Equal Employment Opportunity: SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures
Published: 2003-07-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Employees at the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Region X--which covers Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington--expressed concern about the Region's equal employment opportunity (EEO) process for employment discrimination complaints. GAO was asked to (1) provide information for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 on the composition of the Region X workforce and for personnel actions such as promotions, awards, and adverse actions by EEO group; (2) describe the EEO complaint process in Region X and any changes to it; (3) assess whether the Region's process is consistent with federal regulations and related guidance; and (4) assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region's employees and their attitude toward it.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In a geographic area where minorities represent a small portion of the civilian workforce (about 13.5 percent), Region X generally had a higher percentage of each minority group, except for American Indian and Alaska Natives. Moreover, the percentage of minority employees in Region X had increased from about 19 percent in fiscal year 1997 to about 27 percent in fiscal year 2001. Women represented a much higher proportion of SSA's workforce than of the civilian workforce. Differences among racial/ethnic and gender groups for most of the personnel actions reviewed were not statistically significant. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO counselors described a process that mirrored the informal stage of the required federal sector complaint process. In fiscal year 1999, Region X changed its EEO process, so that EEO counselors were no longer allowed to talk with managers but were required to submit their questions in writing. In addition, managers were encouraged to routinely have an attorney from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) review their written responses before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors. After the changes were in place for about a year, SSA headquarters officials held discussions with Region X officials to explain that having written inquiries and OGC involved in the informal EEO process was not consistent with the intent of resolving issues informally. Beginning early in fiscal year 2001, neither written EEO counselor queries to managers nor OGC involvement was required in the informal process. Region X's former use of written queries and OGC involvement were counter to the spirit of EEO regulations and their related guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling. In doing its work at Region X, GAO found that SSA had issued EEO handbooks for managers and employees, but the handbooks do not contain agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process complaints of discrimination. Agency-specific procedures are required by EEO regulations. Absent such procedures, components of an agency can use different procedures, as illustrated by Region X, resulting in employees across the country being treated differently. To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region's employees are with the EEO process and their willingness to participate in it, GAO surveyed all of the Region's employees. Most Region X employees reported having received or seen within the last 2 years written materials about EEO regulations and how to contact regional EEO counselors. Also, almost half the employees reported a willingness to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint if they believed they had been discriminated against. However, a sizeable portion of employees--about 40 percent--reported being unwilling or uncertain about becoming involved with the processes established for handling EEO complaints.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: An October 2000 report by the Seattle branch of the National Association  for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) alleged that the Social  Security Administration’s (SSA) Region X—which covers Alaska, Idaho,  Oregon, and Washington and has about 1,800 employees—may have  violated federal regulations governing equal employment opportunity  (EEO) and the processing of employment discrimination complaints.  The  report alleges, among other things, that the Office of the General Counsel  (OGC) in Region X interfered with EEO precomplaint counseling, the  informal stage of the EEO complaint process.  In addition, the report  alleges that in the informal stage, EEO counselors were required by Region  X management to submit written inquires to responsible management  officials rather than conversing with them to get information.  SSA did not  agree with the report’s allegations but agreed to two of its  recommendations:  to provide on-site precomplaint counseling at one of  the Region’s largest facilities and to provide ongoing training to  management on provisions concerning employees’ rights in SSA’s labor- management agreement.  As a result of the NAACP report, you asked us to  look at the Region’s EEO program.
Federal employees are protected by various federal laws that prohibit  employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national  origin, age, or disability (see app. II).  In addition, federal employees are  protected from retaliation for filing a complaint, participating in an  investigation of a complaint, or opposing any practice made unlawful under  these antidiscrimination laws.  The Equal Employment Opportunity  Commission (EEOC) has issued regulations that govern how the  discrimination claims of federal employees are to be processed  administratively.  Federal agencies covered by these regulations are  responsible for developing and implementing their own EEO programs and  complaint processing procedures consistent with EEOC’s regulations.
As agreed with your offices, our objectives were to (1) provide information  on the composition of Region X’s workforce by EEO group (race/ethnicity  and gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 overall and for personnel  actions such as promotions, awards, and adverse actions; (2) describe the  Region’s EEO complaint process and any changes to it during the 5-year  period; (3) assess whether the Region’s EEO complaint process was  consistent with federal regulations and related guidance; and (4) assess the  familiarity of the Region’s employees with the EEO process and their  attitude toward it.
For our discussion of the composition of Region X’s workforce as well as  the breakdown of personnel actions by EEO group, we used SSA data  provided by the Region’s human resources management information  system for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 for African Americans, American  Indian/Alaska Natives (AIAN), Asian/Pacific Islanders (Asian), Hispanics,  and Whites.  Each racial/ethnic group was broken down by gender.  As part  of our analysis of the composition of SSA staff for selected personnel  actions, we tested to see if statistically significant differences by EEO  group occurred.  Our analyses of personnel actions are designed to  provide information at a common and aggregate level about EEO group  differences in personnel actions at Region X and not to determine whether  or not discrimination existed.  The presence of a statistically significant  difference does not prove discrimination, nor does the absence of a  statistically significant difference prove that staff have not been  discriminated against.
To describe the EEO process in the Region and any changes made to it for  the 5-year period, we reviewed documents provided by SSA headquarters  and Region X officials and interviewed those officials.  To determine  whether the Region’s EEO complaint process is consistent with federal  regulations, we reviewed EEOC’s regulations governing how the  discrimination claims of federal employees are to be processed and  compared their requirements with the processes employed by the Region.   Also, to assess the familiarity of the Region’s employees with the EEO  process and their attitude toward it, we surveyed all of the Region’s  employees.
We did our work in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Seattle from January  2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.  Details of our scope and methodology are in   appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: SSA administers three major federal programs that provide benefits to  more than 50 million people.  The Old Age and Survivors Insurance  program provides benefits to retired workers and their dependents and  survivors.  The Disability Insurance program provides benefits to disabled  workers.  Supplemental Security Income provides income for aged, blind,  and disabled individuals with limited incomes and resources.  Heading SSA  is a Commissioner who leads a central office in Baltimore and 10 regional  offices.  The field organization, which is decentralized to provide service at  the local level, includes approximately 1,300 field offices.
Federal law prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for  employment on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,  or disability (see app. II for more details about antidiscrimination laws).   Under EEOC regulations, employees or applicants for employment who  believe that they have been discriminated against by a federal agency may  file a complaint with that agency.  Before filing a complaint, the employee  must consult an EEO counselor at the agency in order to try to informally  resolve the matter.  The employee must contact an EEO counselor within  45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a  personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action.  EEO  counselors should determine if the employee believes that his or her  problem is the result of one or more of the allowable bases—race, color,  sex (including equal pay), religion, national origin, age (40 and over), or  disability—or in retaliation for having participated in an activity, such as  filing a complaint, that is protected by the various antidiscrimination  statutes.  Counselors are to advise individuals that, where the agency agrees to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the particular case,  they may choose to participate in either counseling or in ADR.
After the counselor determines the basis or bases and claims, he or she is  to conduct a limited inquiry of the matter, which generally involves  speaking or meeting with the two parties.  When the counselor has a good  grasp of the issues involved, he or she is ready to attempt resolution.   Resolution means that the employee and the agency come to terms with the  matter and agree on a solution.  In seeking resolution, the counselor is to  listen to and understand the viewpoint of both parties and act as a neutral  and not as an advocate for either the employee or the agency.  Counseling  is to be completed within 30 days from the date the employee contacted the  EEO office for counseling.  If the matter is not resolved by the 30th day of  counseling or if ADR is unsuccessful, the counselor is required to inform  the employee in writing of his or her right to file a formal discrimination  complaint with the agency.  The written notice must inform the employee  of the (1) right to file a discrimination complaint within 15 days of receipt  of the notice, (2) appropriate agency official with whom to file a complaint,  and (3) duty to ensure that the agency is informed immediately if the  complainant retains counsel or a representative.
After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency  must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint.  If the agency  dismisses the complaint, the complainant can appeal the dismissal to  EEOC.  If the agency accepts the complaint, it must investigate the  complaint and present the complainant with a report of the investigation  results.  The complainant may then choose between requesting a hearing  before an EEOC administrative judge or a final decision from the agency.   Because SSA requires all employees to file formal complaints with its  headquarters in Baltimore, the formal process was outside of the scope of  our review.  Appendix II provides additional information on the processing  of employment discrimination complaints.
section_title: Composition of the Region X Workforce
paragraphs: SSA’s national workforce is predominantly women—about 71 percent in  fiscal year 2002—and Region X’s workforce mirrors this in all ethnic  groups.  For each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001, about two-thirds of all  Region X employees were women.  The majority of Region X employees  were age 40 and over, constituting about three-quarters of the workforce in  each year.  The number of employees with disabilities increased slightly  from about 10 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 11 percent in fiscal year 2001.   Over the 5-year period, most of the Region X workforce was in the general  schedule (GS) grade levels 5 through 12.  The distribution across grade  levels by EEO group varied somewhat but was generally close to the  representation of the various EEO groups in the Region’s workforce.  The  main differences were higher proportions of men in the GS-13 through 15  grade levels and higher representation of African Americans and Hispanics  in the GS-5 through 8 grades.  As discussed in the section on hiring,  substantial numbers of African Americans and Hispanics have been hired  over the last few years, which may explain their higher representation in  grades GS-5 through 8.  See appendix III for a discussion of grade levels by  EEO group.  Figure 1 shows the Region X workforce by EEO group for  fiscal years 1997 and 2001.
From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2001, the EEO group that experienced  the largest increase in its percentage of the workforce was Hispanic  women, who almost doubled from 57, or 3.3 percent of the workforce, to  120, or 6.5 percent.  This increase was followed by that of Asian women,  who increased by almost two-thirds from 55, or 3.2 percent of the  workforce, in fiscal year 1997 to 93, or 5.0 percent of the workforce, in  fiscal year 2001.  The percentage of the workforce represented by White  men and women and by AIAN women declined over the 5-year period.
