reliability of a 

discipline database and that the study of disciplinary actions taken 

against African American and white special agents be expanded to 

analyze disciplinary actions against all racial, ethnic, and gender groups 

of special agents; and

• appropriate, aggregate statistical data on the outcomes of the promotion 

and discipline processes for all racial, ethnic, and gender groups are 

available to its special agent workforce to help special agents formulate 

informed views about the fairness and equity of the agency’s promotion 

and discipline processes.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Acting Administrator of DEA 

agreed with our recommendations and said that DEA was acting to 

implement them. (See app. IV for the text of the comments.) 

Regarding hiring of special agents, DEA said it will monitor the results of 

decisions at the various steps in the hiring process to identify differences in 

selection rates. DEA’s response said that it would identify differences 
Page 45 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

among minority groups but did not specifically mention gender differences. 

DEA should examine differences in selection rates among all groups, 

including gender groups. DEA also said that it will conduct a study to 

review each part of the special agent hiring process. The study will include 

analysis of processes used by other law enforcement agencies to identify 

alternative strategies that might lessen differences in selection rates. 

DEA agreed with our recommendation that a workforce analysis be done to 

guide the development of recruiting and hiring plans and strategies. DEA 

said that it will analyze its workforce to determine the portion eligible for, 

or who anticipates, retirement, and to identify other attrition concerns for 

the agency and use the results to guide the development of its recruiting 

and hiring plans and strategies. 

DEA also agreed with our recommendation to monitor the SAC/office head 

recommendation process for all EEO groups, including by gender. DEA 

said that, if it is put in place, its monitoring plan will include evaluating 

results for all demographics of the workforce, including race, ethnicity, and 

gender. 

Regarding the reliability of discipline data, DEA said that it agreed with our 

recommendation and had begun an effort to consolidate multiple discipline 

databases. With regard to our recommendation that DEA expand the study 

of disciplinary actions taken against African American and white special 

agents to analyze disciplinary actions against all racial, ethnic, and gender 

groups of special agents, DEA said that it will do so. 

Finally, DEA concurred with our recommendation to make statistical data 

on the outcomes of the promotion and discipline processes for all racial, 

gender, and ethnic groups available to its special agent workforce. DEA 

said that it will make available aggregate statistical data concerning 

promotion selections and types of misconduct found.

Overall, the actions DEA describes, when fully implemented, should meet 

our recommendations. DEA also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated in the report where appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

date. We will then send copies of this report to the Attorney General, the 

Administrator of DEA, and interested congressional committees. We will 
Page 46 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report 

will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If 

you or your staff have questions about this report, please call me at (202) 

512-6806 or Thomas Dowdal, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-6588. Key 

contributors to this assignment were Anthony Lofaro, Domingo Nieves, and 

Gregory Wilmoth.

Sincerely yours,

Victor S. Rezendes

Managing Director, Strategic Issues
Page 47 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenendxIdeisi

In her letter of May 25, 2001, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson 

expressed concerns about discrimination in the Drug Enforcement 

Administration’s (DEA) hiring, promotion, and discipline processes. Based 

on discussions with her office, we agreed to (1) develop information on the 

diversity of DEA’s special agent workforce and (2) examine the processes 

DEA has put in place to provide for fair and nondiscriminatory hiring, 

promotion, and disciplining of special agents and the results that have been 

achieved.

DEA Special Agent 

Workforce Diversity

With regard to the diversity of DEA’s special agent workforce, we 

developed information by race, ethnicity, and gender for each pay grade, 

using data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central 

Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 

2000, and data from DEA as of September 2002. We selected these dates to 

show changes, if any, that had occurred in DEA’s special agent workforce 

from around the initial decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia in 1981 with regard to a class action racial discrimination lawsuit 

brought against DEA by the agency’s African American special agents1

through the end of fiscal year 2002. To compare the racial, ethnic, and 

gender composition of the DEA special agent (criminal investigator job 

occupation series 1811) workforce with other criminal investigator 

workforces, we used data OPM provided for criminal investigators 

governmentwide and the nonfederal law enforcement labor force, a 

measure that includes nonfederal law enforcement and security-related 

occupations that are considered comparable to the 1811 occupational 

series by the OPM, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and 

the Department of Labor. In addition, we obtained overall federal 

workforce diversity data as of September 2002 from OPM. We determined 

based on our past work2

 that the CPDF data are sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose used in this report. 

