EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY

Data Shortcomings

Hinder Assessment of

Conflicts in the

Federal Workplace

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

May 1999

GAO/GGD-99-75

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-282387

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

GAO

May 4, 1999

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Civil Service

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Albert R. Wynn

House of Representatives

In July 1998, we reported to you that the number of equal employment

opportunity (EEO) complaints alleging discrimination filed by federal

employees had steadily increased, from 17,696 in fiscal year 1991 to 28,947

in fiscal year 1997.1 In order to answer certain fundamental questions

about the nature and extent of the workplace conflicts that underlie the

rising number of discrimination cases, you requested that we develop

information about (1) the statutory bases (e.g., race, sex, or disability

discrimination) under which employees filed complaints and (2) the kinds

of issues (e.g., nonselection for promotion, harassment) that were cited in

these complaints. In our attempt to respond to your request, we analyzed

data collected and reported by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) on the bases for complaints filed with federal

agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service, and the issues raised in these

complaints.2

 On March 2, 1999, we informed you that these data would not

answer the fundamental questions you had asked about the nature and

extent of conflict in the federal workplace. You then asked for our

assessment as to why the data collected and reported by EEOC were not

helpful in answering these questions. This report discusses our

assessment.

Relevant and reliable data about the bases for federal employee

discrimination complaints and the specific issues giving rise to these

complaints would help decisionmakers and program managers understand

the nature and extent of conflict in the federal workplace. These data

could also be used to help plan corrective actions and measure the results

 

1

 Equal Employment Opportunity: Rising Trends in Complaint Caseloads in the Federal Sector

(GAO/GGD-98-157BR, July 24, 1998). The figure for fiscal year 1997 is revised from the preliminary

figure contained in the report.

2

 We refer to the U.S. Postal Service as a federal agency, even though it is an independent governmental

establishment, because it is bound by most of the same discrimination complaint processes that apply

to most federal agencies.

Results in Brief
B-282387

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

of interventions. However, EEOC does not collect and report data about

bases and issues in a way that would help answer some fundamental

questions about the nature and extent of workplace conflicts, such as:

• How many individuals filed complaints?

• In how many complaints was each of the bases for discrimination alleged?

• What were the most frequently cited issues in employees’ discrimination

complaints and in how many complaints was each of the issues cited?

Moreover, the reliability of the data that EEOC collects from agencies and

reports is questionable. We found that agencies reported basis and issue

data to EEOC in an inconsistent manner. We also found that agencies did

not report to EEOC some of the data it requested and reported some other

data incorrectly. In addition, because EEOC did not have procedures that

ensured the reliability of the data it collected from agencies, it published

some unreliable data in its annual Federal Sector Report on EEO

Complaints Processing and Appeals.

We make recommendations to address these concerns near the end of this

report.

Under a variety of statutes, federal employees, including postal workers,

can file a complaint alleging unlawful employment discrimination.3

 Each

discrimination complaint contains two key elements that provide

information about the nature of the conflict.

The first of these two elements is the “basis” of the allegation under federal

antidiscrimination law. An employee can allege discrimination on any of

seven bases—race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, and disability.

In addition, federal employees can claim an eighth basis—reprisal—if they

believe that they have been retaliated against for having filed a complaint,

participated in an investigation of a complaint, or opposed a prohibited

 

3

 Federal employee discrimination complaints are processed in accordance with regulations (29 C.F.R.

part 1614) promulgated by EEOC. Under these regulations, a complaint is filed with the federal agency

accused of discrimination. The agency decides whether to dismiss or accept the complaint, and

investigates the complaint if it is accepted. After the investigation, a complainant can request a hearing

before an EEOC administrative judge, who may issue a recommended decision that the agency is to

consider in making its final decision on the merits of the complaint. An employee dissatisfied with a

final agency decision or its decision to dismiss a complaint may file an appeal with EEOC. For a further

discussion of the complaint process, see Equal Employment Opportunity: Rising Trends in Complaint

Caseloads in the Federal Sector (GAO/GGD-98-157BR, July 24, 1998).