To judge its diversity, SSA compares its workforce with the Civilian Labor  Force (CLF). Because the CLF data SSA uses are based on 1990 census  data, we also calculated regional civilian workforce (CWF) data of those  age 18 and older in the four states covered by Region X for fiscal year 2001,  based on 2001 Current Population Survey data.  Table 1 shows data on the  composition of the Region X workforce in fiscal years 1997 and 2001 and  compares those workforces to data on the CLF and CWF.  Region X  generally had a higher or equal representation of minority employees in its  workforce for all EEO groups compared with both the CLF and the CWF,  except AIAN men in fiscal years 1997 and 2001 and AIAN women in fiscal  year 2001.  In addition, the representation of White men in the Region was  below the CLF and the CWF for both fiscal years 1997 and 2001.
subsections: section_title: Composition of Selected Personnel Actions by EEO Group
paragraphs: We reviewed the EEO groups of those individuals who in fiscal years 1997  through 2001 were hired, promoted, separated, or received awards or  against whom Region X took adverse actions.  For most of the personnel  actions we reviewed, our analysis showed no statistically significant  differences among EEO groups, but it did show statistically significant  differences for some types of awards and adverse actions.  The analysis  showed statistically significant differences among races and between the  sexes concerning quality step increases for fiscal year 2001.  We also found  statistically significant differences by race/ethnicity for nonmonetary, or  honor, awards.  Our statistical analysis showed no significant differences  among EEO groups for written reprimands; however, it showed statistically  significant differences among races for suspensions and statistically  significant differences between the sexes concerning involuntary  separations.  Human capital management principles include certain  internal safeguards to help achieve consistency, equity, nondiscrimination,  and nonpoliticization in the performance management process.  One of  these safeguards can be reviewing the results of personnel actions for  statistically significant differences across groups.  According to a Region X  official, the Region has not reviewed such differences to uncover their  causes or to determine their appropriateness.
subsections: section_title: Hiring
paragraphs: From fiscal 1997 through fiscal year 2001, hiring among all minority groups  except AIAN men and women increased as a percentage of those hired.   The largest increase occurred among Hispanics.  Hiring of Hispanic women  increased from 9, or 5.1 percent of all hiring, in fiscal year 1997 to 21, or 9.8  percent in fiscal year 2001.  Hiring of Hispanic men increased from 4, or 2.3  percent of all hiring, in fiscal year 1997 to 14, or 6.5 percent in fiscal year  2001.  According to SSA officials, one of the reasons for the increase in  Hispanic hires was that in fiscal year 1998 the Region hired 57 Spanish  language bilingual telephone service representatives when Spanish  language calls began being routed to the Auburn Teleservice Center as part  of the national phase-in of the “direct-in” option of service for the Spanish- speaking public.  African American women had the largest decrease in the  percentage of hires they represent, and the percentage of AIAN men and  women declined slightly.  Figure 2 shows hiring in Region X by EEO group  for fiscal years 1997 and 2001.  All EEO groups were hired at rates that  were above their representation in the workforce, except White men and  women.
Promotions involve either the selection of a current or former federal  employee for a higher grade position, using procedures that compare the  candidates on merit (i.e., competitive promotions), or promotion of an  employee without competition when the employee had earlier been  competitively selected and had demonstrated readiness for the next grade  (i.e., career ladder promotions).  Because career ladder promotions do not  involve current competition, we focused on competitive promotions.  We  calculated the percentage of promotions received by members of each EEO  group over the 5-year period and compared it with the group’s average  percentage of the workforce overall.  This comparison showed that most  EEO groups were promoted at a rate that was generally about the same as  or somewhat higher than each group’s average percentage of  representation in the workforce for the period. African American men and  White women had the largest positive percentage difference (1.1 percent)  between their percentage of competitive promotions and representation in  the workforce.  Only White men and African American women were  promoted at rates lower than their average percentage of representation in  the workforce, with a 2.2 and 1.0 percentage difference, respectively.   Table 2 compares the percentage of competitive promotions to the average  percentage representation of each EEO group in the workforce for fiscal  years 1997 through 2001 in Region X.
Experience, training, and awards are among the elements considered in the  merit promotion process.  Appendix IV describes by EEO group, those  employees in Region X who participated in selected training opportunities  and received temporary promotions and awards during fiscal years 1997  through 2001.  Concerning awards, our statistical analysis showed that for  the 5-year period, Whites were significantly more likely to receive quality  step increases than African Americans, Hispanics, and AIANs; Asians were  significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than Hispanics  and AIANs; and African Americans were significantly more likely to receive  quality step increases than Hispanics.  There were no statistically  significant differences between men and women.  Because the Region  acknowledged a disparity among racial/ethnic groups concerning quality  step increases and began trying to address this disparity in fiscal year 1997,  we also did a statistical analysis of quality step increases for fiscal year  2001 alone.  By fiscal year 2001, only two statistically significant differences  remained—women were significantly more likely to receive quality step  increases than men and Hispanics were significantly less likely to receive  quality step increases than African Americans or Whites—which shows  substantial progress.  Our analysis also showed that for the 5-year period,  Asians were significantly more likely to receive nonmonetary, or honor,  awards than Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics.  Also, AIANs were  significantly more likely to receive honor awards than Hispanics.
Our statistical significance analysis was not designed to determine whether  or not discrimination occurred.  However, the analysis could indicate areas  warranting further study.
section_title: Separations
paragraphs: Separations include voluntary transfer to another SSA regional office,  resignation, retirement, and involuntary removal or termination.   Involuntary separations are discussed under adverse actions.  Although  there were definite increases in the percentage of separations among  specific EEO groups for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, all EEO groups  experienced fluctuations in separations over the 5 years we reviewed.  In  addition, the percentage of separations accounted for by retirements  increased from about a third in fiscal year 1997, to about 40 percent in  fiscal year 1998, peaked at about 55 percent in fiscal year 1999, declined to  almost 40 percent in fiscal year 2000, and returned to about a third in fiscal  year 2001.
We calculated the percentage of separations each EEO group represented  over the 5-year period and compared it with the average percentage of the  workforce by EEO.  This comparison shows that all minority EEO groups  separated at a rate that was slightly higher than the average percentage  each group represented in the workforce for the period.  African American  women had the largest percentage difference between their percentage of  separations and representation in the workforce (1.3 percentage points),  followed by AIAN women (1.1 percentage points).  Only Whites separated  at rates lower than their average percentage representation in the  workforce.  Table 3 compares the percentage of separations to the average  percentage of each EEO group in the workforce for fiscal years 1997  through 2001 in Region X.
Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5-year period.  These actions  included written reprimands, short-term suspensions (i.e., 14 days or less),  long-term suspensions (i.e., 15 days or more), demotions, and terminations  or removals.  Of the 142 actions, 65, or about 46 percent, were for  individuals who entered computer databases without authorization.  Our  statistical analysis showed no significant differences among EEO groups  for written reprimands.  However, for short-term suspensions, AIANs and  African Americans were significantly more likely to receive suspensions of  14 days or less than Whites.  Also, men were significantly more likely to  experience a removal or termination than women.  As mentioned earlier,  our statistical analysis was not designed to determine whether or not  discrimination existed but can identify areas worthy of further study by  management.  Appendix V contains detailed information on adverse  actions, appeals of such actions, formal EEO complaints filed, and  grievances filed under the union grievance procedure for fiscal years 1997  through 2001 in Region X.
section_title: Region X Made Temporary Changes to the Informal Stage of the EEO Process
paragraphs: Region X made changes to its informal EEO process in fiscal years 1999  and 2001.  For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO  counselors described an informal process that mirrored the federal sector  complaint process outlined in EEOC’s guidance.  In fiscal year 1999, Region  X made changes to this process, under which EEO counselors were no  longer allowed to talk with managers but were required to submit questions  in writing to managers about what had transpired between employees and  managers.  In addition, managers were encouraged to routinely have an  attorney from OGC review their written responses before these responses  were provided to the EEO counselors.  In fiscal year 2001, after discussions  with SSA headquarters officials had occurred, additional training was  provided (for EEO counselors, OGC, and executive staff), and the then  Regional Commissioner made conference calls to every manager about this  issue, EEO counselors were again allowed to talk with managers.   Counselors said revoking the changes brought the process back to what it  was previously.
Because the Region could not provide us with documentation on how it  carried out its EEO complaint process or how it changed, we contacted  former and current EEO counselors and discussed this area with regional  officials.  For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Region X EEO counselors  described an informal process similar to the informal stage of the federal  sector complaint process outlined in EEOC guidance Management  Directive 110 (MD-110).  First an employee would approach an EEO  counselor, who would take notes about the person’s complaint, including  the claim being made and the basis or bases for the complaint.  The EEO  counselor would then advise the employee of his or her rights.  The  counselor would call the manager identified by the employee, identify for  the manager the issues and bases of the complaint, and get the manager’s  input on what had transpired.  Several counselors said that after meeting or  talking with the employees and managers, they would typically read back  managers’ statements to them to make sure that they had captured what  the managers said.  One counselor mentioned letting managers read the  statement.
According to SSA headquarters and Region X officials, in fiscal year 1999,  Region X made changes to the procedures in the informal stage of its EEO  complaint process.  These changes (1) required Region X EEO counselors  to put in writing questions to managers and (2) commonly involved the  Region’s OGC in the informal stage of the process.  The then Regional  Commissioner referred to these changes collectively as the “written  approach.” After these changes took place, EEO counselors were no longer  allowed to talk with managers.  In addition, according to the then Regional  Commissioner, as part of the written approach, managers were encouraged  to routinely have an attorney from OGC review their written responses  before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors.
SSA’s then Associate Commissioner of the Office of Civil Rights and Equal  Opportunity (OCREO) said that he thought the written queries came out of  Region X managers’ distrust of what the EEO counselors attributed to  managers in their reports.  The then Regional Commissioner said that  regional managers had reported that EEO counselors were not accurately  reflecting managers’ views in the counselors’ reports, including a manager  who in January 1998 said at a hearing on a formal EEO complaint that he  had not said things attributed to him.  In addition, according to the then  Regional Commissioner, EEO counselor training was inadequate before  1999, and the change to written queries was put in place about the same  time that the Region put in place a formal training process for EEO  counselors.  The then Regional Commissioner said that she wanted to use  the written approach to give managers the opportunity to give their views  until training was completed.
Also, in 1999, the Region began relying more on OGC in matters concerning  employee relations.  In a memo dated February 4, 1999, the Region  announced that a new partnership had been put in place and that OGC  would be providing advice and counsel on all employee relations issues and  cases.  According to the memo, these issues and cases were to include  misconduct, performance and attendance problems, reasonable  accommodation for employees with disabilities, and standards of conduct.   The memo does not refer to OGC involvement in EEO complaints and  cases.  However, according to the then Regional Commissioner and others,  in fiscal year 1999, OGC began reviewing managers’ written responses to  counselors’ inquiries during the informal stage of the EEO process.  The  then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that after the February 1999  memo, he believes that it became normal in Region X for managers to  consult with OGC.  He said that he thought that the OGC involvement was  gradual in the beginning.  The Regional Chief Counsel said that not every  manager availed himself or herself of OGC’s services.