1

Segar v. Civiletti, 508 F. Supp. 690 (D.D.C. 1981), aff’d in relevant part subnom. Segar v. 

Smith, 738 F. 2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied subnom. Meese v. Segar, 471 U.S. 1115 

(1985).

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, OPM’s Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear 

Sufficiently Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 30, 1998).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 48 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

DEA’s Hiring, 

Promotion, and 

Discipline Processes

To determine the DEA processes for hiring, promoting, and disciplining 

special agents and the results that have been achieved, we reviewed 

relevant DEA policies and procedures and interviewed knowledgeable 

DEA officials. In addition, we spoke with employee representatives, 

including members of the Monitoring Committee, a court-established group 

of African American special agents representing plaintiff class members; 

the Hispanic Advisory Council; and the Asian-American Advisory Counsel. 

Further, we spoke with the members of the Working Group that was 

established to help ensure that the orders of the court are carried out and 

that DEA’s personnel practices are nondiscriminatory. With regard to 

developing information about the job-relatedness of DEA’s hiring, 

promotion, and discipline processes, we spoke with DEA officials, Working 

Group members, and contractors who had studied the processes and 

reviewed available studies and other documentation.

In analyzing results, we compared each racial and ethnic group and 

compared men of all races/ethnicities with women of all races/ethnicities. 

In addition to this level of analysis, where there were a sufficient number of 

individuals, we analyzed data for men and women within each race and 

ethnic group. In analyzing differences in how racial, ethnic, and gender 

groups fared in DEA’s hiring process, we used the 80 percent rule set out in 

the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

3

 Under this 

rule, a selection rate for any race, ethnic, or gender group that is less than 

80 percent of the selection rate for the group with the highest rate is 

generally considered a substantially different rate of selection. In analyzing 

promotion and disciplinary actions, we applied standard statistical tests to 

determine if there were statistically significant differences among the 

racial, ethnic, and gender groups. We used statistical techniques in these 

analyses to be consistent with how other studies of DEA’s promotion and 

discipline process were conducted. Our analyses generally covered fiscal 

years 1997-2001, except as noted below, and were not designed to prove or 

disprove discrimination. Rather, they were designed to provide information 

about race, ethnicity, and gender differences in DEA’s hiring, promotion, 

and disciplinary actions.

3

The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, adopted in 1978 by the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, the Civil Service Commission (the predecessor 

agency to OPM), and the departments of Justice and Labor, provide a uniform set of 

principles governing use of employee selection procedures and identifying adverse impact 

(29 C.F.R. Part 1607).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 49 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Hiring Results We analyzed the results of DEA’s screening of special agent applicants at 

each step of the hiring process on applications received under two vacancy 

announcements—BA-98-01, which was open from October 15, 1997, 

through March 7, 2000, and BA-20-00, which opened on May 8, 2000, and 

remained open during our review. We selected these two announcements to 

facilitate an analysis of (1) the effect of changes to eligibility criteria and 

written assessment scoring beginning with BA-20-00 and (2) final hiring 

rates. We examined DEA’s screening actions on applicants from October 15, 

1997, through March 31, 2002, analyzing the data by race, ethnicity, and 

gender. Data we analyzed were provided by DEA from the agency’s Agent 

Recruiting and Tracking System (ARTS), which tracks applications 

received, the status of applicants, decisions on applicant eligibility at each 

step of the hiring process, and final hiring decision. We examined ARTS 

data and concluded that the data were reliable for our purposes because 

the disposition of applications reconciled with applications processed.