Background
B-282387

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

personnel practice. Depending upon the employee’s situation, he or she

can claim more than one basis when filing an EEO complaint.4

The second of the two elements that help define the nature of the conflict

in a discrimination complaint is the “issue”—that is, the specific condition

or event that is the subject of the complaint. Issues that employees can file

complaints about include nonsexual and sexual harassment, nonselection

for promotion, performance evaluations, duties that are assigned to them,

and disciplinary actions (e.g., demotion, reprimand, suspension, and

termination). (See app. I for a listing of categories of issues). As is true

with respect to bases for complaints, an employee can raise multiple

issues in a single complaint.

Agencies are required by regulations (29 C.F.R. 1614.602) and the EEOC

Federal Sector Complaint Processing Manual, Equal Employment

Opportunity Management Directive (EEO MD)-110 to report annually to

EEOC data about the bases and issues cited in complaints, along with

other complaint-related statistics.5

 EEOC compiles the data from the

agencies for publication in the annual Federal Sector Report on EEO

Complaints Processing and Appeals.

According to the Management Directive, “The analyses of the data

collected enable the EEOC to assist in refining the efficiency and

effectiveness of the Federal EEO process.” This objective conforms with

one of the goals contained in EEOC’s Annual Performance Plans for fiscal

years 1999 and 2000. Likewise, as indicators of the nature and extent of

workplace conflict, these data could be important to EEOC as it carries

out its broader mission, which, as stated in the agency’s Strategic Plan, “is

to promote equal opportunity in employment by enforcing the federal civil

rights employment laws through administrative and judicial actions, and

education and technical assistance.”6

 

4

 For example, an employee complaining about nonselection for a promotion can allege (1) race

discrimination if the person who was selected is of a different race, (2) sex discrimination if the person

who was selected is of the opposite sex, (3) age discrimination if the person who was selected is under

40 years old while the complainant is 40 years of age or older, and (4) disability discrimination if the

person who was selected is not disabled but the complainant is.

5

 Agencies with an allocation of 100 or more employees are to complete the Annual Federal Equal

Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints (EEOC Form 462).

6

 The Strategic and Annual Performance Plans are required by the Government Performance and

Results Act.
B-282387

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

In assessing why the data collected and reported by EEOC were not

helpful in answering fundamental questions about the nature and extent of

conflict in the federal workplace, we examined several sources. We

reviewed instructions for EEOC Form 462, Annual Federal Equal

Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints,

the form that agencies use to report complaint basis and issue data to

EEOC, particularly part IV of the form, Summary of Bases and Issues in

Complaints Filed (see app. I for a copy of part IV of EEOC Form 462.) We

examined statistics on complaint bases and issues published in EEOC’s

Federal Sector Report on EEO Complaints Processing and Appeals for

fiscal years 1991 to 1997.7 Because postal workers accounted for about half

of the discrimination complaints federal workers filed in fiscal year 1997,

we obtained and analyzed forms 462 covering fiscal years 1991 to 1997 that

the Postal Service submitted to EEOC in order to compare statistics for

the postal workforce with the nonpostal workforce. In addition, the Postal

Service provided us additional data on bases and issues generated by its

complaint information system. We did not examine forms 462 for

nonpostal agencies as we did for the Postal Service.

Although Form 462 data that each agency submits show the number of

times the different issues were raised in each basis category, EEOC does

not aggregate these data from all agencies to prepare a consolidated Form

462 (part IV). At our request, EEOC prepared a consolidated Form 462

(part IV). Because EEOC does not routinely compile data this way, we

requested this information only for fiscal year 1997. EEOC provided data

for all federal agencies and, by subtracting Postal Service data, also

provided data for nonpostal agencies.

Further, we spoke with officials at EEOC and the Postal Service and

representatives of the Council of Federal EEO and Civil Rights Executives.

These officials provided observations about trends in the bases for and

issues cited in complaints. Their comments, they said, were based on their

experiences, rather than on specific studies. In addition, Council members

from the Departments of Treasury and the Army provided information on

how their respective agencies report complaint basis and issue data.