The then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that he started in his  position in March 2000 and that he thought he first became aware that  Region X was involving OGC in a routine way in the EEO process in  summer 2000.  The then Associate Commissioner said that he and the then  SSA Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources agreed that there was a  perception that Region X’s reliance on OGC went beyond the informal  process.  The then Associate Commissioner said that during the informal  process, there should be a limited inquiry and that it should not prevent  EEO counselors from talking with managers or involve OGC.  The then  Associate Commissioner said that SSA headquarters officials held  discussions with Region X officials to explain that having OGC involved in  the informal EEO process gave the appearance that the “deck is stacked  against employees.”  In discussions between SSA headquarters and Region  X officials, the then Associate Commissioner said that both headquarters  and regional officials agreed that it would be good to have training to get  the process back to what was outlined in EEOC’s guidance.  As a result, the  then Associate Commissioner said that SSA headquarters sent OCREO staff  to the Region to provide training in October 2000 on basic counseling,  limited inquiries, and report writing.  According to the then Associate  Commissioner, the training was provided to the Civil Rights and Equal  Opportunity (CREO) staff, including EEO counselors and the CREO  manager, OGC, and executive staff.
In addition, the then Regional Commissioner said that she spoke with the  Area Director for Alaska and Washington, the Area Director for Idaho and  Oregon, and the Director of the Auburn Teleservice Center and told them  that OGC was not to be used during the informal stage of inquiry.  After the  training took place, the then Regional Commissioner said that she also had  conference calls with every manager about this issue.  According to a  Region X official, these conference calls took place on October 8, 2000.   Notes from a Region X official concerning these conference calls indicate  the following topics on the informal stage of the EEO process were  discussed:  The role of the counselor is to conduct a neutral and limited inquiry, not  an investigation.
Counselors will no longer submit questions in writing; they will engage  in a verbal dialogue with managers and supervisors, with emphasis on  informality.
It is important to remember that a counselor is not trying to prove right  or wrong. He or she is working toward a solution.
Resolution during informal counseling varies with the nature of  complaint.
Because the Region did not provide documentation that the written  approach was no longer a part of its informal EEO process, we contacted  Region X officials and former and current EEO counselors to confirm that  such a change took place.  According to two Region X EEO counselors who  were in those positions at the time, beginning in early fiscal year 2001, they  no longer had to put their queries in writing and were again allowed to talk  with managers.
section_title: Region X Employees about EEO
paragraphs: To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region’s employees are with  the EEO process, their willingness to participate in it, and their views on  the work environment, we surveyed all of the Region’s employees on the  EEO process and EEO environment in the Region and achieved a   75 percent response rate.  According to the results of our survey, most  Region X employees are familiar with the EEO process, with almost two- thirds of Region X employees reporting having received or having seen  within the last 2 years written materials about the federal government’s  EEO regulations and written materials describing how to contact regional  EEO counselors.  Most respondents indicated that they believed decisions  concerning job or project assignments, training, formal ratings, and  monetary awards were always or mostly based on merit and free of bias  and favoritism.  However, 23 percent of respondents reported that they felt  they had been discriminated against.  For example, when asked if they felt  they were denied a job, promotion, or other job benefit because of unlawful  discrimination, 10 percent of respondents cited race, 8 percent cited age,  and 8 percent cited sex.  In addition, when asked if they chose not to apply  for a promotion or developmental opportunity because they felt they had  little or no chance of being selected, 11 percent of respondents indicated  that age was the reason for not applying, 10 percent indicated race was the  reason, and 6 percent indicated sex was the reason.
When asked about their willingness, if they believed that they had been  discriminated against, to either contact Region X’s CREO to participate in  counseling or to contact OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal EEO  complaint, almost half of respondents indicated that they would be  generally or very willing to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO  complaint.  About 40 percent of respondents indicated that they were  unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO  complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated against.  When  asked to describe their reason for this unwillingness or uncertainty, about  55 percent indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in  counseling, and 51 percent, to file a formal EEO complaint because they  feared retaliation.  Also, 45 percent of respondents indicated that they were  unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling because of a concern  that their contact with the EEO counselor would not be kept confidential.   Our prior work has shown that leading organizations work to ensure that  they create a workplace that is free of discrimination and in which  employees do not fear or experience retaliation for engaging in activities  protected by antidiscrimination laws.  Our survey results indicate that if  Region X does not work to improve the perceptions of employees, it may  not achieve a trusting workplace.  Appendix VI discusses more of the  results of our survey, and appendix VII contains a copy of our questionnaire  and the responses to the questions.
section_title: Region X’s Temporary Changes Were Counter to the Spirit of EEOC’s Regulations and SSA’s Guidance
paragraphs: The changes Region X made to the informal stage of its EEO process are  not specifically addressed in federal sector EEO regulations.  Neither  EEOC’s regulations nor the related guidance—MD-110—directly addresses  the appropriateness of written counselors’ queries, written managers’  responses, or OGC involvement in the informal process.  However, these  changes were counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related  guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint  counseling.  In addition, these changes were counter to SSA’s EEO  handbook for managers and supervisors, which discusses meetings and  conversations between counselors and managers but not written  inquiries.
One of the stated purposes of precomplaint counseling is for employees  who believe they have been discriminated against to attempt to informally  resolve the matter.  MD-110 states that in almost all instances, informal  resolution, freely arrived at by all parties involved in the dispute, is the best  outcome of a counseling action.  Appendix A to MD-110, which contains  methods for seeking resolution, suggests that during precomplaint  counseling, the counselor talk or meet with agency officials to explain the  employee’s allegations, afford the agency an opportunity to present its  position concerning the allegations, and suggest how the problem might be  resolved.
SSA’s then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that the changes made  by Region X in the informal EEO process, although not illegal, were  counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related guidance, MD-110.   The then Associate Commissioner said that by having written EEO  counselor queries and managers’ responses and involving OGC, the  informal stage of the EEO process in Region X was more like an  investigation in the formal stage of the EEO process.  In addition, in a June  2001 letter to a Region X employee, SSA’s then Deputy Commissioner for  Human Resources wrote that, “Except in rare instances, OGC should not be  involved in the precomplaint process.”  When asked whether OGC was  involved in the informal stage of the EEO complaint process in other SSA  regions, the then Associate Commissioner for OCREO said that he has  never had any complaints or allegations that OGC was involved in the  informal part of the process in other regions.
In addition, the EEOC regulations require that all agencies ensure that all  agency employees provide full cooperation to EEO personnel in the  processing and resolution of precomplaint matters.  According to a recent  EEOC report, the involvement of OGC during the informal stage of the  EEO process may thwart attempts during counseling to resolve matters  before the filing of a formal complaint.  An EEOC official responsible for  overseeing agencies’ EEO programs said that involving OGC in the informal  stage of the process causes EEOC concern because complaints should be  resolved informally and OGC involvement can hinder the counselor’s  ability to facilitate resolution.  This official added that having managers put  responses to counselors’ queries in writing and involving OGC at the  informal stage of the process could drag out the process and that the longer  the process takes, the less likely it is to result in an informal settlement.  In  addition, the EEOC official said that EEOC encourages alternative dispute  resolution (ADR), and requiring managers to put responses in writing is  counter to ADR.  Finally, the EEOC official said that written EEO counselor  queries and managers’ responses and the involvement of OGC in the  informal process were counter to the spirit of the regulations.
Written counselors’ queries and written managers’ responses were counter  to SSA’s EEO handbook for managers, which discusses meetings and  conversations between counselors and managers.  The handbook also  discusses EEO counselors contacting responsible management officials to  discuss the issues causing concern, the basis or bases for the complaint,  and the remedy sought by the employee.  The handbook for managers also  states that the manager’s cooperation with the counselor is required by  regulation and that the manager may have a representative present when  meeting with an EEO counselor.  Thus, the language in the handbook for  managers is similar to appendix A of MD-110, which suggests that the  counselor talk or meet with agency officials and points out the requirement  of EEOC’s regulations that all agencies ensure that all agency employees  provide full cooperation to EEO personnel in the processing and resolution  of precomplaint matters.
subsections: section_title: SSA Has Not Adopted Procedures for Counselors Processing EEO Complaints as Required by EEOC Regulations
paragraphs: In doing our work on Region X, we asked SSA headquarters and Region X  for documents pertaining to the processing of EEO complaints.  Among  other things, SSA provided its EEO handbook for managers and  supervisors as well as its employees’ edition, which inform managers and  employees what they can expect when faced with the EEO process.   However, the handbooks, which were issued in November 1995, do not  contain agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process  such complaints.  Under EEOC’s regulations, agencies have certain  responsibilities for maintaining a continuing affirmative program to  promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory  practices and policies.  In order to implement their programs, the  regulations require agencies to (1) make written materials available to all  employees and applicants informing them of the variety of EEO programs  and administrative and judicial remedial procedures available to them and  (2) prominently post such materials in all personnel and EEO offices and  throughout the workplace.  In addition, the regulations require agencies  to adopt procedures for processing—both at the informal and formal  stage—individual and class complaints of discrimination that are  consistent with all other applicable provisions of the regulations and the  instructions for complaint processing contained in MD-110.
SSA has addressed two of these regulatory requirements.  It has  communicated in memorandums to all employees its policy prohibiting  discrimination against employees and applicants for employment, most  recently in a February 10, 2003, memorandum.  SSA headquarters and  Region X officials provided us with copies of the written materials  containing information on the administrative and judicial remedial  procedures available.  On a visit to Region X, we saw such written materials  posted on a wall in the Auburn Teleservice Center.  We also used SSA’s  Intranet to reach the Seattle Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity Web site  and confirm that the information is available electronically to Region X  employees as is current information about whom to contact.  SSA’s EEO  handbooks for managers and employees discussed earlier also provide  much information to their target groups.  However, SSA has not fully  implemented the third regulatory requirement to adopt agency-specific  procedures for processing EEO complaints.  When asked if SSA had  adopted procedures for processing EEO complaints, the then Associate  Commissioner for OCREO and Region X’s manager for CREO said that SSA  follows the processes and procedures outlined in the guidance on the  EEOC regulations—MD-110.