With regard to suitability determinations DEA made on applicants based on 

the results of psychological and polygraph examinations and background 

investigations, we reviewed two sets of data. First, we reviewed data 

recorded in ARTS to provide an overall picture on the outcomes of 

suitability determinations. Because about 80 percent of suitability 

determinations are made by a three-person panel, we reviewed data 

maintained by the panel on its decisions. However, because the panel’s 

database had only been initiated for decisions on or after September 29, 

2000, we only reviewed panel decisions from September 29, 2000, through 

May 7, 2002. To gain an understanding of materials the panel considers in 

making its determinations, we reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 

applicant suitability determination case files. 

Promotion Results Our analysis of promotions focused on competitive promotions to General 

Schedule grade levels 14 and 15 special agent positions. We reviewed three 

elements of the promotion process: the Special Agent Promotion Program 

(SAPP), which uses performance ratings and job simulation exercises to 

measure knowledge and abilities to perform at the next grade level; 

promotion recommendations that Special Agents in Charge or other office 

heads make to the Career Board, the body that makes final promotion 

recommendations and whose chair makes the final selections; and the final 

selections. We analyzed data by race, ethnicity, and gender. With regard to 

the SAPP, we analyzed data contained in annual reports on the SAPP for 

1997 through 2001. SAPP results and the reports had been reviewed and 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 50 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

approved by the Working Group. For recommendations and selections, we 

examined actions related to best-qualified certificates for vacancies from 

which promotions were made for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.4

 We 

obtained data from DEA on the number and demographic profile of 

applicants on the best-qualified lists, the number of them who received 

recommendations, and the number selected. Because applicants can 

appear on multiple best-qualified lists, we also obtained an unduplicated 

count of the number of applicants on the best-qualified lists and the 

number who received recommendations. To check the reliability of the 

data DEA provided to us, we compared the minutes of Career Board 

deliberations on promotion decisions to data reported to the Monitoring 

Committee. 

Discipline Results With regard to disciplinary actions, we analyzed data by race, ethnicity, and 

gender for cases resolved during fiscal years 1997 through 2001. For these 

cases, we determined the number and demographic profile of special 

agents against whom allegations of misconduct were made, the disposition 

of their cases, and the nature of disciplinary actions taken. However, in 

performing our analysis, we found discrepancies between the data 

maintained by DEA’s Chief Counsel’s office that were reported to us and the 

data the Office of Equal Opportunity reported to the Monitoring 

Committee. We brought these discrepancies to DEA’s attention. After some 

delay, DEA provided us with corrected data. We performed a limited 

verification of the corrected data and found them to be reliable. In addition 

to our analysis of disciplinary data, we reviewed the two studies of DEA’s 

disciplinary process performed by contractors as well as a report prepared 

by the Justice Department. In addition, we reviewed the disposition of 

appeals by special agents to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

We performed our work from September 2001 through February 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

4

The promotion fiscal year begins October 22 of each year.
Page 51 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Appendix II

Physical Task Test Minimum Requirements ApenIdxi

The minimum requirements in each of the six tasks that applicants for Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent positions must meet to 

pass the physical task test are shown in table 21. 

Table 21: DEA Physical Task Test Minimum Performance Requirements

Source: DEA.

a

Eliminated in March 2003. 

b

The pull-up test for women is performed using a horizontal bar mounted 3 feet from the floor and 2 

feet from the wall. A woman begins the pull-up lying on her back. The pull-up test for men is performed 

using a horizontal bar mounted above the floor and out-of-reach of the subject. A man begins the pullup hanging from the horizontal bar.