Finally, we reviewed sections of EEOC’s Strategic Plan and its Annual

Performance Plans for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 pertaining to the agency’s

federal sector operations.

 7

 We worked with a draft EEOC provided of the fiscal year 1997 Federal Sector Report on EEO

Complaints Processing and Appeals. The fiscal year 1997 federal sector report was published on April

27, 1999.

Scope and

Methodology
B-282387

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Chairwoman,

EEOC, and the Postmaster General. Their comments are discussed near

the end of this report. We did our work from October 1998 through March

1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

EEOC does not collect relevant data in a way that would help answer some

fundamental questions about the nature and extent of workplace conflict

alleged in federal employees’ discrimination complaints. Among the kinds

of questions that cannot be answered are:

• How many individuals filed complaints?

• In how many complaints was each of the bases for discrimination alleged?

• What were the most frequently cited issues in employees’ discrimination

complaints and in how many complaints was each of the issues cited?

Answers to such questions would help decisionmakers and program

managers understand the extent to which different categories of

employees are filing complaints and the conditions or events that are

causing them to allege discrimination.

One fundamental question that cannot be answered is the number of

individual employees who have filed complaints. EEOC does not collect

data on the number of employees who file complaints, nor on how often

individual employees file complaints. These numbers would be crucial to

an analysis of the extent to which the increase in the number of complaints

in the 1990s (see p. 1) was due to individuals filing first-time complaints or

included individuals who had filed other complaints in the past. Without

data on the number of complainants and the frequency of their complaints,

decisionmakers do not have a clear picture of the nature and extent of

alleged discrimination in the workplace and the actions that may be

necessary to deal with these allegations.

For example, a number of factors indicate that the increase in the number

of discrimination complaints does not necessarily signify an equivalent

increase in the actual number of individuals filing complainants. First, an

undetermined number of federal employees have filed multiple complaints.

According to EEOC and Postal Service officials and representatives of the

Council of EEO and Civil Rights Executives, while they could not readily

provide figures, they said it has been their experience that a small number

of employees—often referred to as “repeat filers”—account for a

disproportionate share of complaints. Additionally, an EEOC workgroup

that reviewed the federal employee discrimination complaint process

Some Data That Would

Answer Fundamental

Questions Are Not

Collected

Data on the Number of

Complainants and How

Often Employees File

Complaints Are Not

Collected
B-282387

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

reported that the number of cases in the system was “swollen” by

employees filing “spin-off complaints”—new complaints challenging the

processing of existing complaints. Further, the work group found that the

number of complaints was “unnecessarily multiplied” by agencies

fragmenting some claims involving a number of different allegations by the

same employee into separate complaints rather than consolidating these

claims into one complaint.8

 In addition, there has been an increase in the

number of complaints alleging reprisal, which, for the most part, involve

claims of retaliation by employees who have previously participated in the

complaint process.

Questions about the prevalence of bases and issues in the universe of

complaints are not answerable because of the manner in which EEOC

collects these data. Accurate answers to such questions are necessary to

help decisionmakers and program managers discern trends in workplace

conflicts, understand the sources of conflict, and plan corrective actions.

These data could give managers a clearer picture of the extent to which

particular groups of employees may feel aggrieved and the conditions or

events that trigger their complaints. For example, managers would be able

to better discern trends in the numbers of black employees alleging racial

discrimination and the issues they have raised most frequently.

EEOC prescribes a format for agencies to report complaint bases and

issues data (see app. I). The form is a matrix that, according to EEOC

instructions, requires agencies to associate the basis or bases of an

individual complaint with the issue or issues raised in that complaint.

However, there are problems in counting bases and issues this way.

Complaints with two or more bases and/or issues can result in the same

basis and/or issue being counted more than once. For example, suppose an

employee specifies that race, sex, age, and disability discrimination were

the bases for his or her complaint, while nonselection for promotion, a

poor performance evaluation, and an assignment to noncareer-enhancing

duties were the issues. In preparing the report to EEOC, the agency would

record each of the three issues in the columns corresponding with each of

the four bases. Table 1 illustrates how this complaint would fit into the

preparation of the overall report to EEOC. The table is a matrix with

excerpts of similar rows and columns that appear on the form submitted to

EEOC (see app. I).