An EEOC official responsible for overseeing agencies’ EEO programs said  that EEOC anticipated that an agency would have step-by-step,  agency-specific procedures on how the agency would implement the  broader requirements covered by EEOC’s regulations and related guidance.   The EEOC official said that EEOC anticipated that when agencies adopted  such procedures, they would be in writing, so others could review them, if  necessary.  According to the EEOC official, having agency-specific  guidance is important so that people processing complaints know exactly  how to implement the regulations.  The official said he thinks it is  appropriate for agencies to have standard operating procedures, especially  when they have more than one installation or operations spread across  installations or regions, to help ensure consistent compliance with the  regulations.  The EEOC official said that it was an issue of fairness to both  the employees in the EEO offices because they need to know what to do  and what is expected of them and to those who may file a complaint  because they are entitled to similar treatment across geographic areas for  fairness.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Our analysis showed no statistically significant differences for most of the  personnel actions we reviewed.  However, we found statistically significant  differences among groups for certain awards and adverse actions in Region  X.  This analysis was not designed to determine whether or not  discrimination existed.  However, the analysis can identify areas worthy of  further study by management.  Human capital management principles  include reviewing personnel actions to identify and address statistically  significant differences across groups in order to help ensure EEO in the  workplace.  Region X has not reviewed such differences to uncover their  causes or to determine their appropriateness.
Concerning whether the Region’s EEO complaint process is consistent with  federal regulations, Region X’s changes to written queries and OGC  involvement in its informal EEO complaint process are not specifically  addressed in federal sector EEO regulations.  However, these changes were  counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related guidance, which  emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling and informal  resolution.  In addition, these changes were counter to SSA’s EEO  handbook for managers and supervisors, which discusses meetings and  conversations between counselors and managers.
In doing our work at Region X, we found that although SSA had issued EEO  handbooks in November 1995 for managers and supervisors as well as  employees, the handbooks do not contain agency-specific procedures on  how EEO counselors are to process complaints of discrimination.  Agency- specific procedures on how to process EEO complaints—both at the  informal and formal stage—are required by EEOC’s regulations and are  especially important if employees are geographically dispersed, as in SSA,  to ensure that all employees have the same process available to them.   Without agency-specific procedures for EEO counselors to process  complaints of discrimination, counselors in different components could  use different procedures, with the result that employees are not treated  consistently.  Also, agency-specific procedures could alert managers to  possible problem areas when they consider changing processes and could  help prevent changes like the temporary ones in Region X that ran counter  to the spirit of EEOC’s regulations.
In addition, a sizeable portion of respondents to our survey—about 40  percent—indicated they were unwilling to become or uncertain about  becoming involved with the processes established for handling EEO  complaints.  Frequently cited reasons for concern about becoming involved  with the EEO process were a fear of retaliation and that contact with the  EEO counselor would not be kept confidential.  These concerns could  deter individuals in Region X from exercising their rights concerning EEO.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the Commissioner of SSA:   Direct the Regional Commissioner of Region X to review the statistically  significant differences we found in adverse actions and awards to  determine why they occurred and what, if any, corrective action is  needed.
Adopt standard operating procedures for EEO counselors that include  step-by-step procedures for processing complaints of discrimination so  that counselors and others involved in the process across the country  know what to do and employees face the same process everywhere.
Direct the Regional Commissioner of Region X to establish a plan to (1)  enhance the Region’s EEO environment to increase trust and (2)  measure the plan’s effectiveness, such as with a periodic survey of  employees.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In a letter dated June 26, 2003 (see app. VIII), SSA’s Commissioner said that  the agency acknowledged the report’s general findings and said that SSA is  committed to ensuring equal treatment for all employees and that its  policies and practices are in compliance with EEOC’s procedures for  processing complaints of discrimination.  Regarding our first  recommendation, SSA said that it would continue to monitor statistically  significant differences.  However, SSA did not address the extent to which  it would take action, if needed.  We continue to believe that this is an  important component of following up and alleviating concerns.  Regarding  our second recommendation that it adopt standard operating procedures  for EEO counselors, SSA stated that it has standard operating procedures  in the form of EEO handbooks and an EEO training manual that SSA uses  to instruct EEO counselors on how to process EEO complaints.  As  discussed in the draft report, the handbooks did not provide detailed  procedures on how EEO counselors are to process EEO complaints.   However, the comments state that SSA is going to update the handbooks  and training manual to provide the procedural guidelines called for in  EEOC’s regulations governing the EEO process for federal agencies.
SSA said that it agrees all regions should foster an environment where  employees feel they can raise concerns and take part in a process designed  to resolve complaints and acknowledged that the change to the EEO  process in Region X may have caused some distrust.  However, SSA  disagreed with our third recommendation that the Regional Commissioner  of Region X establish a plan to enhance the Region’s EEO environment to  increase trust and measure the plan’s effectiveness.  The comments said  that our survey found that 51 percent of the Region’s employees were very  or generally willing to participate in EEO counseling, 13 percent were as  willing as unwilling, and 10 percent were uncertain.  SSA also said that  because Region X is no longer following the change to the EEO process  that may have caused some distrust, implementing a plan to improve trust  will not be necessary.  Our survey was conducted in early 2003, or about 2  years after the “written approach” to the informal stage of EEO complaint  processing was discontinued.  Our survey found that 40 percent of  employees were unwilling or uncertain about using the current EEO  process, indicating to us a need to focus on enhancing the environment to  increase trust.  While SSA said it would share best practices from other  human resource management audits with Region X, a periodic focus on  Region X would, in our view, provide knowledge of issues specific to  Region X.
We will send copies of this report to the Commissioner of SSA, the Director  of the Office of Management and Budget, and interested congressional  committees.  We also will make copies available to others upon request.  In  addition, the report is available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov.   If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me on  (202) 512-6806 or Kiki Theodoropoulos, Senior Analyst, on (202) 512-4579.   Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: As agreed, our objectives were to (1) provide information on the  composition of Region X’s workforce by EEO group (race/ethnicity and  gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 overall and for personnel actions  such as promotions, awards, and adverse actions; (2) describe the EEO  complaint process and any changes to it in the Region for the 5-year period;  (3) assess whether the Region’s EEO complaint process is consistent with  federal regulations and related guidance; and (4) assess the familiarity  with the EEO process of the Region’s employees and their attitude toward  it.
subsections: section_title: Objective 1
paragraphs: To identify the composition of Region X’s workforce by EEO group  (race/ethnicity and gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in general  and for selected personnel actions (i.e., hires, promotions, separations,  awards, training, and adverse actions), we used SSA data provided by the  Region’s human resources management information system for the 5-year  period.  These data were limited to those employees of Region X who were  under the line authority of the then Regional Commissioner and, therefore,  do not include employees of the Office of Inspector General, Office of  Hearings and Appeals, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Regional  Office of Quality Assurance.
We assessed the reliability of data provided by Region X on the workforce,  hires, promotions, separations, and awards for fiscal years 1997 and 2001  by comparing them against the number of employees for Region X in the  Office of Personnel Management’s Central Personnel Data File and doing  electronic data testing for obvious errors in completeness, accuracy, and  reasonableness.  We found data on the workforce, permanent promotions,  separations, and quality step increases to be sufficiently reliable for fiscal  years 1997 and 2001 for the purposes of this report.  We did not check the  reliability of data on temporary promotions because they included details  to lateral positions, which are not counted as temporary promotions in the  Central Personnel Data File.  Data on race/ethnicity for hires reported to  us by Region X were significantly different from such data for SSA Region  X hires in the Central Personnel Data File.
We discussed the differences with SSA headquarters and Region X officials  to determine the reason for them.  The lead human resources official in  Region X said that when a new hire is processed via an accession action,  the employee cannot be paid until the personnel action is released and  updated through the Federal Personnel and Payroll System, the automated  personnel action processing system SSA uses.  During fiscal years 1997  through 2001, the official said that often, because of time constraints, the  system—which required a code for race/ethnicity—was coded with  unverified data (i.e., White) so the action could go through and the  employee be paid.  The official said that in August 2002 SSA began  requiring the human resources staff processing the new hire personnel  actions to have the completed form with race/ethnicity submitted  electronically or by fax on the day the employee reports for duty, so the  data can be coded properly into the initial accession action.  An OPM  official analyzed Region X data on hires and confirmed that submissions of  subsequent personnel actions updated race/ethnicity for some Region X  employees.  As a result, we decided the data on hires were sufficiently  reliable for our purposes.
We assessed the reliability of data on selections to the Job Enhancement  Program, adverse actions and their appeals, EEO counseling requests, EEO  complaints, reasonable accommodations, grievances, and settlements, by  doing in-depth comparisons of narratives concerning the data with the  data provided by Region X.  In cases where we found differences, we  discussed inconsistencies with regional officials and took steps to correct  them.  We determined that the data on Job Enhancement Program  selections, adverse actions and their appeals, EEO counseling requests,  EEO complaints, reasonable accommodations, grievances, and settlements  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To judge its diversity, SSA compares its workforce with the Civilian Labor  Force (CLF). Because data on the U.S. CLF that SSA uses are based on  1990 census data, we decided to use data from the 2001 Current Population  Survey, which is a monthly survey of about 50,000 households conducted  by the Bureau of the Census and is the primary source of current  information on the labor force characteristics of the U.S. population.  To  identify the fiscal year 2001 regional civilian workforce, we used the March  2001 Current Population Survey to identify the number of individuals 18 or  older working in the private sector and for federal, state, and local  governments in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
As part of our analysis, for our discussion of the composition of SSA staff  for selected personnel actions, we determined whether statistically  significant differences by race/ethnicity or gender occurred.  Our analyses  of personnel actions are not designed to show that discrimination does or  does not exist; instead they are designed to provide information at a  common and aggregate level about race/ethnicity and gender differences  in personnel actions at Region X.  Therefore, our results should not be  interpreted to indicate whether discrimination has or has not occurred.   The presence of statistically significant difference does not prove  discrimination, nor does the absence of statistically significant difference  prove that staff have not been discriminated against.  The presence of  statistically significant differences means that we are 95 percent confident  that differences could happen by chance in less than 5 percent of the cases.
section_title: Objective 2
paragraphs: To describe the EEO process in Region X and any changes made to it for  the 5-year period, we reviewed documents provided by SSA headquarters  and Region X officials and interviewed those officials.  Because the Region  was not able to provide us with written documentation on how it carried  out the informal stage of the EEO complaint process and when changes to  the process occurred, we contacted former and current Region X EEO  counselors and headquarters officials and relied on their views concerning  when these changes took place.
section_title: Objective 3
paragraphs: To determine whether the Region’s EEO complaint process was consistent  with federal regulations, we reviewed EEOC’s regulations and the related  guidance—EEOC’s Management Directive 110 (MD-110)—governing how the  discrimination claims of federal employees are to be processed  administratively and compared their requirements with the processes  described by SSA headquarters and Region X officials.  We also reviewed a  recent EEOC on-site report on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, part of  which concerned the involvement of OGC in the informal part of the EEO  process.  In addition, we contacted an EEOC official responsible for  overseeing agencies’ EEO programs to identify EEOC’s views concerning  whether the types of changes Region X made to its EEO process were  consistent with federal regulations and the related guidance.
section_title: Objective 4
paragraphs: To assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region’s employees  and their attitude toward it, we designed and sent questionnaires to all  SSA Region X employees to get their views on EEO.  We pretested the  questionnaire instrument to minimize measurement error and assure  ourselves that respondents could interpret the questions correctly and  could provide the information requested.  We modified question wording  and questionnaire format on the basis of what we learned from these  pretests.