Task Women Men

Trigger pull a 29 pulls of a handgun trigger in 

30 seconds with stronger hand

same

Pull-ups (number) b 10 2

Sit-ups (number 

within 2 minutes)

46 46

Push-ups (number) 14 25

120-yard shuttle run No longer than 29 seconds No longer than 26 seconds

2-mile run No longer than 18:45 minutes No longer than 16:30 minutes
Page 52 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Appendix III

Competencies in Assessing GS-13 and GS-14 

Special Agents for Promotion ApenIdxi

Performance Rating 

Competencies for 

GS-13 and GS-14 

Special Agents

In the Special Agent Promotion Program (SAPP) performance rating, 

General Schedule (GS) grade 13 special agents are evaluated on seven 

competencies and GS-14 special agents are evaluated on eight 

competencies, as table 22 shows. 

Table 22: Performance Rating Competencies for GS-13 and GS-14 Special Agents

Source: DEA Promotion Ratings Scales Booklets for GS-13 and GS-14 special agents.

Competencies 

Measured by 

Assessment Center Job 

Simulations

In 2001, GS-13 special agents were evaluated on 12 competencies in SAPP 

assessment center simulations, while GS-14 special agents were evaluated 

on 9 competencies, as table 23 shows.1

Competency

Competencies rated

GS-13 GS-14

Written communication X

Acting as a model X X

Gathering information and making judgments/decisions X X

Interacting with others X X

Monitoring and guiding X X

Oral communication X X

Planning and coordinating X X

Mentoring, developing, and evaluating others X

Persuading X

1

Competencies were unchanged during the 1997-2001 period, except for the 1997 GS-15 

SAPP, which included the competency “ability to allocate resources.”
Appendix III

Competencies in Assessing GS-13 and GS-14 

Special Agents for Promotion

Page 53 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Table 23: Competencies Measured by Assessment Center Job Simulations in 2001

Source: 2001 SAPP report.

Interim Special Agent 

in Charge/Office Head 

Recommendation 

Process

The interim recommendation process, which was implemented in January 

2000 and was still in place as of December 2002, requires that a special 

agent in charge (SAC) or office head, when making promotion 

recommendations to the Career Board, provide information about the 

personal characteristics, traits, or attributes that make a candidate better 

suited to the position under consideration and how a candidate’s past or 

present experiences or demonstrated success makes him or her a top 

candidate. The latter requirement covers seven specific areas:

• directing enforcement and/or investigative-related programs;

• managing, motivating, and mentoring subordinates;

• working in a team environment;

• working individually;

• managing agency resources;

• building and maintaining coalitions; and 

Competency GS-13 GS-14

Ability to communicate in writing X X

Ability to communicate orally X X

Ability to expand case to fullest potential X

Ability to evaluate and develop subordinates X X

Ability to integrate information and draw conclusions X X

Ability to delegate X X

Ability to recognize and establish evidence X

Ability to effectively utilize cooperating sources X

Ability to organize, plan, and prioritize activities X X

Ability to coordinate and monitor work X

Ability to plan and coordinate enforcement operations X

Ability to relate effectively with others X X

Knowledge of DEA manuals, policies, and procedures X X
Appendix III

Competencies in Assessing GS-13 and GS-14 

Special Agents for Promotion

Page 54 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

• acquiring or possessing technical knowledge, education, and special 

skills, or training peculiar to or required by the position.

Proposed SAC/Office 

Head Recommendation 

Process

Among the changes under a proposed recommendation process are that 

applicants for promotions would be asked to provide a summary of their 

major accomplishments and how they are best qualified for the position 

applied for, including technical knowledge, education, special skills, or 

training specified in the vacancy announcement, and provide a narrative 

describing their achievements in the following competencies:

• directing enforcement and/or investigative-related programs or other 

appropriate managerial experience in a law enforcement setting;

• managing, motivating, mentoring, and/or training personnel;

• working in a team environment of mutual cooperation and assistance;

• building and maintaining coalitions with other personnel and entities 

internal and external to the agency; and

• for applicants for GS-15 positions, managing agency resources.
Page 55 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA

Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration ApenVIdxi
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 56 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 57 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 58 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 59 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 60 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 61 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 62 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

Page 63 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
Appendix IV

Comments from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration

(450059) Page 64 GAO-03-413 EEO Issues at DEA
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00