 

8

 EEOC has proposed regulatory changes to deal with “spin-off” complaints and said it plans to amend

its policies to deal with the problem of fragmented complaints.

Prevalence of Bases and

Issues Is Not Determined
B-282387

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

Bases

 Issues Race Sex Age Disability Total

Nonselection x x x x 4

Evaluation x x x x 4

Duties x x x x 4

Total 3 3 3 3 12

Legend: “X” indicates that an issue and a basis were associated.

Source: GAO hypothetical illustration.

To determine the number of times each basis is alleged, EEOC instructs

agencies to add the number of times each issue was recorded in each

column of the matrix. In this illustration, the agency would count each

basis three times—once for each of the three issues recorded in each of

the columns. To determine the number of times each issue is alleged,

EEOC instructs agencies to add each row of the matrix. In this illustration,

the agency would count each issue four times—once for each of the four

bases under which they were recorded. Overall, the agency would report

that 12 bases and 12 issues were alleged in this single hypothetical

complaint rather than the 4 bases and 3 issues actually cited.

EEOC uses these data from agencies to compile the number of times each

basis and each issue was alleged governmentwide, which it publishes in

the annual Federal Sector Report on EEO Complaints Processing and

Appeals. The figure reported for the number of times that a particular basis

was alleged, however, represents the sum of the number of times that the

various issues were recorded in the column under that basis, not the actual

number of complaints in which that basis was alleged. Similarly, the figure

reported for the number of times that a particular issue was cited

represents the sum of the number of times the issue was recorded under

each of the bases, not the actual number of complaints in which that issue

was cited. EEOC does not know the extent to which bases and issues may

be counted more than once for the same complaint. EEOC’s Complaint

Adjudication Division Director said that while the reporting procedures

result in overreporting of the number of times the different bases and

issues were alleged, he believes that the data provide a “fair

approximation” of bases and issues included in complaints. He agreed,

however, that recording data in a way that would establish the number of

times the different bases and issues are cited in the universe of complaints

would make sense.

The way EEOC collects basis and issue data does, however, yield some

insight into the importance of the different issues to the different

categories of complainants. The form that each agency is to complete

shows the issues raised under each basis and the number of times that a

Table 1: Recording Bases and Issues in

a Hypothetical Complaint
B-282387

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

particular issue was raised. With these data, an agency manager can

determine, for example, the issues that female employees alleging sex

discrimination complained about and the number of times each of those

issues was raised. The one essential statistic that is missing, however, is

the actual number of complaints made by women alleging sex

discrimination. Further, while EEOC collects information showing the

extent to which specific issues are associated with specific bases at each

agency, it does not aggregate this information for all federal agencies.9

The discrimination complaint data that EEOC has collected and reported

are of questionable reliability because (1) agencies did not always report

data consistently, completely, or accurately and (2) EEOC did not have

procedures that ensured the data were reliable.

Federal agencies take varying approaches to reporting data on complaint

bases and issues to EEOC. We reviewed the Postal Service’s data

submissions to EEOC, as well as the process to prepare these submissions,

and found that the agency did not follow EEOC’s instructions to associate

the issue or issues raised in each complaint with the basis or bases

involved. For each complaint, regardless of the number of issues raised by

the employee, the Postal Service identified and reported only one

“primary” issue. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Postal

Service’s Manager, EEO Compliance and Appeals, said that the Postal

Service adopted this approach to give the data more focus by identifying

the primary issues driving postal workers’ discrimination complaints.

We did not review reports and reporting practices among nonpostal

agencies for consistency and attention to completeness and accuracy.

However, we spoke with officials from two large nonpostal agencies who

indicated that they followed EEOC instructions, which, as discussed

above, can result in an overcounting of bases and issues. EEOC’s

Complaints Adjudication Division Director said that agencies might be

using different approaches to reporting the data. However, he said that he

did not know the extent to which such variation may exist because EEOC

had not examined how agencies complete their reports.