SSA provided us with the home addresses for all individuals employed by  Region X as of August 27, 2002.  On September 18, 2002, we mailed 1,801  questionnaires to these home addresses.  One individual returned the  questionnaire, indicating that he or she was no longer an employee of  Region X.  Because this individual did not answer any questions in the  survey, we dropped this individual from the universe of employees,  resulting in a revised universe of 1,800 Region X employees.  After the  initial and a follow-up mailing, we received 1,364 questionnaires.  However,  we received 9 questionnaires in which the tracking number for  nonresponse follow-up had been removed (see table 4).  Therefore, our  analysis is based on 1,355 questionnaires, for a response rate of 75.3  percent.  Table 4 summarizes the disposition of the questionnaire returns  for the revised universe of 1,800.
The questionnaire offered respondents the option of providing additional  comments relating to any of the items discussed therein.  Of the 1,355  useable returns, 307 respondents, or 22.7 percent, provided narrative  comments.  The questionnaire results express the viewpoints and attitudes  of SSA Region X employees.  All responses were anonymous; if  respondents included references to names, these references were marked  out before questionnaires were submitted to data entry.
All data were double-keyed and verified as part of the data entry process.   Computer analyses were performed to identify inconsistencies (e.g.,  inappropriate skip patterns) or other indications of errors.  All computer  analyses were verified by a second independent analyst.  Although it was  not possible to test the validity of the respondents’ answers or the  comments they made, we took several steps to check the quality of our  questionnaire data.  We reviewed and edited completed questionnaires,  made internal consistency checks on several items, and rechecked the  accuracy of data entry on a random sample of questionnaires.  The  practical difficulties of administering any questionnaire may introduce  errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors.  For example,  differences in how a particular question is interpreted by respondents  could introduce unwanted variability in the questionnaire’s results.  We  took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data collection,  and the data analysis to minimize nonsampling errors.  These steps, which  we discussed earlier, included pretesting and revising the questionnaires  accordingly.
The percentage of respondents by race/ethnicity closely mirrored the  percentage of each race/ethnicity in the population of Region X employees.   The percentage of men and women responding to the survey also matched  their respective percentages in the Region X workforce.
The 95-percent confidence intervals for the percentage of respondents who  were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal  discrimination complaint were +1.4 percentage points.  The 95-percent  confidence intervals for the reasons why respondents were unwilling or  uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal discrimination  complaint were + 2.3 percentage points.
We did our work in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Seattle from January  2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
section_title: EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees
subsections: section_title: Laws Prohibiting Discrimination
paragraphs: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, makes it illegal for  employers, including federal agencies, to discriminate against their  employees or job applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or  national origin.  The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who  perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex- based wage discrimination.  The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of  1967, as amended, prohibits employment discrimination against individuals  who are 40 years of age or older.  Sections 501 and 505 of the  Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibit discrimination against  qualified individuals with disabilities who work or apply to work in the  federal government.  Federal agencies are required to provide reasonable  accommodation to qualified employees or applicants for employment with  disabilities, except when such accommodation would cause an undue  hardship.  In addition, a person who files a complaint or participates in an  investigation of an EEO complaint or who opposes an employment practice  made illegal under any of the antidiscrimination statutes is protected from  retaliation.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is  responsible for enforcing all of these laws.
section_title: EEOC Regulations Governing the Processing of Employment Discrimination Complaints
paragraphs: Federal employees or applicants for employment who believe that they  have been discriminated against by a federal agency may file a complaint  with that agency. EEOC has established regulations providing for the processing of federal sector employment discrimination complaints.  This  complaint process consists of two stages, informal, or precomplaint  counseling, and formal.  Before filing a complaint, the employee must  consult an EEO counselor at the agency in order to try to informally  resolve the matter.  The employee must contact an EEO counselor within  45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a  personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. EEO  counselors should determine if the employee believes that his or her  problem is the result of discrimination on one or more of the bases—race,  color, sex (including equal pay), religion, national origin, age (40 and over),  disability—or in retaliation for having participated in activity protected by  the various antidiscrimination statutes.  Counselors are to advise  individuals that, when the agency agrees to offer alternative dispute  resolution (ADR) in the particular case, they may choose to participate in  either counseling or in ADR.
After the counselor determines the basis or bases and claims, he or she is  to conduct a limited inquiry of the matter, which generally involves  speaking or meeting with the two parties.  When the counselor has a good  grasp of the issues involved, he or she is ready to attempt resolution.   Resolution means that the employee and the agency come to terms with  the matter and agree on a solution.  In seeking resolution, the counselor is  to listen to and understand the viewpoint of both parties and act as a  neutral and not as an advocate for either the employee or the agency.   Counseling is to be completed within 30 days from the date the employee  contacted the EEO office for counseling.  If the matter is not resolved by  the 30th day of counseling or if ADR is unsuccessful, the counselor is  required to inform the employee in writing of his or her right to file a  formal discrimination complaint with the agency.  The written notice must  inform the employee of the (1) right to file a discrimination complaint  within 15 days of receipt of the notice, (2) appropriate agency official with  whom to file a complaint, and (3) duty to ensure that the agency is  informed immediately if the complainant retains counsel or a  representative.
After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency  must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint. If the agency  dismisses the complaint, the complainant has 30 days to appeal the  dismissal to EEOC.  If the agency accepts the complaint, it has 180 days to  investigate the accepted complaint and present the complainant with a  record of investigation.  Once the agency finishes its investigation and the  complainant receives the investigation results, the complainant has 30  days to choose between requesting (1) a hearing before an EEOC  administrative judge (AJ) or (2) a final decision from the agency.  When a  hearing is not requested, the agency must issue a final decision within 60  days.  In cases where a hearing is requested, the AJ has 180 days to issue a  decision and send the decision to the complainant and the agency. If the AJ  issues a finding of discrimination, he or she is to order appropriate relief.  After the AJ decision is issued, the agency has 40 days to issue a final order  notifying the complainant whether or not the agency will fully implement  the decision of the AJ, and the employee has 30 days to file an appeal with  EEOC.  If the agency issues an order notifying the complainant that the  agency will not fully implement the decision of the AJ, the agency also  must file an appeal with EEOC at the same time.  Figure 3 illustrates the  EEO complaint process.
If a complaint is one that can be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection  Board (MSPB) such as a removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension  for more than 14 days, the complaint is a “mixed case.”  With a mixed-case  complaint, the complainant has no right to a hearing before an EEOC AJ.   However, a complainant may appeal a final agency decision to the MSPB  within 30 days of receiving the agency’s decision.  EEOC regulations  provide that an individual may raise claims of discrimination in a mixed  case, either as a mixed-case EEO complaint with the agency or a direct  appeal to MSPB, but not both.  Under EEOC regulations, whatever action  the individual files first is considered an election to proceed in that forum.  Filing a formal EEO complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the  EEO forum; contacting an EEO counselor or receiving EEO counseling  does not constitute such an election.
section_title: Region X Workforce by Grade Level
paragraphs: Over the 5-year period from fiscal years 1997 through 2001, with the  exception of managers in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and eight  wage grade employees, the Region X workforce was in the general  schedule (GS) pay plan.  The GS pay plan consists of 15 grades.  The  following sections contain a discussion of Region X employees by EEO  group in grade levels GS-13 through 15, GS-9 through 12, GS-5 through 8,  and GS-1 through 4.
subsections: section_title: Region X Employees in Grades GS-13 through GS-15
paragraphs: A total of 75 employees were in grades GS-13 through GS-15 in fiscal year  1997, and 134 in fiscal year 2001.  The largest proportional gain in these  grades was among White women, who increased from 19, or about 25  percent of these grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 44, or about 33 percent, in  fiscal year 2001.  This was followed by a proportional increase in these  grades among Asian women, who increased in number from 2, or almost 3  percent of the grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 10, or 7.5 percent, in fiscal year  2001. Proportional increases also occurred among African American  women, AIAN men, and Hispanic men.  Hispanic women increased from 0  in fiscal year 1997 to 4, or 3 percent of these grades in fiscal year 2001.  Figure 4 shows the change in Region X employees in grades GS-13 through  GS-15 by EEO group between fiscal years 1997 and 2001.
section_title: Region X Employees in Grades GS-9 through GS-12
paragraphs: A total of 791 employees were in grades GS-9 through GS-12 in fiscal year  1997, and 837 in fiscal year 2001.  The largest proportional gain in these  grades from fiscal year 1997 to 2001 was among Hispanic women, who  increased from 26, or 3.3 percent of the grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 46, or  5.5 percent, in fiscal year 2001.  This was followed by a proportional  increase among Asian women, whose presence in the grades went from 28,  or 3.5 percent in fiscal year 1997, to 41, or 4.9 percent, in fiscal year 2001.
Proportional increases also occurred among African American men and  women, Asian men, and Hispanic men.  Figure 5 shows the distribution of  Region X employees in grades GS-9 through GS-12 by EEO group from  fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2001.
section_title: Region X Employees in Grades GS-5 through GS-8
paragraphs: A total of 818 employees were in grades GS-5 through GS-8 in fiscal year  1997, and 844 in fiscal year 2001.  The largest proportional gain in these  grades was among Hispanic women, who increased from 28, or 3.4 percent  of these grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 66, or 7.8 percent, in fiscal year 2001.
This increase was followed by a proportional increase among Hispanic  men, whose presence in these grades doubled from 20, or 2.4 percent in  fiscal year 1997, to 40, or 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2001 and Asian women,  who increased from 22, or 2.7 percent, to 36, or 4.3 percent.  The largest  proportional loss occurred among White women, who decreased from 439,  or 53.7 percent of the grades in fiscal year 1997, to 387, or 45.9 in fiscal  year 2001; this was followed by a loss among White men, who decreased  from 213, or 26 percent of the grades in fiscal year 1997, to 205, or 24.3  percent in fiscal year 2001.  No change occurred in the number of African  American or AIAN men in these grades in fiscal years 1997 and 2001.   Figure 6 shows Region X employees in grades GS-5 through GS-8 in fiscal  years 1997 and 2001 by EEO group.
section_title: Region X Employees in Grades GS-1 through GS-4
paragraphs: A total of 35 employees were in grades GS-1 through GS-4 in fiscal year  1997, and 30 in fiscal year 2001.  Numbers for both years included students.   There were no African American, Asian, or Hispanic men in these grades in  fiscal years 1997 and 2001. The largest proportional increase occurred  among AIAN women, who increased from 1, or 2.9 percent of these grades  in fiscal year 1997, to 5, or 16.7 percent in fiscal year 2001.  This increase  was followed by a proportional increase in Asian women, who doubled  from 3, or 8.6 percent of these grades in fiscal year 1997 to 6, or 20.0  percent in fiscal year 2001.  The largest proportional loss was experienced  among White women, who decreased from 21, or 60 percent of these  grades in fiscal year 1997 to 10, or 33.3 percent in fiscal year 2001.  Figure 7  shows Region X employees in grades GS-1 through GS-4 from fiscal year  1997 through fiscal year 2001 by EEO group.
Tables 5 and 6 show the distribution across grade levels by race/ethnicity  and gender compared with their representation in the Region’s workforce  for fiscal years 1997 and 2001, respectively.  As shown in the tables, the  distribution across grade levels by race/ethnicity or gender varied  somewhat but was generally close to the representation of the various  racial/ethnic groups or gender makeup of the Region’s workforce.  The  main differences were higher proportions of men in the GS-13 through  GS-15 grade levels and higher representation of African Americans and  Hispanics in the GS-5 through GS-8 grades.
section_title: Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards
paragraphs: Experience, training, and awards are among the elements considered  under SSA’s merit promotion process.  Experience includes such  developmental assignments as temporary promotions and outside  activities.  Training includes both external coursework (e.g., college  courses) and internal courses (provided by the agency).  Awards include  monetary and nonmonetary, or honor, awards.  The analysis for the 5-year  period showed statistically significant differences among races concerning  quality step increases and honor awards.  These analyses were not  designed to determine whether or not discrimination occurred but could  indicate areas warranting further study by management.
The following sections describe by EEO group those who participated in  temporary promotion and selected training opportunities or received  awards for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
subsections: section_title: Experience: Temporary Promotions
paragraphs: For an employee to receive a temporary promotion to an existing position  for which he or she is qualified, the employee must meet (1) established  position qualification standards for the position and (2) time-in-grade  requirements for promotion. Region X employees can gain experience  through two kinds of temporary promotions or lateral assignments.  The  Job Enhancement Program (JEP) is a regional noncompetitive program  that allows employees to voluntarily apply for temporary assignments  (both promotions and details to existing positions) as a method of  enhancing career development.  According to a 2002 SSA report on Region  X, JEPs enable regional employees from grades GS-3 up to GS-14 to take a  detail for up to 120 days in different positions.  Table 7 shows the  distribution of those employees selected for JEPs by EEO group over the 5  years.
According to a Region X official, temporary promotions other than those  under a JEP can be made noncompetitively for up to 120 days.  For  promotions greater than 120 days, a vacancy announcement is required for  all positions.  Some vacancies are announced as not-to-exceed promotions  for periods ranging from 1 to 2 years, with a 5-year maximum allowable.   Such announcements may state, “this position may be extended or become  permanent without further competition.”  Table 8 compares the  percentage of temporary promotions to the average percentage  representation of each EEO Group in the workforce for fiscal years 1997  through 2001 in Region X.
section_title: Training
paragraphs: When asked for data on training opportunities in Region X for fiscal years  1997 through 2001, the Region provided data on employees who  participated in the Government Employees Training Act (GETA) program  (for fiscal years 1998 through 2001).  Under the GETA program, SSA pays  for tuition and book expenses for an employee who enrolls in an approved  course taken at a university, college, or other recognized educational  institution.  Courses covered included American Sign Language; various  languages (e.g., Spanish, French, and Russian); writing; and Windows- based computing (e.g., Excel, PowerPoint).  Table 9 compares the  percentage of individuals receiving GETA training to the average  percentage representation by EEO group in the Region X workforce for  fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
section_title: Awards
paragraphs: SSA’s awards are divided into monetary and honor awards. According to  Region X, monetary awards consist of Recognition of Contribution awards,  which recognize employees who have maintained high-quality  performance and may be either a one-time performance award paid as a  lump sum or a quality step increase, which permanently increases pay;  Commendable Act or Service awards, which are granted to an employee— as an individual or as a member of a group—to recognize major  accomplishments or contributions that have promoted the mission of the  organization; and On-the-Spot awards, which are special act or service  awards that recognize employees for noteworthy accomplishments or  contributions on individual tasks or assignments.  We found for the 5-year  period statistically significant differences among races concerning quality  step increases and honor awards.  Table 10 compares the percentage of  monetary awards to the average percentage representation by EEO group  in the workforce for the 5-year period.
According to the Region X Affirmative Employment Plan for fiscal year  1997, the region conducted an analysis of award types and recipient EEO  profiles in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.  According to this report, in fiscal  year 1996, only Whites received quality step increases; the Region began  addressing this disparity in fiscal year 1997.  Our statistical analysis for the  5-year period showed that Whites were significantly more likely to receive  quality step increases than African Americans, Hispanics, and AIANs;  Asians were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than  Hispanics and AIANs; and African Americans were significantly more  likely to receive quality step increases than Hispanics.  There were no  statistically significant differences between men and women.  Because the  Region acknowledged a disparity among racial/ethnic groups concerning  quality step increases and began trying to address this disparity in fiscal  year 1997, we also did a statistical analysis of quality step increases for  fiscal year 2001 alone.  By fiscal year 2001, only two statistically significant  differences remained—women were significantly more likely to receive  quality step increases than men and Hispanics were significantly less likely  to receive quality step increases than African Americans or Whites—which  shows substantial progress.  Table 11 compares the percentage of quality  step increases to the average percentage representation by EEO group in  the workforce for the 5-year period.
According to Region X, honor awards consist of the Commissioner’s  Citation, which is SSA’s highest honorary award that is granted to  individuals who have made a superior contribution to SSA; the  Commissioner’s Team Award, which recognizes groups of employees for  their team approach in carrying out or supporting SSA’s mission of  providing quality service in administering national Social Security  programs; and the Deputy Commissioner’s Citation and the Regional  Commissioner’s Citation, both of which recognize SSA employees for  outstanding achievements to SSA.  Our analysis showed that for the 5-year  period, Asians were significantly more likely to receive honor awards than  Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics.  Also, Native Americans were  significantly more likely to receive honor awards than Hispanics.   Table 12  compares the percentage of honor awards to the average percentage  representation by EEO group in the workforce for the 5-year period.
section_title: Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO Complaints, and Grievances
paragraphs: The following sections discuss the adverse actions taken by Region X,  appeals of such actions filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board  (MSPB), precomplaint EEO counseling sought, formal EEO complaints  filed, and grievances filed by Region X employees in fiscal years 1997  through 2001.
subsections: section_title: Adverse Actions
paragraphs: Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5-year period.  For  nonprobationary employees, the common pattern of progressive discipline  is reprimand, short-term suspension (a suspension of 14 days or less), long- term suspension (a suspension of 15 days or more), and removal.   Probationary employees face terminations.  Of the 142 actions, 65, or  about 46 percent, were for individuals who entered computer databases  without authorization.
Our statistical analysis showed no significant differences among EEO  groups for written reprimands.  However, we found statistically significant  differences among races for short-term suspensions and between the sexes  concerning removals.  For short-term suspensions, AIANs and African  Americans were significantly more likely to receive suspensions of 14 days  or less than Whites.  Men were significantly more likely to experience a  removal or termination than women.  About 14 percent of those who had  adverse actions taken against them had disabilities compared with the  representation in the Region’s workforce of about 11 percent.  Table 13  shows the types of adverse actions by EEO group.
section_title: Adverse Actions Appealed to MSPB
paragraphs: Employees can appeal adverse actions to MSPB.  Appealable actions  include removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension of 15 days or  more.  Under the negotiated national agreement between SSA and the  American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), employees may  elect to appeal such actions to MSPB or through the negotiated grievance  procedure but not both.
Of the 142 adverse actions Region X took from fiscal year 1997 through  fiscal year 2001, 15 employee appeals were filed with MSPB.  Of these 15  appeals, SSA settled 9; MSPB found that SSA’s action was appropriate in 3  cases; MSPB dismissed 2 appeals; and 1 is still pending.  Table 14 shows the  number of Region X employee appeals to MSPB by EEO group and their  disposition for the 5-year period.
When a federal employee alleges that a removal, reduction in grade or pay,  or suspension of 15 or more days is discriminatory, the employee may file a  formal EEO complaint, and because the complaint can be appealed either  to MSPB or EEOC, the complaint is a “mixed case.”  Under EEOC  regulations, whatever action an employee files first is considered an  election to proceed in that forum.  For example, filing a formal EEO  complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the EEO forum, although  contacting an EEO counselor or receiving EEO counseling does not  constitute such an election.  For Region X employees, who are covered by a  collective bargaining agreement that permits claims of discrimination to be  raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, they similarly may elect to file  an EEO complaint or a grievance.  Before filing a grievance that alleges  discrimination, the employee may first discuss the allegation with an EEO  counselor.
section_title: Region X EEO Precomplaint Counseling and Formal EEO Complaints Filed
paragraphs: SSA is required to prepare and submit an annual report to EEOC that  includes the number of individuals counseled, monetary and nonmonetary  settlements made during the precomplaint counseling phase, the number  of complaints filed during a reporting period, the bases and issues alleged  in all complaints filed during a reporting period, and the number and  amounts of monetary and nonmonetary settlements of closed complaints.
subsections: section_title: Precomplaint Counseling
paragraphs: We requested data for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 on the number of  individuals who approached the Region’s Civil Rights and Equal  Opportunity office to ask for counseling because they felt that they had  experienced discrimination.  The Region provided data for only the last 2  years because, according to a Region X official, verifiable data were only  available for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.  Table 15 shows the incidents of  counseling requests for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Under EEOC regulations, before filing an EEO complaint, in order to try to  informally resolve the matter, individuals who believe they have been  discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including  equal pay), national origin, age (i.e., 40 or over), or handicapping condition  or who have suffered retaliation or reprisal must consult an EEO  counselor.  Table 16 provides the bases cited in fiscal years 2000 and 2001— the 2 years for which Region X provided data on incidents of EEO  counseling.