The issue of incomplete or inaccurate reporting of data was evident in our

analysis of the data that the Postal Service reported to EEOC for fiscal

years 1992 and 1995 through 1997. We analyzed Postal Service statistics

 9

 At our request, EEOC aggregated this data governmentwide for fiscal year 1997. While we believe the

aggregated information provided some insight into federal workplace conflict, its immediate usefulness

was compromised by the reliability issues discussed in this report.

Data Are Not Always

Reported Consistently,

Completely, or

Accurately
B-282387

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

because postal workers accounted for about half of the discrimination

complaints filed by federal employees in fiscal year 1997. In addition to not

completely reporting all issues raised in complaints, we found that the

Postal Service’s statistical reports to EEOC for fiscal years 1996 and 1997

did not include data for certain categories of issues.10 Further, we found

certain underreporting of bases for complaints and issues by the Postal

Service in fiscal year 1995. Postal Service officials also told us that

complaint statistics were incomplete for fiscal year 1992.

Another, especially significant, reporting error we identified involved the

number of race-based complaints. As a result of a computer programming

error, the number of complaints reported by the Postal Service to contain

allegations by white postal workers of discrimination based on race was

overstated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 by about 500 percent.11

After we brought these errors to the attention of Postal Service officials,

they provided corrected data to us and EEOC for all errors except those

relating to the fiscal year 1992 data. Postal Service officials said that

because EEO-related staff had been reassigned during restructuring of the

Postal Service that began in fiscal year 1992, not all complaints were

properly accounted for that year. The officials also said that the computer

program used to generate reports to EEOC had been modified to correct

the fault in the way race-based complaints are to be counted.

Errors in data reported to or by EEOC were a recurring problem in our

work identifying trends in federal sector EEO complaints.12 In addition to

the Postal Service data errors, during our prior work, we found errors for

nonpostal agencies’ data. EEOC does not audit or verify the data it

receives from agencies and publishes in the annual Federal Sector Report

on EEO Complaints Processing and Appeals because of time

 

10 The Postal Service developed additional categories of issues to further delineate the categories

established by the EEOC statistical report (see app. I). In completing the EEOC form, however, the

Postal Service failed to include data about these categories of issues. These omitted data involved both

the number of complaints in which the delineated issue was the primary issue and the bases alleged in

those complaints.

11 In fiscal year 1996, the Postal Service originally reported to EEOC that 9,044 (about 68 percent) of the

13,252 complaints filed that year contained allegations by white postal workers of race discrimination.

The corrected figure was 1,505 (11.4 percent) of the complaints filed that year. In fiscal year 1997, the

Postal Service originally reported that 10,040 (70 percent) of the 14,326 complaints filed that year

contained such allegations. The corrected figure was 1,654 (11.5 percent) of the complaints filed that

year.

12 Equal Employment Opportunity: Rising Trends in EEO Complaint Caseloads in the Federal Sector

(GAO/GGD-98-157BR, July 24, 1998) and Equal Employment Opportunity: Administrative Judges’

Recommended Decisions and Agencies’ Actions (GAO/GGD-98-122R, June 10, 1998).
B-282387

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

considerations and staff limitations, according to the Complaints

Adjudication Division Director. He said, however, that EEOC staff review

agencies’ data to identify figures that appear unusual or inconsistent with

other data reported. As we observed, this procedure did not ensure the

reliability of the data EEOC collected and put in print. For example, in

preparing the aggregated figures that it published in its federal sector

report for fiscal year 1996, EEOC used the Postal Service’s vastly

overstated data on racial discrimination complaints by white employees,

thereby skewing the portrayal of discrimination complaint trends

governmentwide. 13

Data about the bases for complaints and the issues giving rise to them can

be valuable in gauging conflict in the federal workplace. However, EEOC

does not collect or report relevant agency data in a way that would help

answer fundamental questions about the number of complainants and the

prevalence of bases and issues in the universe of complaints. In addition,

some of the data collected and reported by EEOC have lacked the

necessary reliability because agencies did not report their data

consistently, completely, or accurately, and because EEOC did not have

procedures that ensured the data were reliable. Consequently, the data do

not provide a sound basis for decisionmakers, program managers, and

EEOC to understand the nature and extent of workplace conflict, develop

strategies to deal with conflict, and measure the results of interventions.