Table 17 shows the issues cited by individuals who requested EEO  counseling in fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Employees requesting counseling and Region X entered into three informal  settlement agreements during counseling requested in fiscal years 2000  and 2001.  The informal settlements agreed to included a lump sum  payment of $5,000, a letter of recommendation, and a temporary  promotion under a JEP.
section_title: Formal EEO Complaints Filed
paragraphs: If employees cannot resolve to their satisfaction the matters for which they  sought counseling, they file formal complaints with the Office of Civil  Rights and Equal Opportunity in SSA headquarters in Baltimore.  Table 18  shows the number of formal complaints filed by Region X employees for  fiscal years 1997 through 2001 and the disposition of those complaints.
Table 19 shows by fiscal year the bases for the 89 EEO complaints filed by  Region X employees in fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
Table 20 shows the number of issues cited in the 89 EEO complaints filed  by Region X employees during fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
As shown in table 19, the top four bases for which Region X employees  filed EEO complaints were sex, race, retaliation (i.e., for filing a complaint  or participating in an investigation of a complaint), and handicapping  condition.  Of those bases that involved handicapping condition, six also  claimed that they were denied reasonable accommodation.  Reasonable  accommodation includes any modification or adjustment to a job  application process, the work environment, or the way a job is customarily  performed that enables a qualified applicant with a disability to compete  equally or a qualified person with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of  employment.
As shown in table 20, the top four issues cited in the filed complaints were  harassment (nonsexual), nonselection for promotion, working conditions,  and reasonable accommodation.
The reasonable accommodation process begins when an individual makes  a request for the accommodation, followed by a request in writing  (completion of a form) or in electronic format.  Among the items that can  be approved of as an accommodation at the regional level are requests of  office equipment costing less than $100, a change in schedule, and requests  for reassignment.  For office equipment or assistive technologies (e.g.,  computer hardware or software that enable people with disabilities to  perform the essential functions of their job) costing $100 or more, assistive  technologies training, and sign language interpreter services, a request  must be forwarded to the Disability Services Team in the Office of Civil  Rights and Equal Opportunity in SSA headquarters in Baltimore.  Table 21  shows the number of accommodations requested by Region X employees  for fiscal year 1997 through 2001 and their disposition.
section_title: Grievances
paragraphs: Under the negotiated national agreement between SSA and the AFGE,  individual employees or their union representatives may file Section 9  grievances on such matters as adverse actions or EEO issues.  At any time  after the Section 9 grievance is filed, up to the time the grievance decision  is issued, the grievance may be withdrawn.  If a management official finds  that the grievance has merit, or can agree with the  employee/representative on some or all of the points at issue, he or she  may grant full or partial relief, giving the employee all or a portion of what  was requested.  If the management official does not find a violation of the  negotiated agreement or workplace policy or practice, or cannot agree to  the requested relief, the grievance is denied.  Unresolved Section 9  grievances may be advanced to arbitration by the union.  Multiple  categories may be recorded for a single grievance.  For example, in one  case, a grievance may be denied, and the grievant takes no additional  action.  In another case, a grievance may be denied, and the  grievant/representative invokes arbitration, and then does or does not  pursue the case.  We counted each category of relief or arbitration for each  grievance.  Table 22 shows the Section 9 grievances filed in Region X for  fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
section_title: Settlements
paragraphs: Twenty-one settlement agreements were signed by SSA and the individuals  who appealed an adverse action, filed an EEO complaint, or filed a  grievance.  These agreements could consist of monetary or nonmonetary  terms or both, and five consisted entirely of nonmonetary terms.  A global  settlement addressed more than one filed EEO discrimination complaint,  MSPB appeal, or union grievance; therefore, the number of complaints  settled is higher than the number of settlement agreements.  Table 23  contains information on settlement agreements for appealed adverse  actions, filed EEO complaints, and a mixed case that includes a union  grievance for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
section_title: Selected Results of GAO’s Survey of Region X Employees on Equal Employment Opportunity
paragraphs: In our survey of Region X employees about EEO, we asked all Region X  employees for their views (1) on the operations of Region X’s Civil Rights  and Equal Opportunity (CREO) office and (2) about their experiences with  situations involving EEO in Region X within the past 2 years.  Because we  received more than a 70 percent response rate (75 percent), our results are  representative of the views and attitudes of Region X employees.
subsections: section_title: Operations of Region X’s CREO
paragraphs: Almost 60 percent of respondents were either generally or very familiar  with the responsibilities of the CREO office before reading our description  of those responsibilities.  In addition, most Region X employees are  familiar with the EEO process.  About two-thirds of respondents reported  having received or having seen within the last 2 years written materials  about the federal government’s EEO regulations and written materials  describing how to contact regional EEO counselors.
When asked about their willingness, if they believed that they had been  discriminated against, to either contact Region X’s CREO to participate in  counseling or to contact the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity  (OCREO) in Baltimore to file a formal EEO complaint, almost half of  respondents indicated that they would be generally or very willing to  participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint.  Also, 3 percent  of respondents indicated that they had contacted CREO to participate in  counseling in the last 2 years, and 2 percent of respondents indicated that  they had contacted OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal complaint during  that time.
About 40 percent of respondents indicated that they were unwilling or  uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint if  they believed that they had been discriminated against; we did an analysis  of their responses to identify the reason for this unwillingness or  uncertainty.  About 55 percent of the respondents indicated that they were  unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling and 51 percent to file a  formal EEO complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated  against because they feared retaliation.
We did a further analysis of those respondents who indicated that they  were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling if they believed  that they had been discriminated against because they feared retaliation.   Table 24 shows the breakdown of respondents by race/ethnicity and sex of  those who indicated an unwillingness or uncertainty to participate in  counseling.  Table 25 shows the breakdown of respondents by  race/ethnicity and sex of those who indicated an unwillingness or  uncertainty to file a formal complaint.
Other reasons respondents indicated for being unwilling or uncertain to  participate in counseling if they believed that they had been discriminated  against included the concern that their contact with the EEO counselor  would not be kept confidential (about 45 percent) and the concern that the  matter, if resolved informally, would not result in a mutually satisfactory  solution for all parties concerned (about 34 percent).  Other reasons  respondents indicated for being unwilling or uncertain to file a formal  complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated against  included the concern that their complaint would not be handled in a fair  manner (about 33 percent).
section_title: Experiences with Situations Involving EEO in Region X
paragraphs: As shown in table 26, most Region X employees responding to our survey  indicated that they believed decisions concerning job or project  assignments, training, formal ratings, and monetary awards were always  or mostly based on merit and free of bias and favoritism.  About half of the  respondents indicated that they believed that decisions concerning  nonmonetary awards and recognition were always or mostly based on  merit and free of bias and favoritism.  Less than half of the respondents  indicated that they believed decisions concerning promotion and career  advancement were always or mostly based on merit and free of bias and  favoritism.
Table 27 shows, by sex and minority status, those respondents who  indicated that they believed such personnel or pay decisions were  sometimes or never or almost never based on merit and free of bias and  favoritism.
section_title: Narrative Comments
paragraphs: The questionnaire offered respondents the option of providing additional  comments relating to any of the items discussed therein.  Of the 1,355  useable returned questionnaires (see app. I), 307 respondents, or 22.7  percent, provided narrative comments.  In descending order, these  comments most frequently concerned  perceived inequities in merit hiring, promotions, and awards (30.3   complaints of perceived discrimination or other negative personal  experiences (21.5 percent); or  disgruntlement over affirmative action and workforce diversity (9.4  percent).
section_title: GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO
paragraphs: The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), an independent agency of Congress, is reviewing  equal employment opportunity (EEO) issues and the EEO complaint process at SSA Region X at  the request of Representatives Jim McDermott, Jennifer Dunn, and Adam Smith.  As part of this  review, we are surveying all SSA Region X employees to get their views on the operations of  SSA Region X’s Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) Office and their experiences  concerning EEO.
Your responses will help GAO understand how SSA Region X employees view the Region’s  EEO operations and their work environment. Responses will be discussed in summary form in a  report to congressional requesters and will not include any information that could be used to  identify individual respondents. The survey is numbered only to allow us to send follow-up  surveys to people who do not respond the first time and will not be used to identify you with your  response.  The link between you and your response will be destroyed before the report is issued,  and your individual responses will not be shared with SSA.
The survey should take about 20 to 30 minutes to complete.  Space has been provided at the end  of the survey for any comments you may want to make.  Additional pages may be added if  Please complete and return the survey in the pre-addressed envelope within 5 working days to  avoid costly follow-up efforts.  Because of delays in mail delivery in the Washington, D.C. area,   please send the survey to our Norfolk Office in the event the envelope is misplaced.