To help ensure that relevant and reliable data are available to

decisionmakers and program managers, we recommend that the

Chairwoman, EEOC, take steps to enable EEOC to

• collect and publish data on complaint bases and issues in a manner that

would allow fundamental questions about the number of complainants and

the prevalence of bases and issues in the universe of complaints to be

answered, and

• develop procedures to help ensure that agencies report data consistently,

completely, and accurately.

We received comments on a draft of this report from EEOC and the Postal

Service. In its written comments (see app. II), EEOC agreed that the data

collected from federal agencies could be more comprehensive and

accurate. EEOC said that it would expedite its efforts to revise the

 

13 After the incorrect Postal Service data had been brought to EEOC’s attention, an EEOC official told

us that EEOC recalled the fiscal year 1997 federal sector report before final publication in order to

correct fiscal year 1997 data. The fiscal year 1997 report would also contain corrected numbers for

fiscal years 1995 and 1996 when it is published.

Conclusions

Recommendations

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-282387

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

instructions for data collection and that it would address the concerns we

raised in this report. EEOC further stated that, given the required review

and approval processes, including allowing time for federal agencies to

comment, it would take about 8 months to issue the changes and an

additional 12 months for the agencies to report complaint data to EEOC in

accordance with the new instructions.

Under EEOC’s timetable, it will be several years before EEOC’s annual

federal sector reports reflect the results of the agency’s efforts to revise

instructions for data collection and to promote more comprehensive and

reliable reporting. EEOC’s revised instructions would be issued in the

beginning of fiscal year 2000, and the first complete fiscal year for which

the instructions would be applicable would be fiscal year 2001. Agencies’

statistical reports for the fiscal year ending 2001 would not be submitted to

EEOC until fiscal year 2002 for later publication in the Federal Sector

Report on EEO Complaints Processing and Appeals. EEOC did not

indicate, however, when the first federal sector report containing these

data would be published.

EEOC also said that that it would take action to address our concerns

about data consistency, completeness, and accuracy. To deal with

problems in the reliability of the data collected from agencies, EEOC said

that it would urge agencies to give higher priority to the accuracy of their

data. EEOC said it will ask agencies to certify the reliability of the data

they provide and to explain how they ensure the quality of their data. In

addition, EEOC said that if additional resources it has requested for fiscal

year 2000 become available, it would be able to conduct on-site reviews to

assess the reliability of agency data, more closely examine the nature of

workplace disputes, and work with agencies to improve their EEO

programs.

We believe that the actions proposed by EEOC are generally responsive to

our recommendation and would add some measure of reliability to the

data it collects and reports. By urging agencies to give higher priority to

data reliability, EEOC would be reiterating its current policy, as stated in

Management Directive 110, that “Every effort should be made to ensure

accurate recordkeeping and reporting of federal EEO data and that all data

submissions are fully responsive and in compliance with information

requests.” By proposing that agencies certify the reliability of the their data

and explain how they ensure data quality, EEOC will be providing a

mechanism for holding agencies more accountable for producing reliable

and accurate data and, if followed, would have some basis to assess the

extent to which an agency’s processes may ensure the data’s reliability and
B-282387

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

accuracy. An assessment of agencies’ quality control procedures and

consideration of discrepancies contained in previous data submissions,

among other factors, would enable EEOC to select agencies for any future

on-site reviews based on the estimated risk of agencies submitting

unreliable data.

On April 9, 1999, the Postal Service’s Manager, EEO Compliance and

Appeals, provided oral comments on a draft of this report. He said that the

report, in general, accurately describes the data shortcomings and opens

the door for dialogue on how data could be collected in a manner that

would better serve decisionmakers. He agreed with the recommendation

that data be collected on the number of complainants. In addition, he

suggested that data be collected on the number of repeat filers. The official

said it has been his experience that between 60 and 70 individuals account

for every 100 complaints in a fiscal year. He also suggested that EEOC

collect data about the race and sex of complainants along basis and issue

lines. He further suggested that similar data be collected for individuals

seeking counseling. The official said that the Postal Service’s complaint

information system is capable of producing this kind of information

because it tracks individuals by their Social Security number. For example,

he said that his office has been able to provide Postal Service management

with complaint data for each of the Service’s 85 districts in order to

identify the extent of workplace conflicts at the different locations and the

primary issues driving the conflicts. He said, however, that the issues listed

on EEOC Form 462 (see app. I) need to be revised to make them more

relevant to the agencies reporting to EEOC. He suggested that EEOC

convene a working group of federal agency representatives to deal with

this and other data issues.

We believe the Postal Service official’s suggestion that EEOC develop a

working group of federal agency representatives to participate in revising

data collection requirements would allow stakeholders to be active

partners in the development of data collection requirements that affect

them. Although we did not identify all of the data that would be useful to

decisionmakers and program managers, a working group would provide a

forum for developing a consensus on data needs. It might be appropriate to

include congressional stakeholders in any working group because of their

oversight and policymaking responsibilities. It should be noted that other

agencies that deal with redress and human capital issues—the Office of

Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board—have

working groups or panels to assist them in carrying out their missions.
B-282387

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

The Postal Service official also said it would be helpful if EEOC revised its

system of collecting data to facilitate more timely collection and

publication of federal sector EEO complaint data. He noted that the

federal sector reports are published nearly 2 years after the fiscal year’s

end. More timely data, he said, would make data more useful to

decisionmakers.

We agree that more timely data are more likely to be useful to

decisionmakers. Although timeliness is not an issue we reviewed, we did

observe what appeared to be lengthy periods before data were made

available. For example, EEOC published the fiscal year 1997 Federal

Sector Report on EEO Complaints Processing and Appeals on April 27,

1999, 18 months after the end of fiscal year 1997. The working group

proposed by the Postal Service official could be a forum for further

exploring this issue.

As agreed with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this report

until 30 days after its issuance, unless you publicly release its contents

earlier. We will then send copies of this report to Senators Daniel K.

Akaka, Thad Cochran, Joseph I. Lieberman, and Fred Thompson; and

Representatives Robert E. Andrews, John A. Boehner, Dan Burton, William

L. Clay, Chaka Fattah, William F. Goodling, Steny H. Hoyer, Jim Kolbe,

John M. McHugh, David Obey, Harold Rogers, Joe Scarborough, Jose E.

Serrano, Henry A. Waxman, and C. W. Bill Young in their capacities as

Chair or Ranking Minority Members of Senate and House Committees and

Subcommittees. We will also send copies to The Honorable Ida L. Castro,

Chairwoman, EEOC; The Honorable William J. Henderson, Postmaster

General; The Honorable Janice R. Lachance, Director, Office of Personnel

Management; The Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management

and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make copies of this

report available to others on request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Please contact

me on (202) 512-8676 if you or your staff have any questions concerning

this report.

Michael Brostek

Associate Director, Federal Management

and Workforce Issues
Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I

Part IV of EEOC Form

462, Summary of Bases

and Issues in

Complaints Filed

16

Appendix II

Comments From the

U.S. Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Commission

17

Appendix III

Major Contributors to

This Report

19

Abbreviations

EEO equal employment opportunity

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings
Appendix I

Part IV of EEOC Form 462, Summary of Bases

and Issues in Complaints Filed

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

Figure I.1: Form Used by Agencies to Report Statistics on Bases and Issues in Complaints Filed
Appendix II

Comments From the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings
Appendix II

Comments From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings
Appendix III

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings

Stephen E. Altman, Assistant Director, Federal Management and

 Workforce Issues

Anthony P. Lofaro, Evaluator-in-Charge

Gary V. Lawson, Senior Evaluator

Sharon T. Hogan, Evaluator

General Government

Division
Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-75 EEO Complaint Data Shortcomings
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax

number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(410435)