Virginia Beach, VA  23462  Attention: Ms. Kiki Theodoropoulos   If you have any questions, please contact Kiki Theodoropoulos on (202) 512-4579 or at  theodoropoulosv@gao.gov.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
SECTION I—Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) Office  The CREO office manages the Region’s equal employment opportunity (EEO), affirmative action, and complaint  programs. Among other things, it is responsible for disseminating information on the agency’s EEO program and  complaint process, developing EEO and affirmative action plans, and processing and resolving discrimination  The following questions ask for your views on the operations of SSA Region X’s CREO. Please mark your answers  1.  Before reading the description of the responsibilities of SSA Region X’s CREO at the beginning of this section,  how familiar or unfamiliar were you with these responsibilities? (Mark only one response) 1.  Very familiar    2.  Generally familiar  3.  As familiar as unfamiliar   4.  Generally unfamiliar  5.  Very unfamiliar  15% (196)  44% (751)  15% (944)  15% (1130)  11% (1,269)  2.  At any time within the past 2 years, do you recall receiving the following materials or seeing them posted at  SSA Region X? (Mark all that apply)
I don’t remember  a.  Written materials about the federal  ← 65% (852)
8% (105)
27% (354) government’s EEO regulations.  b.  Written materials that describe SSA   59% (768)
10% (134)
31% (405)
subsections: section_title: Region X’s EEO program.
paragraphs: c.  Written materials describing how to   63% (823)
12% (157)
25% (330)
section_title: contact SSA Region X’s EEO
paragraphs: counselors, such as their names,  locations, and telephone numbers.  d.  Notices, memoranda, or newsletters   51% (668)
15% (194)
34% (440)
section_title: that communicate SSA Region X’s
paragraphs: e.  Notices, memoranda, or newsletters   79% (1040)
6% (77)
15% (199)
section_title: that communicate SSA Region X’s
paragraphs: sexual harassment policy. f.  Notices, memoranda, or newsletters   48% (627)
17% (223)
35% (456)
section_title: that communicate SSA Region X’s
paragraphs: reasonable accommodation policy. g.  Other materials (Please specify):  27% (46)
12% (21)
61% (104)
section_title: 3. If you believed that you had been discriminated
section_title: counseling? (Mark only one)
paragraphs: to contact SSA OCREO in Baltimore to file a  formal discrimination complaint? (Mark only one)
section_title: 1. Very willing→Skip to question 5 2. Generally willing→ Skip to ques 5
paragraphs: 24% (317)  27% (352)
3.    As willing as unwilling   4.    Generally unwilling   5.    Very unwilling   13% (178)
1.    Very willing→ Skip to question 8  20% (263)  2.    Generally willing→ Skip to ques 8  26% (345)
18% (234)
12% (163)
9% (115)
19% (249) ---------------------------------------  3.    As willing as unwilling   4.    Generally unwilling   5.    Very unwilling   12% (154)
10% (127) ---------------------------------------  11% (145)
section_title: reason(s)? (Mark all that apply)
paragraphs: discrimination complaint, which of the following  describes your reason(s)? (Mark all that apply)
section_title: 1. I would be concerned that my contact with the EEO counselor
paragraphs: 1.    I would be concerned that my   complaint would not be investigated     would not be kept confidential. in a competent manner.
2.    I would be concerned that I would  2.    I would be concerned that my   be assigned to an EEO counselor   complaint would not be thoroughly    who was not competent or   investigated.  3.    I would be concerned that my   3.    I would be concerned that the  complaint would not be handled in   matter would not be resolved in a   a fair manner.  4.    I would be concerned that my   4.    I would be concerned that too  complaint would not be handled  much of my time would be   in a timely manner. consumer in the complaint process.
5.    I would be concerned that too  5.    I would be concerned that the  much of my time would be   matter, if resolved informally,   consumed in the complaint process. would not result in a mutually   6.    I would be concerned that I would   satisfactory solution for all parties   be alienated from my coworkers.
6.    I would be concerned that I would  7.    I would fear retaliation.  8.    I would not be willing to file a   be alienated from my coworkers. formal complaint for personal reasons.
7.    I would fear retaliation.  8.    I would not be willing to   9.   Other – Please specify:   participate for personal reasons.
9.    Other – Please specify:  8.  Within the past 2 years, have you contacted SSA  OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal  discrimination complaint?
5.  Within the past 2 years, have you contacted SSA  Region X’s CREO to participate in counseling?
1.    Yes   2.    No    2% (21)  98% (1,304)
3% (41)  97% (1,283)
The following questions ask for your views about your experiences about situations involving EEO in SSA Region  9.  Within the past 2 years, how much of the time, if any, have decisions about you in each of the following areas  been based on merit and free of bias and favoritism.  (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
44% (581)
17% (224)
6% (83)
9% (114)
10% (131)
14% (191)
51% (665)
17% (222)
6% (85)
6% (80)
6% (83)
14% (180)
56% (732)
18% (243)
6% (76)
5% (62)
6% (77)
10% (127)
45% (588)
16% (218)
7% (90)
11% (151)
10% (128)
11% (145)
34% (443)
10% (129)
7% (93)
8% (107)
13% (177)
28% (365)
37% (487)
13% (172)
8% (101)
9% (123)
13% (172)
20% (257)
15% (14)
6% (6)
3% (3)
3% (3)
23% (22)
50% (48)  10.  Within the past 2 years, do you feel you have been denied a job, promotion, or other job benefit because of  unlawful discrimination based on any of the following characteristics?   (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3)
8% (111)
76% (1,009)
16% (209)
8% (100)
77% (1,018)
15% (197)
4% (48)
80% (1,050)
16% (209)
2% (21)
86% (1,125)
13% (166)
5% (66)
82% (1,075)
13% (172)
1% (19)
85% (1,108)
15% (182)
10% (137)
75% (988)
15% (200)
2% (21)
84% (1,099)
14% (183)
50% (84)
33% (55)
17% (29) _____________________  11.  Within the past 2 years, do you feel you have experienced any of the following?  (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3)
section_title: a. Deliberately misled by an agency official about your right to
paragraphs: 9% (115)
80% (1077)
11% (149) compete for a job or promotion  b.  Influenced by an agency official to withdraw from competition    2% (29)
89% (1186)
9% (123) for a federal job or promotion to help another person’s chances  for getting that job or promotion  c.  Denied a job or promotion because one of the selecting or  10% (139)
73% (976)
17% (228) recommending officials gave an unlawful advantage to another  d.  Denied a job or promotion that went instead to a relative of one    2% (27)
83% (1,099)
15% (205)  12.  Within the past 2 years, did you choose not to apply for any promotion or developmental opportunity because  you felt you had little or no chance of being selected?  (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3)
section_title: a. Because of your age
paragraphs: 11% (145)
81% (1,078)
8% (106) b.  Because of your sex    6% (85)
86% (1,128)
8% (104) c.  Because of your handicapping condition    4% (51)
86% (1,128)
10% (136) d.  Because of your marital status    2% (24)
91% (1,193)
8% (99) e.  Because of your national origin    4% (59)
88% (1,155)
8% (99) f.  Because of your political affiliation    1% (16)
91% (1,191)
8% (107) g.  Because of your race  10% (134)
82% (1,084)
8% (106) h.  Because of your religion    1% (11)
91% (1,183)
9% (111) i.  Other (Please specify)
58% (108)
31% (58)
10% (19)  13.  Within the past 2 years, do you feel that you have been retaliated against or threatened with retaliation by  management for doing any of the following?  (Mark only one box in each row) If no to all, go to question 18. (1) (2) (3)
section_title: a. Making disclosures concerning health and safety dangers;
paragraphs: 5% (67)
88% (1,149)
7% (96) unlawful behavior; and/or fraud, waste, and abuse  b.  Exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right  8% (110)
84% (1,100)
8% (105) c.  Testifying for or otherwise assisting any individual in the  4% (51)
87% (1,146)
9% (115) exercise of whistleblowing, equal employment opportunity, or  d.  Refusing to obey an unlawful order  2% (29)
90% (1,168)
8% (107) e.  Reporting unwanted sexual attention or sexual harassment  1% (13)
91% (1,191)
8% (101) (1) (2) (3)
section_title: a. Poor performance appraisal
paragraphs: b.  Denial of promotion  c.  Denial of opportunity for training  e.  Assignment to less desirable or less important  f.  Transfer or assignment to a job with less  desirable duties or working conditions  g.  Assignment to a different geographical location  h.  Suspension from my job  i.  Fired from my job  k.  Shunned by coworkers or managers  l.  Verbal harassment or intimidation  m.  Required to take a fitness-for-duty exam  n.  Other  (Please specify) 15.  In response to retaliation or threat of retaliation, did you take any of the following actions? (Mark all that apply)   1.   I took no action (Go to question 17)           2.   Complained to a higher level of agency management      3.   Complained to the Office of Inspector General within my agency       4.   Complained to some other office within my agency (e.g., the personnel office or CREO office)     5.   Filed a complaint through my union representative            6.   Filed a formal grievance within my agency    7.   Filed an EEO (discrimination) complaint         8.   Filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel      9.   Filed an action with the Merit Systems Protection Board  10.   I took an action that has not been specified (Please specify)    __________________________________________________________________________________________  16.  What happened to you as a result of your reporting retaliation or threat of retaliation? (Mark all that apply) 1.   It got me into more trouble       2.   It made no difference        3.   The action of retaliation was withdrawn     4.   The threat of retaliation was withdrawn     5.   Actions were taken to compensate me for the action of retaliation  .  Decision concerning the action of retaliation is still pending 7.   Other (Please specify):         __________________________________________________________________________________________  17.  If you took no action in response to retaliation or threat of retaliation, why did you choose not to take any  formal action? (Mark all that apply)   1.   Not applicable, I took action      2.   Still might take some action      3.   Not serious enough   4.   Didn’t know I could      5.   Process wouldn’t solve the problem    6.  Fear of management retaliation    7.   Problem was solved informally    8.   Waited too long/missed deadline    9.  Too complicated  10.   Too expensive  11.   Process isn’t fair  12.   I left the work unit  13.   Don’t know/can’t judge  14.   Other (Please specify)
Please answer the following questions to help us analyze the results of the survey.  18.  How many years have you been in your current  21.  How many years have you been employed with  position at SSA Region X?
SSA Region X?
section_title: 1. Less than 1 year
paragraphs: 11% (153) .   Less than 1 year   6% (80)
2.    1 to less than 3 years   3.    3 to less than 10 years  4.    10 or more years   29% (390)
26% (352)
30% (406)
18% (240)
29% (396)
2.    1 to less than 5 years    3.    5 to less than 10 years   4.    10 or more years 50% (671)
19.  Are you currently a supervisor or non-supervisor?
22.  Please identify your office:   9% (123)  91% (1,212)
20.  Please indicate your current grade.
23.  Please indicate your sex.
section_title: 1. GS-4 2. GS-5 3. GS-6 4. GS-7 5. GS-8 6. GS-9 7. GS-10 8. GS-11 9. GS-12 10. GS-13 11. GS-14 12. GS-15 13. SES or Executive 14. Other
paragraphs: 1% (7)    4% (55)
33% (444)
4% (55)
1.    Male   2.    Female  67% (889)
5% (72)  29% (391)
24.  Are you of Hispanic origin?
6% (76)
11% (140) <1% (2)
1.    Yes  2.    No  89% (1,188)
29% (392)  12% (164)
25.  Please indicate your race. (Mark only one)
6% (86)    2% (28)
1% (14)
1% (9)
8% (103) <1% (2)  <1% (6)
1.    American Indian/Alaska Native  2.    African American/Black  3.    Asian/Pacific Islander  4.    White  5.    Other (Please specify)
8% (105)  74% (950)    8% (104)
If you have any comments relating to any of the items discussed in this questionnaire, please write them here. 23% (307)
section_title: Comments from the Social Secuity Administration
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Thomas G. Dowdal, Karin K.  Fangman, Nathan Morris, Terry Richardson, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Michael  R. Volpe, and Gregory H. Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text 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   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs