Equal Employment Opportunity: Improved Coordination Needed between EEOC and OPM in Leading Federal Workplace EEO
Published: 2006-06-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In April 2005 GAO reported on the EEO policy framework in the federal workplace and the roles of EEOC and OPM. This report, in response to a congressional request, provides information on (1) federal agency EEO and human capital managers' views of the EEO framework requirements; (2) their views on the usefulness of guidance and feedback from EEOC and OPM concerning these requirements; and (3) how and to what extent EEOC and OPM coordinate in developing policy, providing guidance, and exercising oversight.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: EEO and human capital officials in federal agencies we surveyed said that some requirements of the EEO framework contribute more than others to achieving EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity, and in influencing human capital policies, practices, and strategic planning. They also said that some requirements are very similar or redundant, such as EEOC's affirmative employment program and OPM's program for recruiting minorities and women. This creates duplication of effort as agencies sometimes have to submit the same information in different reports to EEOC and OPM. Further, the officials said they experienced added administrative burden because of inconsistent requirements. The officials also said that guidance from EEOC on EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity issues was more frequent and more useful than that from OPM. Some officials questioned the usefulness of feedback from EEOC and OPM on their agencies' performance or submitted reports. Less than half reported that the feedback was useful or very useful and a substantial number of respondents reported that they received no feedback from OPM. In addition, EEO and human capital officials expressed the strong view that both OPM and EEOC could be doing more to help their agencies. We found little evidence of coordination at the operating level between EEOC and OPM in developing policy, providing guidance, and exercising oversight, despite overlapping responsibilities in federal workplace EEO. For example, EEOC and OPM officials do not routinely review reports that the other agency receives from federal agencies, even though those reports deal with similar matters. In addition, EEOC and OPM officials do not coordinate with each other when conducting on-site reviews of EEO-related matters at agencies. Good management practice as well as federal statute and executive order call for coordination, and not doing so results in lost opportunity to realize consistency, efficiency, and public value in EEO policy making and oversight. The Office of Management and Budget made a recommendation to OPM in 2005 that it develop a regular/formal working relationship with EEOC with respect to those programs where it shares oversight responsibility with EEOC in order to improve overall government efficiency. Although EEOC officials acknowledged a need to coordinate at the operating level and to develop an institutional coordination process, OPM officials suggested that coordination need not be institutionalized.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government has a policy to provide a workplace for its  employees that is fair, equitable, and free from discrimination and  retaliation. To help achieve this policy, the federal government has created  a framework of statutes, policies, regulations, and guidance in order to  prohibit discrimination, ensure equal employment opportunity (EEO), and  value workforce diversity. In April 2005, in response to your request, we  reported on the EEO policy framework under which (1) certain personnel  practices are prohibited, including unlawful discrimination based on race,  color, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability; (2) avenues of  redress are offered when discrimination and retaliation have been alleged;  and (3) affirmative employment and minority recruitment programs are  required to ensure EEO in the federal workforce.
Within the EEO framework, federal agencies are responsible for providing  for a fair and nondiscriminatory workplace. The Equal Employment  Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Personnel Management  (OPM) play important roles in fostering a fair, equitable, and inclusive  workplace at federal agencies through their leadership and oversight.  EEOC is responsible for the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws and  oversight of federal agency EEO programs, and OPM is responsible for  ensuring that federal agencies adhere to federal merit system principles,  which include nondiscrimination. In carrying out their responsibilities,  both EEOC and OPM issue regulations, directives, and guidance that  supplement the EEO framework and establish requirements for agencies,  oversee agencies’ performance in meeting framework requirements, and  provide feedback to agencies. EEOC has the additional responsibility of  providing leadership and coordination of federal EEO efforts in order to  avoid conflict, competition, duplication, and inconsistency.
During the course of our review that led to our April 2005 EEO framework  report, we heard from EEO and human capital officials at selected  agencies about similarities and redundancies in EEO-related requirements  and concerns about the usefulness of guidance and feedback received from  those agencies. In response to your request and to better understand these  and other issues, we surveyed EEO and human capital officials in the  executive branch to determine their views on (1) the requirements dealing  with EEO and workforce diversity and the extent to which the  requirements contribute to ensuring EEO and diversity in the workplace  and (2) the usefulness of guidance and feedback they receive from EEOC  and OPM concerning these requirements. In addition, we examined how  and to what extent EEOC and OPM coordinate with each other in  developing policy, providing guidance, and exercising oversight of federal  line agencies.
To accomplish our objectives, we sent separate surveys to the EEO/civil  rights directors and the chief human capital officers/human capital  directors at the 45 executive branch agencies (other than the United States  Postal Service and intelligence agencies) with 500 or more employees that  are required to file annual reports with EEOC on their affirmative  employment program and that also file annual reports with OPM on their  Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP). Collectively,  the 45 agencies employed 97 percent of the nonpostal federal workforce as  of September 30, 2004. Of the 90 officials to whom we sent the survey, 83  officials or their designees (92.2 percent) responded from October through  December 2004. We received a response from either an EEO or human  capital official at all 45 agencies, and from both at 38 agencies. Prior to the  survey, we also interviewed EEO and human capital officials at 6 of these  45 agencies. In addition, we reviewed statutes, executive orders, and other  executive policies that form the EEO framework as well as EEOC and OPM  requirements placed on agencies and compared them to each other. Agency  officials expressed their views, through both the survey and interviews,  about the extent to which the different framework requirements contribute  to EEO, the extent of redundancy between EEO-related requirements and  the duplication of effort this causes, the burdens created by EEOC’s and  OPM’s differing policies on data-related issues, and the usefulness of  EEOC’s and OPM’s guidance and feedback. We provide examples of agency  officials’ comments on these matters; however, we did not independently  evaluate the extent to which the different requirements contribute toward  EEO, the extent of redundancy of EEO requirements, the merits of differing  EEOC and OPM policies, or the usefulness of guidance and feedback.
We discussed with EEOC and OPM how they coordinate with each other in  carrying out their roles and responsibilities within the EEO framework.  Since the application of EEO laws varies between the branches (executive,  legislative, and judicial) of the federal government, this report focuses  primarily on the EEO framework applicable to the executive branch. We  performed our work from May 2004 through February 2006 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Further details on  our objectives, scope, and methodology are in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: It is government policy that equal opportunity be an integral part of every  aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development,  advancement, and treatment of federal civilian employees. Various  statutes, regulations, directives, executive orders, and other executive  policies have been put in place over time to form the framework governing  EEO in the federal workplace. This framework, which governs civil rights  and personnel management, places primary responsibility on federal  agencies to provide workplaces that have a culture of fairness, equity, and  inclusiveness free from discrimination. For a further discussion of the EEO  framework, see appendix II.
Within the EEO framework, both EEOC and OPM play important roles in  leadership and oversight of federal agencies. EEOC’s mission is to promote  equality of opportunity in the workplace and enforce federal laws  prohibiting employment discrimination in both the private and federal  sectors. In the federal sector, EEOC is responsible for enforcing the  employment discrimination prohibitions under title VII of the Civil Rights  Act of 1964, as amended; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Equal Pay Act  of 1973; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as  amended. In this regard, EEOC is responsible for establishing procedures  for handling federal employees’ allegations of discrimination based on  race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability, and providing  for the adjudication of complaints and hearing of appeals. In addition,  EEOC establishes requirements and standards for programs to provide  equal employment opportunity; monitors federal agencies’ compliance  with EEO laws and procedures; and reviews and assesses the effectiveness  of agencies’ programs to promote EEO, including agencies’ efforts to  identify and eliminate barriers to equality of employment opportunity.
OPM’s mission is to build a high-quality and diverse federal workforce  based on merit system principles. Under title 5 of the U.S. Code, OPM is  responsible for executing, administering, and enforcing civil service laws  and regulations in the executive branch, including the merit system  principles that require fair and equitable treatment and equal opportunity  and prohibit discrimination in all aspects of federal employment. Title 5  also requires OPM to assist agencies in their equal opportunity recruitment  program activities and to oversee and evaluate these agency programs. In  carrying out their respective responsibilities, EEOC and OPM are to carry  out oversight of each other, with EEOC reviewing OPM’s EEO programs  and OPM assessing human capital practices at EEOC.
Both EEOC and OPM have articulated specific goals and objectives in their  strategic plans to carry out their EEO-related responsibilities. These goals,  while differing in some aspects, share a common theme, which is to  promote policies that contribute to building high-performing organizations  that foster inclusive work cultures. A primary focus for EEOC is to help  agencies identify and eliminate barriers to EEO, while a key focus for OPM  is to assist agencies in creating diverse candidate pools, including women,  minorities, persons with disabilities, and veterans, which can be used in  making appointments to the federal service in executive and management  positions and leadership feeder ranks.
Carrying out the requirements of the EEO framework within federal  agencies is generally shared by human capital and EEO/civil rights offices,  with EEO offices taking the lead in programs EEOC oversees and human  capital offices taking the lead in programs OPM oversees. Individual  programs within the framework, their requirements or standards, and  EEOC’s and OPM’s responsibilities are shown in table 1.
Although responsibility for the EEO framework policies is generally  assigned to either EEOC or OPM, similarities in implementation  requirements for federal agencies and the fact that both EEOC and OPM  have jurisdiction over the agencies can result in overlap between programs  and in EEOC’s and OPM’s oversight responsibilities.
In our survey, we asked EEO and human capital officials about their views  on the requirements within the EEO framework, and about the guidance  and feedback on these requirements they get from the central leadership  agencies. (See app. III for excerpts from the survey questionnaire and  responses to the excerpted questions.) For the purposes of our report, we  defined EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity as shown in  figure 1.
We provided the five central leadership agencies—EEOC, OPM, the Office  of Special Counsel (OSC), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and  the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)—a draft of the survey  instrument, considered their comments, and made appropriate changes  before sending it to the federal EEO and human capital officials.
section_title: Survey Respondents View Certain Requirements as Contributing Most to EEO but See Redundancies and Differing Reporting Requirements as Creating Administrative Burden
paragraphs: In answering our questions about the extent to which policies and  requirements contributed to ensuring EEO and achieving affirmative  employment and workforce diversity at their agencies, survey respondents  said that some requirements contributed more while others had a limited  impact. Respondents identified Management Directive (MD) 715, Executive  Order No. 13164, and the PMA scorecard standard as making a greater  contribution toward ensuring EEO in their workplaces, while the impact of  other policies, such as FEORP, Executive Order No. 13171, and the  Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP), was more limited.  (As we later discuss, a substantial number of respondents said several of  these programs had very similar or redundant elements.) Although survey  respondents expressed their views on the extent to which the different  requirements contribute to EEO and workforce diversity at their agencies,  we did not evaluate the value of these requirements toward meeting agency  EEO objectives. Table 2 shows the survey results.
Because the integration of EEO into human capital is an integral part of  government policy, we asked survey respondents the extent to which these  policies and requirements influence human capital policies, practices, and  strategic planning. We received responses similar to those for the question  discussed above.
In explaining why the PMA scorecard standard positively influenced their  agencies’ human capital policies, practices, and strategic planning, a  number of officials we interviewed noted that the PMA scorecard had given  greater visibility to the government’s requirements in dealing with  underrepresentation and workforce diversity. These officials shared the  view that agency performance in meeting deliverables and its direct  connection to the “green (success)-yellow (mixed results)-red  (unsatisfactory)” ratings given quarterly, is of major importance to agency  management because of how the PMA performance review can affect  agency budgets. These ratings are based on OPM’s and OMB’s assessments.  Some officials’ interview comments concerning the PMA are shown in  figure 2.
subsections: section_title: Survey Respondents View Some Policies and Programs as Having Very Similar or Redundant Requirements
paragraphs: The statutes, regulations, and policies that form the framework for EEO in  the federal government establish a number of requirements that agencies  are to carry out or standards they are expected to meet. Elements of the  requirements that EEOC and OPM oversee or in fact established have  certain common aspects, including measuring representation of or  participation by race, ethnic, and gender groups and developing plans to  address barriers to equal opportunity. Although we asked for the survey  respondents’ views on the extent to which requirements were very similar  or redundant and we made observations about where some similarities and  redundancies exist, we did not evaluate the degree of similarity or  redundancy among these requirements. Survey respondents also  commented about the need for EEOC and OPM to better coordinate, with  some commenting in particular about the need for the two agencies to  work together to eliminate redundant and inconsistent requirements. We  discuss the extent to which EEOC and OPM coordinate later in this report.
EEO and human capital officials surveyed were asked to identify the extent  to which the elements making up the requirements of certain policies  relating to the EEO framework were very similar or redundant with the  requirements of at least one other policy, for example, whether any two  policy requirements contained common features, such as developing plans,  assessing progress, and preparing reports. To obtain more specific views,  we asked respondents to select from a list two specific requirements that  they believed were redundant; they also had the option of selecting none or  responding that they did not know. Of the 81 respondents to this question,  57 (70.4 percent) said that at least one of the requirements was very similar  or redundant to at least one other requirement. FEORP, for which OPM  issued implementing regulations, was identified by 41 (50.6 percent)  respondents as having very similar or redundant elements with the  requirements of another policy; 30 (37 percent) said that EEOC’s MD-715  was very similar or redundant with another policy; and 19 (23.5 percent)  said this of Executive Order No. 13171, Hispanic Employment in the  Federal Government, which OPM oversees. When asked specifically to  identify two requirements that were very similar to or redundant with each  other, 21 (25.9 percent) respondents cited FEORP and MD-715, while  another 15 respondents (18.5 percent) cited FEORP and Executive Order  No. 13171.
A number of human capital and EEO officials with whom we spoke as well  as survey respondents (who, in a few cases, we had previously  interviewed) said that the overlap in MD-715, FEORP, and Executive Order  No. 13171 requirements resulted in duplication of effort. As we reported in  our April 2005 report on the EEO framework, both EEOC, under MD-715,  and OPM, under FEORP and Executive Order No. 13171, require that  agencies analyze their workforces to determine the representation of  employee groups compared to their representation in the civilian labor  force (CLF), identify barriers where underrepresentation exists, and  develop steps to address barriers. In addition, agencies are also to report  on the status and progress of their efforts annually. Thus, for example, an  agency may have to submit similar information on its recruitment efforts,  in different formats and at different times of the year, to EEOC for its MD- 715 report and to OPM for reports required under FEORP and Executive  Order No. 13171.
With regard to redundancies, OPM said that it views EEOC’s MD-715 as  constituting guidance and not as placing requirements on agencies, adding  that the policy reflected in guidance can neither overrule nor stand in place  of statutory requirements, such as those under FEORP, or the requirements  set forth in executive orders pursuant to statutory delegations. EEOC disagreed, however, pointing out that it issued MD-715, articulating agency  responsibilities, pursuant to its authority under law and executive order.
Many survey respondents reported redundancies in policies and  requirements concerning persons with disabilities. There are common  elements in EEOC’s and OPM’s roles in the area of employees with  disabilities, which are reflected in requirements in EEOC’s MD-715 relating  to affirmative action plan requirements in Section 501 of the Rehabilitation  Act, and Executive Order No. 13163, Increasing the Opportunity for  Individuals with Disabilities to Be Employed in the Federal  Government, and DVAAP, both administered by OPM. Of 81 respondents,  54 (66.7 percent) said there were redundancies among these requirements  concerning persons with disabilities. For example, 39 (48.2 percent) said  MD-715 requirements for persons with disabilities had very similar or  redundant elements with at least one other requirement, and 36 (44.4  percent) cited Executive Order No. 13163. In identifying which two specific  requirements had the most redundancies, 24 (29.6 percent) respondents  cited MD-715 and Executive Order No. 13163.
EEO and human capital officials’ concerns about redundant requirements  mirror the findings of a 1993 report of the National Partnership for  Reinventing Government (NPR) (formerly the National Performance  Review), From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works  Better and Costs Less. The report said that an inordinate amount of  resources are devoted to preparing duplicative reports and recommended  that reporting requirements for agencies be blended into one  comprehensive assessment of EEO and affirmative employment efforts,  including specific actions needed to eradicate barriers and increase  representation. The report said that such action would help reduce  administrative costs and allow agencies to spend more time on results  rather than paper processes. At the time the NPR report was issued, primary elements of the EEO framework were more limited, and included  EEOC’s MD-713 (on persons with disabilities) and MD-714 (on minorities  and women), as well as OPM’s FEORP requirements. Since then,  additional parts of the policy framework have been put into place,  including Executive Order Nos. 13163, 13164, and 13171; the Notification  and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act;  MD-715 (which superseded MD-713 and MD-714); and the PMA and Human  Capital Accountability and Assessment Framework (HCAAF) standards.  These additions to the framework, and to EEOC’s and OPM’s  responsibilities, have added to the redundancy and administrative burden.
Federal EEO and human capital officials, in responding to our survey and  in the course of our interviews, provided specific comments about some of  the policies and requirements administered by EEOC and OPM. See figure  3 for some of these comments.
section_title: Survey Respondents Say Different Reporting Policies Create Burdens for Their Agencies
paragraphs: Human capital and EEO officials reported they experience additional  administrative burden because EEOC and OPM have different policies in  some areas with regard to workforce data collection or analysis. These  areas include categorization of data by occupation and race and ethnicity  and collection of data on job applicants.
Historically, both EEOC and OPM categorized data on an agency’s  workforce according to six occupational categories: professional,  administrative, technical, clerical, other white-collar, and blue-collar  (PATCOB). In 2004, EEOC changed to nine occupational categories:  officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales, office and clerical, craft workers, operatives, laborers, and service workers. According to  EEOC, it made the change because the PATCOB categories were outdated  and too imprecise to allow the level of analysis desired, and because EEOC  uses the nine categories for private sector workforce analysis. OPM  contends that the PATCOB categories continue to support its  governmentwide occupation classification responsibility and provide more  meaningful crosswalks to national workforce data. OPM also said the nine  occupational categories EEOC uses are too broad for meaningful analysis  because they combine too many occupations within one category. Further,  OPM said that the crosswalk now used by EEOC to classify federal  occupations into one of the nine categories is inaccurate and incomplete in  some areas.
Under EEOC’s previous reporting requirements using the PATCOB  categories, agencies could download data from the government’s Central  Personnel Data File (CPDF), which OPM maintains, to fulfill EEOC  analysis and reporting requirements. With the new occupational categories,  agencies must now develop computer programs to follow a crosswalk that  classifies federal occupations into one of the nine categories. This burden  may be lessened in the future. According to EEOC and OPM officials, the  two agencies have had discussions about occupational categories in  relation to OPM’s new Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI)  system, which will replace CPDF as the central source for federal  workforce data and will afford agencies the opportunity, for a fee, to  perform complex workforce analysis and planning tasks and maintain  personnel records in electronic form. At the time of our review, EEOC and  OPM officials said that a statement of work has been proposed that if  approved and put in place could enable EEOC and other agencies to use  EHRI for purposes related to MD-715 reporting. However, OPM also noted  that there were separate policy and legal implications that must be  resolved. In addition, according to OPM, while much of the information  sought under MD-715 is contained within the EHRI database, EHRI will not  be able to provide data on applicants, non-appropriated fund employees, or  CLF comparisons.
Some EEO and human capital officials commented that another difference  between EEOC and OPM requirements that caused increased  administrative burden is how workforce data were reported by race and  ethnicity categories. In 1997, OMB issued revisions to standards for the  classification of federal data on race and ethnicity which were to be  adopted as soon as possible but no later than January 1, 2003. In the  instructions for MD-715, issued in March 2004, EEOC required agencies to  report data to EEOC under the minimum categories designated by OMB  under the revised standards for data on race and ethnicity. EEOC  encouraged agencies to collect data on race and national origin in a more  detailed fashion as required in OMB’s revised standards (for example, by  allowing employees to identify themselves as members of more than one  race) so long as the data can be aggregated into the categories EEOC  required under MD-715. EEOC required agencies to resurvey those  employees who had previously identified themselves as Asian/Pacific  Islander in order to break out those employees into the two new categories  (Asians and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). EEOC also  required agencies to give all new hires and those for whom the agency did  not have race or national origin information, the opportunity to self-identify  their race and national origin, including the ability to identify their  membership in more than one race. OPM updated the CPDF to conform to  OMB’s revised standards in January 2006. OPM requires data from agencies  in accordance with the OMB format for new employees only; it does not  require agencies to resurvey their workforces because it has no authority to  do so, according to OPM officials.
Another area where a policy disagreement arose that some officials said  presents challenges to agencies involved gathering and analyzing applicant- flow data. EEOC, in MD-715, requires agencies to analyze data on race,  national origin, gender, and disabilities voluntarily provided by job  applicants in order to begin to identify areas where barriers may be  excluding certain groups. OPM takes the position that agencies are not  required or authorized to collect race, national origin, gender, and age  information on applicants. In the past, OPM said it opposed collecting race  and national origin data from job applicants because collecting such data  would be costly, ineffective, and a reporting burden. According to OPM,  agencies collecting applicant data could involve significant legal risks— such collection could be construed as pressuring agencies to engage in  preferential treatment in order to achieve “results” in terms of workforce  composition, as suggested by certain recent discrimination cases. EEOC  defends the appropriateness of collecting and analyzing applicant data. In  commenting on a draft of this report, EEOC said that federal agencies are  bound by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures  (issued jointly by EEOC, the Civil Service Commission (OPM’s  predecessor), and the Departments of Justice and Labor), which requires  employers to request racial and ethnic data from applicants and analyze  applicant-flow data. Because of OPM’s position that agencies are not  required or authorized to collect racial or national origin data from  applicants, EEOC officials told us that EEOC has not offered official  guidance to agencies concerning applicant-flow data collection, although  EEOC has given informal verbal guidance on request.
Figure 4 shows some officials’ comments on reporting requirements.
section_title: Agencies Are More Satisfied with Guidance and Feedback from EEOC Than with That from OPM and Believe Both Could Do More
paragraphs: A large majority of survey respondents and officials we interviewed  suggested both EEOC and OPM could do more in their oversight and  leadership roles to ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve workforce  diversity by providing clearer guidance and feedback and by working  together to improve the quality of such guidance.
A majority of agency EEO and human capital officials responding to our  survey said that guidance and feedback from EEOC was useful or very  useful, while less than half said that about guidance and feedback from  OPM.
subsections: section_title: Officials Believe Both EEOC and OPM Could Do More to Help Agencies with EEO, Workforce Diversity, and Affirmative Employment
paragraphs: Survey respondents who served as points of contact with the central  leadership agencies—EEOC, OPM, MSPB, OSC, and FLRA—indicated that  on matters concerning EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce  diversity they interacted primarily with EEOC and OPM over the 2 years leading up to our survey. Respondents who had at least some interaction  with EEOC and OPM did not see either agency as particularly helpful in  assisting them in ensuring EEO in the workplace or achieving EEO-related  objectives. While, as discussed below, survey participants found some  usefulness to guidance and feedback from EEOC and OPM, of those having  at least some interaction with these agencies, 27 of 48 respondents (56.3  percent) said that EEOC was of some, little, or no help, and 36 of 45  respondents (80 percent) said the same of OPM. (See table 3.)
The majority of these respondents—37 of 48 (77.1 percent) for EEOC and  29 of 45 (64.4 percent) for OPM—said those agencies should be doing more  to help agencies ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative  employment or workforce diversity. Some of the officials we interviewed  and survey respondents offered their comments on how EEOC and OPM  could do this. (See fig. 5.)
section_title: Officials’ Views on Guidance and Feedback from EEOC and OPM
paragraphs: Although respondents said that EEOC and OPM should be doing more to  help agencies, they did find some usefulness, in varying degrees, in  guidance and feedback from EEOC and OPM. For example, with regard to  guidance concerning EEO, affirmative employment, or workforce diversity,  about 79 percent of the respondents who had at least some interaction with  EEOC said that guidance from EEOC personnel was useful or very useful  while about 42 percent of respondents who had at least some interaction  with OPM said that guidance from OPM personnel was useful or very  useful. Figure 6 shows survey respondents’ perceptions of the usefulness of  guidance from EEOC and OPM.
With regard to feedback on their agencies’ performance or on the contents  of reports submitted under the EEO framework, from 45 to 60 percent of  respondents who had at least some interaction with EEOC said that  feedback from EEOC was useful or very useful, while less than 34 percent  of those respondents who had at least some interaction with OPM said that  of feedback from OPM. Figure 7 shows survey respondents’ perceptions on  the usefulness of feedback from EEOC and OPM.
Figure 8 provides selected critical written comments from survey  respondents and EEO and human capital officials we interviewed. These  comments provide insight about the limitations of the guidance and  feedback from EEOC and OPM.
section_title: Limited Coordination between EEOC and OPM Limits Efficiency
paragraphs: Respondents to our survey said that more coordination between EEOC and  OPM would benefit their agencies, and would not only help reduce or avoid  duplication of effort but could also foster better cooperation between EEO  and human capital offices within agencies. The overlapping responsibilities  that EEOC and OPM have under the EEO framework create a need and  opportunity for coordination between the two agencies. However, we  found little coordination or information sharing between EEOC and OPM,  particularly among staff responsible for day-to-day oversight of federal  agencies. A lack of a mutual understanding of one another’s authority,  roles, and responsibilities contributes to this limited coordination, which in  turn can result in lost opportunity to realize consistency, efficiency, and  value in EEO policy making and oversight and in making EEO integral to  human capital management.
subsections: section_title: EEO and Human Capital Officials Said That EEOC- OPM Coordination Would Benefit Their Agencies
paragraphs: “If you believe that increased coordination between any two central leadership agencies  and the requirements and guidance they provide would benefit your department/agency,  which two agencies would you pick?”
Of the 80 EEO and human capital officials who responded to the survey, 70  (86 percent) specifically identified EEOC and OPM. “ represent the lead agencies for Human Resources and EEO, respectively.  If federal agencies reporting to OPM and EEOC were able to witness and experience  increased coordination between these two central leadership agencies, it would encourage  better communication and coordination between the HR and EEO programs within the  respective agencies.” “EEOC and OPM should lead by example in planning, developing, coordinating and  implementing guidance designed to assist federal agencies. An apparent lack of  coordination between OPM and EEOC often interferes with successful achievement of  systematic integration of EEO/diversity principles and policies into management systems  and functions. From my perspective, it is crucial to rethink some reporting initiatives and  shift attention to building a strong partnership between OPM and EEOC to fully utilize and  integrate their areas of expertise to avoid fragmentation. OPM should make it a priority [to  work together] closer with EEOC in assessing progress and lead the way in providing  models of EEO/diversity performance standards.”
The benefits of better coordination within agencies were highlighted by an  EEOC official, who stated that review of barrier analysis in reports  submitted under MD-715 showed that the highest quality analysis had come  from agencies where there was more coordination between human capital  and EEO staffs.
section_title: Government Policy Has Recognized the Importance of Coordination in Carrying Out EEO; Coordination between EEOC and OPM Is Good Management
paragraphs: For nearly 30 years, government policy has recognized the importance of a  coordinated effort in carrying out federal actions to ensure EEO. For  example, under the FEORP regulations, OPM provides that it will  coordinate with EEOC on activities to implement equal opportunity  recruitment programs under FEORP, consistent with law; 5 U.S.C. § 7201,  the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, and Executive Order No. 12067,  Providing for Coordination of Federal Equal Opportunity Programs.  The reorganization plan and the executive order gave EEOC responsibility  for promoting efficiency and eliminating conflict, competition, duplication,  and inconsistency in the implementation of EEO requirements, and  provided coordination principles for federal departments and agencies to  follow in enforcing EEO requirements. Coordination of federal EEO efforts  is also guided by EEOC regulation.
Additions to the EEO framework changing EEOC’s and OPM’s  responsibilities since 1978 have made adherence to the underlying  principle of coordination between agencies with overlapping  responsibilities even more necessary. We have reported that the lack of  coordination between federal agencies with overlapping responsibilities  creates a situation wherein scarce funds are wasted, program customers  are confused and frustrated, and the overall effectiveness of the effort is limited. Most recently, in October 2005, we reported that agencies with  overlapping responsibilities can enhance and sustain their collaborative  efforts and produce more public value by engaging in certain practices,  such as defining and articulating a common outcome; agreeing upon  agency roles and responsibilities, including leadership; and establishing  compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency  boundaries. Clearly, these principles apply to EEOC’s and OPM’s roles  within the EEO framework. “the roles and responsibilities of EEOC and OPM present an opportunity for them to work  together to provide leadership and training necessary to integrate EEO into every aspect of  human resource management policy and practice. These two agencies must make a  concentrated effort to ensure ongoing communications and understanding of EEO and  affirmative employment efforts to achieve a diverse, competent, and productive federal  workforce. They must provide joint leadership to EEO, civil rights, and personnel  professionals to create, develop, review, and improve effective ongoing governmentwide  efforts.”
The NPR suggested a number of actions, which could be implemented  administratively or by presidential order, which it believed would  “decrease duplicated efforts and redundancy… and foster coordinated,  governmentwide commitment to creating, implementing, and  accomplishing equal opportunity and affirmative employment goals.”  These included establishing an Interagency Equal Employment  Opportunity and Affirmative Employment Steering Group under the joint  chair of EEOC and OPM, and combining all equal opportunity and  affirmative employment reports into one comprehensive assessment of the  total workforce EEO/affirmative employment data. The report said that  implementing the actions would require ongoing commitment and  coordination between EEOC and OPM.
section_title: Coordination between EEOC and OPM Is Limited, Particularly with Regard to Oversight
paragraphs: Lack of coordination or information sharing was particularly evident  between the persons at EEOC and OPM who do the day-to-day work of  overseeing EEO at federal agencies. Officials at EEOC told us they do not  review agency FEORP reports, and some of those responsible for oversight  were not familiar with the FEORP requirements. Regarding their on-site  reviews, EEOC officials told us that they were generally unaware of OPM’s  approach to oversight, including the use of HCAAF, and that they do not  coordinate with OPM staff who may be doing or have done similar on-site  audits at the same agencies nor do they regularly receive or review material  from those OPM audits.
In discussions with OPM staff, we learned that staff engaged in agency  oversight do not make use of agency reports to EEOC, nor do they consult  EEOC in assessing the element of the PMA scorecard that deals with  reducing underrepresentation and sustaining diversity. This occurred even  though OPM acknowledged overlap in its Oversight and Effectiveness  Evaluation Handbook for its Merit Systems Compliance Program, which  was used for staff guidance before being withdrawn in 2003. Although no  longer in use, OPM’s stated premise in the handbook that its enforcement  and evaluation responsibilities coincide to a large extent with EEOC  responsibilities because EEO is integral to personnel management and to  many of the regulations that OPM administers remains valid.
In a 2005 assessment of OPM’s Merit Systems Compliance Program, OMB  also found a need for OPM to improve its coordination with EEOC. OMB  made the assessment using its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).  OMB reported it found no evidence that OPM benchmarks its activities  against similar efforts, such as those at EEOC. OMB indicated that although  EEOC has the statutory responsibility to coordinate EEO efforts, OPM  should seek opportunities for collaboration with EEOC in order to improve  overall government efficiency in the area of compliance reviews. OMB  noted that although OPM indicated that it was collaborating with EEOC,  OPM provided no documentary evidence of any collaboration. OMB  recommended that OPM collaborate with EEOC on activities that overlap  and further recommended that there be a regular/formal working  relationship between the two agencies.
In addition, OPM, in preparing the annual FEORP report to Congress, does  not consult with EEOC, as EEOC guidelines to OPM regulations indicate it  should. In their discussions with us, some OPM officials responsible for  oversight were either (1) unaware of EEOC’s affirmative employment  program requirements, EEOC’s oversight of federal agencies, or both or   (2) mistakenly believed that EEOC’s authority was limited to dealing with  violations of title VII of the Civil Rights Act, in particular, discrimination  complaints.
We also found that EEOC and OPM did not, for the most part, coordinate  EEO information and guidance on their respective Web sites. While each  Web site contains information about each agency’s policies, programs, and  operations, and both sites contain pages referring to policy and program  areas where both agencies have responsibilities, the EEOC Web site had no  links to relevant OPM Web pages, and OPM’s links to EEOC’s Web-based  information were not specific, which limited their value. For example, see  the following:   EEOC’s Web page entitled “How Other Civil Rights Agencies Address  EEO Issues” neither mentioned OPM nor contained any links to the  OPM Web site.
Neither agency Web site had links to the other agency’s Web site  regarding relevant policies and procedures for persons with disabilities.
The OPM Web site has an online diversity guide for federal agencies,  which covers the demographic and legal framework and offers guidance  for building a diverse workforce. In the discussion of title VII as part of  the framework, the link provided by OPM is only to EEOC’s home page  and not to more specific guidance, such as EEOC’s Web page entitled  “Reference and Research,” which lists applicable guidance on federal- sector EEO that would potentially be more relevant and helpful.
After we brought this issue to its attention, EEOC undertook an effort,  which was still under way at the time of our review, to provide links to  relevant information on OPM’s Web site. OPM said that because Web pages  are subject to change, it is more practical to send a reader to a home page  rather than to subject-specific information. However, while the content of  Web pages may change, we believe that the subject matter of the pages is  less likely to do so.
EEOC officials acknowledged a need for better coordination between the  two agencies. EEOC’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004–2009 states  that the agency “will reinvigorate its leadership of equal employment  policies and programs” in accordance with Executive Order No. 12067.  However, we noted that the plan does not contain any reference to  coordinating with OPM. Senior EEOC officials believed there was a lack of  awareness on OPM’s part of EEOC’s role beyond complaints management.  EEOC officials said that there is a need for a formal coordination  mechanism. EEOC officials also suggested that EEOC and OPM conduct  joint oversight visits of agencies. They also suggested that allowing EEOC  to become a member of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, which  the OPM Director chairs, may present an opportunity for closer  coordination of EEO and human capital management.
OPM officials, on the other hand, did not think that a formal coordination  mechanism was necessary. A senior official in OPM’s General Counsel’s  office told us that (1) there is a need to clarify “boundaries” and that there  has probably been some confusion between the OPM and EEOC program  and reporting requirements, (2) some EEOC requirements under MD-715  encroach on OPM’s authority and responsibility, and (3) OPM has broad  authority based on title 5 of the U.S. Code and its placement of  responsibility on OPM to enforce the merit system principles. OPM made  its concerns known to EEOC in its comments on a draft of MD-715. For  example, with regard to the “Model Agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act  Programs” under MD-715, OPM questioned EEOC’s authority to tell  agencies how to organize their internal structures. OPM also commented  that it was unclear whether or how plans for employing persons with  disabilities under MD-715 differ from the plans agencies are required to  create and submit to OPM under Executive Order No. 13163. According to  an official from the General Counsel’s Office, EEOC had not been  responsive to OPM’s concerns.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Because they both have roles and responsibilities in federal workplace  EEO under the federal statutory and regulatory framework, it is incumbent  upon EEOC and OPM to avoid unnecessary conflict, competition,  duplication, and inconsistency in policies and requirements. In order to  carry out EEO framework requirements efficiently and effectively, EEOC  and OPM need to  resolve their policy disagreements;  take a broad and comprehensive view of their overlapping   engage in serious and substantial efforts to gain a mutual understanding  of each other’s authorities, roles, and responsibilities under the federal  workplace EEO framework;  determine how those authorities, roles, and responsibilities can be  exercised in a collaborative way; and  enhance their communication and coordination.
EEOC and OPM together need to examine the collective requirements of  the EEO framework and determine where and how requirements can be  streamlined and consolidated in a way that is consistent with the  government’s policy goals, supports their respective missions and oversight  responsibilities, and reduces administrative burden. In doing so, EEOC and  OPM need to consider the judgments that survey respondents made about  the value of the different requirements in contributing to their EEO and  workforce diversity objectives, and the redundancies they identified that  add to their administrative burden.
Besides increasing program administration effectiveness and public value,  better coordination between EEOC and OPM could, at the agency level,  foster greater involvement between EEO offices and their human capital  counterparts in the development of their agencies’ human capital plans and  policies. In addition to working together on these matters, EEOC and OPM  need to work to make their guidance and feedback more useful to federal  agencies. Because of the long-standing nature of this lack of effective  coordination, additional congressional oversight is necessary to help  ensure that the two agencies work together meaningfully. As EEOC and  OPM already report annually to Congress on federal workforce EEO,  reporting on steps they have taken to improve coordination would facilitate  congressional oversight.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To resolve the issues noted in our report, we recommend that the Chair of  EEOC and the Director of OPM take the following five actions:  Develop means to communicate and coordinate on a continuing basis,  establish collaboration protocols, and work to resolve their  disagreements to the maximum extent possible concerning their  respective responsibilities in developing policy, providing guidance, and  exercising oversight under the EEO framework for the federal  workplace.
Explore opportunities to consolidate and streamline similar and  redundant requirements and resolve inconsistencies within the EEO  framework, including reporting requirements, in a manner that could  lead to a single report to fulfill the needs of both EEOC and OPM,  particularly related to requirements under MD-715 and FEORP. Where  both EEOC and OPM believe that a statute or an executive order is an  impediment to streamlining or resolving inconsistencies, the agencies  could jointly recommend appropriate action to Congress or the  President.
Work together to improve their collective guidance, feedback, and  assistance to other agencies on EEO.
Determine from agency-level EEO and human capital managers what  additional guidance they need in carrying out their responsibilities, how  to make their feedback more useful, and what more EEOC and OPM can  do to help agencies to ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve  workforce diversity objectives.
Work together to convene regular meetings of senior federal workplace  EEO/civil rights officials and chief human capital officers in order to  further integrate EEO and human capital.
Examples of how these recommendations could be implemented include  (but are not limited to) the following:  regularly exchanging data from reports submitted by agencies to  EEOC and OPM;  adopting a common format for reports to EEOC under MD-715 and  reports to OPM under FEORP;  resolving policy disagreements regarding the collection and use of   collaborating to help ensure that EHRI can support agencies in  meeting both EEOC and OPM reporting requirements;   regularly meeting and exchanging information between EEOC and  OPM staff performing oversight of the same agency;  identifying opportunities for joint reviews of an agency’s EEO and   establishing an “e-diversity” Web page created and maintained jointly  by EEOC and OPM; and  meeting jointly with federal agency EEO and human capital  managers during on-site visits.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: The Congress should require EEOC, in its Annual Report on the Federal  Workforce, and OPM, in its annual FEORP report, to include a joint report  of actions they have taken or plan to take to (1) increase coordination and  communication with each other, (2) consolidate and streamline like  requirements of the EEO framework and resolve inconsistencies, and   (3) improve guidance and feedback to agencies.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Chair of EEOC and to the Director  of OPM for their review and comment. We received written comments from  both agencies, which are reprinted in appendixes V and VI, respectively. In  commenting on our recommendation that EEOC and OPM develop means  to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate on a continuing basis, EEOC  stated that it did not disagree that it and OPM could further strengthen their  collaborative efforts. While OPM also agreed that there is room for  improvement, and that it would reinstate the practice of consulting with  EEOC as it prepares the annual FEORP reports, it believed that with  respect to other matters, a more appropriate approach was to continue to  coordinate on an as-needed basis and that a requirement for formal  coordination would add a layer of complexity to an already complex  situation. While we are sensitive to the need to limit unnecessary  complexity, as was evident from our survey, areas exist where agencies feel  additional administrative burden, in large measure, because OPM and  EEOC have not coordinated their oversight efforts. Gaining a mutual  understanding of each other’s authorities, roles, and responsibilities and  determining how those authorities could be exercised collaboratively could  provide immediate results in improving overall government efficiency in  oversight. OMB made a similar recommendation to OPM in 2005 with  respect to those programs where it shares oversight responsibility with  EEOC. We also believe that this collaboration could extend to examining  the potential for jointly conducting on-site reviews and audits in a manner  that would not compromise confidentiality.
EEOC and OPM, in their comments, both seem to have misinterpreted our  conclusions and recommendations, inferring that our intent was to have  EEO oversight functions merged or “folded” into one of the two agencies.  This is not our intention. Our conclusions and recommendations are  directed toward streamlining and consolidating the information-gathering  process, with the analytic and reporting functions remaining separate as  they currently are in each agency.
Both EEOC and OPM stated that they are limited in the steps that they  could take to consolidate or streamline agency reporting requirements  because regulations, executive orders, or statutes give EEOC or OPM sole  responsibility for each program. We agree that statutes and executive  orders place responsibility for administering and reporting on certain  programs with EEOC or OPM, but they do not mandate the method for  collecting information from agencies to carry out the programs. Therefore,  these agencies could develop and distribute a common data collection  instrument that both EEOC and OPM could use to fulfill their respective  responsibilities. We continue to believe that streamlining requirements and  resolving inconsistencies within the EEO framework would reduce  administrative burdens on agencies, thus allowing them to focus more of  their efforts on results. We revised our recommendation to make it clear  that where EEOC and OPM believe that a statute or an executive order is  an impediment to streamlining or resolving inconsistencies, the agencies  could jointly recommend appropriate action to Congress or the President.
OPM expressed concern over use of the phrase “affirmative employment,”  stating that the phrase may be misunderstood as relating to past EEO  programs that have come under criticism and are the subject of ongoing  litigation involving allegations of improper preferential treatment. We are  aware of case law that has addressed federal EEO policies or practices and  the issue of improper preferential treatment, as well as the ongoing  litigation involving allegations of preferential treatment related to  affirmative employment plans, which date back to superseded MDs issued  by EEOC. However, under the federal antidiscrimination statutes, the  federal sector remains obligated to go beyond merely addressing  complaints of alleged discrimination—to take positive (affirmative) steps  to ensure EEO. It is this federal-sector obligation to which we refer when  we use the phrase “affirmative employment.” Further, OPM expresses  concern about our reference to “workforce diversity.” We do not believe  our use of the term “workforce diversity” is unique or inconsistent with  OPM’s broad policies in the area. Rather, as our definition clearly provides,  workforce diversity is a very broad concept and is not limited to  recognizing the differences protected from discrimination by statute.
We provide additional responses to EEOC’s comments in appendix V and to  OPM’s comments in appendix VI.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chair of EEOC, the Director of  OPM, and other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others  upon request. This report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9490. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Staff who made major contributions to this report are listed  in appendix VII.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to (1) obtain federal agency equal employment  opportunity (EEO) and human capital managers’ views of the requirements  dealing with EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity and  the extent to which the requirements contribute to ensuring EEO,  affirmative employment, and diversity in the workplace; (2) obtain EEO  and human capital managers’ views on the guidance and feedback given  them by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the  Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on EEO, affirmative employment,  and workforce diversity issues; and (3) determine how and to what extent  EEOC and OPM coordinate with each other in developing policy, providing  guidance, and exercising oversight of line agencies, as well as obtaining  EEO and human capital managers’ views on EEOC and OPM coordination  and how it affects their work.
Our primary method for fulfilling these objectives was to design and  administer a survey to federal agency EEO and human capital managers.  We designed our survey using background information and interview  results from audit work done for our previous report on the EEO  framework, issued in April 2005. This included (1) the results of a review  of the statutory, regulatory, and policy framework governing EEO,  affirmative employment, and workforce diversity in the federal  government; (2) interviews with EEO and human capital managers at six  selected federal agencies; and (3) discussions with senior officials at the  central leadership agencies, mostly with officials of EEOC and OPM. The  instrument was designed originally by members of the audit team and a  survey methodologist, and was reviewed internally by survey professionals  and by GAO senior management prior to pretesting. We conducted pretests  to ensure that (1) the questions were clear and unambiguous,   (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the questionnaire did not place an  undue burden on agency officials, and (4) the survey was comprehensive  and unbiased.
We pretested the survey instrument at four federal agencies. At each  agency, we did two pretests, one with EEO staff and one with human  capital staff, for a total of eight pretests. We revised the draft survey based  on the pretest results and subsequently sent a draft of the survey  instrument to each of the central leadership agencies—EEOC, OPM, the  Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the  Federal Labor Relations Authority-for their review and comment. We then  made further revisions as appropriate based on the comments from these  agencies.
We prepared a distribution list for the survey, with the survey recipients  being a senior manager for EEO and diversity (usually the director of the  agency EEO or civil rights office) and a senior human capital manager  (usually the chief human capital officer or director of human resources) at  each federal agency that (1) had a total employment of 500 or more persons  and (2) was required to file an annual affirmative employment report with  EEOC and an annual Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program  report with OPM. (EEOC requires agencies with 500 or more employees to  include in their annual reports a plan for attaining the essential elements of  a model EEO program and a plan to eliminate identified barriers that  impede the full realization of EEO for employees and applicants.) The final  distribution list consisted of 90 recipients—the senior EEO and human  capital managers—at 45 agencies. Together, the 45 agencies employed 97  percent of the nonpostal federal workforce as of September 30, 2004. The  45 agencies are listed in appendix IV.
We distributed the survey by e-mail on October 19, 2004, and received  replies until December 10, 2004. We received completed surveys from 83 of  the 90 managers or their delegates, for a return rate of 92.2 percent. We  received completed surveys from both EEO and human capital officials at  38, or 84 percent, of the 45 agencies.
The survey results were keypunched into an electronic database. Because  this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. However, the  practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,  commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in  how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information that  are available to respondents, or in how the data are entered into a database  or were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey  results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data  collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. We  verified the accuracy of a small sample of keypunched records by  comparing them to their corresponding questionnaires, and we corrected  any errors found. Less than 1 percent of the data items we checked had  random keypunch errors that would not have been corrected during data  processing. Analysis programs were also independently verified. The  questions used in this report were asked in the larger survey of this  population. Relevant excerpts from the tabulated results are included in  appendix III (results are presented in percentages, unless otherwise  indicated).
We also invited survey recipients to make written comments on the survey  instrument concerning the issues covered in the survey. We received a  number of such comments, some of which are reproduced in the report. We  did not independently verify the statements made in any of the comments.
As stated above, we relied largely on the survey to address the first two  objectives. In addition, we considered the results of interviews of EEO and  human capital officials at 6 of the 45 agencies. Our response to the third  objective, concerning coordination between EEOC and OPM, was based  partially on the survey results. For this objective, we also used information  that we gathered from senior EEOC and OPM officials and staff involved in  agency oversight during our earlier engagement on the EEO framework.  We discussed this information, including guidance used by EEOC and OPM  staff responsible for agency oversight and knowledge of each other’s  policies and oversight practices and the nature and extent of their  coordination, with these officials to ensure that it was still accurate.
In reporting the survey responses in tabular or graphic form in the report,  in accordance with commonly accepted methodological practice, we  combined two responses (such as “very useful” and “useful”) into one  reporting category. In reporting responses to questions concerning the  usefulness of EEOC or OPM feedback, we regarded only “very useful” and  “useful” as positive responses, and regarded a “somewhat useful” response  as not indicating satisfaction with guidance and feedback.
We performed our audit work from May 2004 through February 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: The Framework for EEO in the Federal Workplace
paragraphs: Statutes, executive orders, and other executive policies form the  framework relating to EEO in the federal workplace. This framework,  which governs civil rights and personnel management, places primary  responsibility on federal agencies to provide workplaces that have a  culture of fairness, equity, and inclusiveness free from discrimination.
In 1964, Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act, prohibiting  discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national  origin in a number of areas, including employment, housing, voting, and  education. Title VII of the act addresses employment discrimination and  created EEOC. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, the  prohibitions against discrimination under title VII did not apply to the  federal government as an employer, although the act did state that it was  the federal government’s policy that employment actions be free of  discrimination. The government’s EEO policy for federal workers had  been addressed in executive orders. For example, Executive Order No.  11478, issued in 1969, stated the government’s policy to (1) provide equal  opportunity in federal employment for all persons; (2) prohibit  discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, gender, or  national origin; and (3) promote the full realization of EEO through a  continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency.  According to the order, the policy of equal opportunity should be an  integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the  employment, development, advancement, and treatment of federal civilian  employees.
Federal workers and applicants for federal employment received broad  statutory protection against employment discrimination with the passage  of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. The hallmark 1972 act  extended to federal workers the protections of title VII of the Civil Rights  Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,  gender, or national origin in employment matters, such as recruitment,  hiring, wages, promotions, benefits, discipline, discharge, and layoffs. In  addition, the 1972 amendments, enacted in part to address the  underrepresentation of minorities and women, require each federal  department and agency to prepare plans to maintain an affirmative  program of EEO. Under the plans, agencies are required to establish  training and education programs designed to provide a maximum  opportunity for employees to advance and perform at their highest  potential.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 extended employment discrimination  protections to federal employees and applicants for employment with  disabilities. Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act also requires federal  departments and agencies to prepare affirmative action program plans for  the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities.  These plans are to be updated annually and describe the extent to which  the special needs of employees with disabilities are being met and the  methods used.
A separate program was established for disabled veterans. The Vietnam Era  Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, requires  agencies to have a separate affirmative action plan for the recruitment,  employment, and advancement of disabled veterans that is to be part of  agencies’ efforts under the Rehabilitation Act for individuals with  disabilities. This program is referred to as the Disabled Veterans  Adjustment Assistance Program.
Besides the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment  Assistance Act of 1974, two executive orders issued in 2000 are to enhance  EEO in the federal government for persons with disabilities. Executive  Order No. 13163, Increasing the Opportunity for Individuals with  Disabilities to Be Employed in the Federal Government, was  implemented to support the goals of the Rehabilitation Act and promote an  increase in federal employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.  Under the order, agencies are required, among other things, to expand  outreach efforts, increase efforts to accommodate disabled individuals, and  prepare plans to increase the employment opportunities for individuals  with disabilities. Executive Order No. 13164, Requiring Federal Agencies  to Establish Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable  Accommodation, promotes a model federal workplace that provides  reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities in the  application process and for employees to perform the essential functions of  a position and enjoy benefits and privileges of employment. Under the  order, agencies are required to establish written procedures for processing  requests for reasonable accommodation.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), in overhauling federal  personnel laws, strengthened protections against discrimination and  retaliation in the federal workplace and underscored the government’s  commitment to ensuring EEO and to addressing underrepresentation. The  CSRA stated that in order to provide a federal workforce that reflects the  nation's diversity and to improve the quality of federal service, federal  personnel management should be implemented consistent with merit  system principles and free from prohibited personnel practices. The CSRA  listed nine merit system principles, the first two of which directly apply to  EEO in promoting a fair, equitable, and inclusive workplace:   Recruitment should be of qualified individuals from appropriate sources  in an endeavor to achieve a workforce from all segments of society, and  selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of  relative ability, knowledge, and skills after fair and open competition  that ensures that all receive equal opportunity.
All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and  equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without  regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex,  marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard  for their privacy and constitutional rights.
The CSRA also required that personnel actions should be free from  prohibited personnel practices, including discrimination for or against any  employee or applicant for employment based on race, color, religion,  gender, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or  political affiliation.
The CSRA further emphasized the government’s resolve to ensure EEO and  to address underrepresentation. The act required that executive agencies  conduct a continuing program for recruiting minorities to address  underrepresentation of minorities in the federal workplace. This  program is referred to as the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment  Program.
Executive Order No. 13171, Hispanic Employment in the Federal  Government, issued in 2000, affirmed ongoing policies for equality of  opportunity in federal employment and recommended additional policies  to eliminate the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the federal  workforce. The order requires agencies, among other things, to  (1) develop recruiting plans for Hispanics that create a fully diverse  workforce and (2) assess and eliminate any systemic barriers to the  effective recruitment and consideration of Hispanics. The order  established the Interagency Task Force to review best practices, provide  advice, assess overall executive branch progress, and recommend further  actions in eliminating the underrepresentation of Hispanics.
Government policy for dealing with underrepresentation and workforce  diversity is also articulated in the implementation of the President’s  Management Agenda (PMA). The PMA, implemented in fiscal year 2002, is  a strategy for improving the management and performance of the federal  government. The PMA contains five governmentwide goals to improve  federal management and deliver results, including the strategic  management of human capital. For each goal, agency performance in  implementing the PMA is assessed using a scorecard. Among the standards  on the scorecard within the strategic management of human capital goal is  how well agencies address underrepresentation and implement programs  to sustain diversity. The human capital standards were developed by OPM  and the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the  President’s Management Council.
In 2002, acting to address continuing concerns about discrimination and  retaliation in the federal workplace, Congress passed the Notification and  Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act.  The provisions of the act attempt, among other things, to enhance the  accountability of EEO management and address the causes of and  remedies for workplace conflict that can give rise to discrimination and  retaliation complaints. The No FEAR Act holds agencies financially  accountable for the costs of judgments and settlements in discrimination  cases and also focuses on the policies that agencies have implemented to  hold individuals who unlawfully discriminate against others accountable  for their conduct. Agencies are also to notify and provide training for their  employees on their rights and protections in cases of discrimination and  reprisal. In addition, the No FEAR Act stipulates that agencies are to  submit annual reports that contain discrimination complaint data, an  evaluation of the data to identify underlying causes, and actions planned or  taken to improve their civil rights and complaint programs. Furthermore,  in enacting this law, Congress expressed its intent that federal managers  should receive adequate training in managing a diverse workforce, dispute  resolution, and other essential communication skills.
Other statutes that protect workers in the private sector also protect  federal workers. 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,  as amended, protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from age- based employment discrimination.
section_title: Excerpts from EEO Leadership Survey Questionnaire and Summary Results
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: The policy of the U.S. government is to provide federal employees a workplace that is fair, equitable, and free from discrimination and retaliation.  To further equal  employment opportunity (EEO), the government has created, over time, a statutory,  regulatory, and policy framework. This framework requires federal agencies to carry out affirmative employment programs to help bring about a diverse workforce reflective of all segments of society.   Enforcement of statutes and regulations is in the hands of five  central leadership agencies: the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC); the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); and the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).
GAO, an independent agency of Congress, is collecting information governmentwide from department and agency representatives serving in human resources and EEO/civil rights offices regarding EEO, affirmative employment, and diversity in the federal  workplace.   GAO is conducting this survey on the initiative of the Comptroller General,  after having received a request from Senator Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Minority  Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.  This survey contains  questions about how your department/agency is organized to carry out statutes,  regulations, and policies; your perceptions of the various requirements in achieving a  diverse and nondiscriminatory workplace; and your perceptions on the guidance central  leadership agencies provide.  The survey does not address managing and adjudicating individual discrimination complaints, prohibited personnel practices, grievances, and appeals.
You can make an important contribution to this study by responding to this  questionnaire, so that GAO may provide the most complete information to Congress. The GAO report to Congress will discuss the usefulness of (1) the various requirements in helping to ensure EEO in your department/agency’s workplace and achieving  affirmative employment and workforce diversity objectives and (2) guidance and  feedback central leadership agencies provide in helping your department/agency carry  out the requirements for EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity.
The GAO report will present information from this questionnaire in summary form. The final report will not identify the responses of individuals by name or department/agency.
When answering the questionnaire, please feel free to consult with other appropriate  officials within your office for information or comments. However, we ask that you  consolidate your office’s responses so that you only return one copy to GAO.  The  questionnaire should take about 45 minutes to complete.
If possible, please return this questionnaire within 2 weeks of receiving this e-mail.  After  that time, if you have not been heard from, GAO will attempt to contact you in order to  confirm that you have received this questionnaire.  If necessary, GAO may also contact  you once we receive your response to clarify information.
Please complete this questionnaire in MS-Word, save it, and return it as an attachment  via e-mail to Leadership_Survey@gao.gov.  If you wish to complete the questionnaire by  phone, please call one of the numbers listed below.  If you prefer to print the survey out  and fax it back, you can fax the survey to (202) 512-2502.
If you have any questions about the contents of this questionnaire, please contact   Phone: (202) 512-8383  e-mail: lofaroa@gao.gov If you encounter any technical difficulties, please contact Monica Wolford  Phone: (202) 512-2625  e-mail: wolfordm@gao.gov Thomas Beall  Phone: (202) 512-3278  e-mail: beallt@gao.gov  Please use your mouse to navigate by clicking on the field, button  or check box  you wish to answer.
To select a check box or button, simply click or double click on the center of the box.
To change or deselect a check box response, simply click on the check box and the ‘X’   To change a button response, simply click on the button next to your preferred answer.
To answer a question that requires that you write a comment, click on the answer box   and begin typing.  Please do not use double quotation marks in your answer.
Do not “unlock” this document because this will erase your answers.  If you wish to  include comments about a particular question, include it, with the question number, in  the final question at the end of each section.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Glossary of Policies, Programs, and Activities  DVAAP - Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (requires each  department/agency to have a program for the recruitment, advancement, and  employment of disabled veterans, and to submit an annual report on the program to  OPM).
Employing Individuals with Disabilities, EO 13163 - Executive Order 13163:  Increasing the Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities to be Employed in the  Federal Government.
Providing Reasonable Accommodation, EO 13164 - Executive Order 13164:  Requiring Federal Agencies to Establish Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of  Reasonable Accommodation.
Hispanic Employment Initiative, EO 13171 - Executive Order 13171: Hispanic  Employment in the Federal Government (requires departments/agencies to have an  ongoing program for recruitment and career development of Hispanics in Federal  employment, and requires OPM to monitor department/agency programs and provide  guidance).
FEORP - Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (requires  departments/agencies to have a continuing program for the recruitment of minorities and  women to eliminate underrepresentation and to file annual reports with OPM regarding  their efforts).
HCAAF - Human Capital Accountability and Assessment Framework (standards used by  OPM to evaluate department/agency human capital performance).
MD 713 - EEOC Management Directive 713: Affirmative Action for Hiring, Placement,  and Advancement of Individuals with Handicaps (prepared pursuant to EEOC’s authority  under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; mandated adoption of affirmative  employment plans for persons with disabilities, and annual reporting of progress to  EEOC; replaced by MD 715).
MD 714 - EEOC Management Directive 714: Hiring, Placement, and Advancement of  Minorities and Women (prepared pursuant to EEOC’s authority under Section 717 of  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; mandated adoption of affirmative employment  plans for African Americans, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and  women, and annual reporting of progress to EEOC; replaced by MD 715).
MD 715 - EEOC Management Directive 715 (supercedes Management Directives 713 and  714 and provides policy guidance and standards for establishing and maintaining  effective affirmative programs of EEO under Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights  Act and effective affirmative action programs under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation  Act; issued in October 2003).
No FEAR - Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act  (requires agencies to report and analyze discrimination complaint data, be accountable  for costs of judgments and settlements in discrimination cases, and train managers in  skills necessary to manage a diverse workforce).
OSC 2302(c) certification program - Office of Special Counsel’s 2302(c) Certification  Program (empowers OSC to certify that agencies have taken the actions necessary to  ensure that their employees are informed of their rights and available remedies  pertaining to prohibited personnel practices under Title V of the U.S. Code, especially for  retaliation for whistleblowing).
PMA - President’s Management Agenda (a strategy for improving the management and  performance of the federal government); contains five governmentwide goals, including  strategic management of human capital; the human capital goal contains among its  standards for success one relating to agencies’ addressing under-representation and  implementing programs to sustain diversity.
For the purpose of this questionnaire please use the following definitions: Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) is the policy embodied in law that requires  employment actions be free from prohibited discrimination, including discrimination on  the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation for filing  discrimination claims or other protected activity.
Affirmative Employment is a program designed to identify and eliminate  discriminatory practices and policies and to ensure EEO.  In the federal sector,  affirmative employment includes actions by federal departments/agencies to identify and  eliminate barriers to EEO in accordance with the policies of the EEOC and the OPM.
Workforce Diversity indicates the extent to which people in a workforce are similar  and different from each other, including race, ethnicity, disability, and gender.   Workforce diversity may also take into account other factors, such as background,  education, work roles, and personality.
Q11. For which of the following, if any, is your office the primary point of contact with  OPM?   46.9  Employing Individuals with Disabilities, EO 13163  49.4  FEORP  51.9  DVAAP  48.1  Hispanic Employment Initiative, EO 13171  37.0  PMA standards on under-representation and workforce diversity  34.6  HCAAF  Q12. What has been the extent, if any, of your office’s interaction (i.e., receiving or  seeking guidance or feedback) with OPM over the last 2 years on EEO, affirmative  employment, or workforce diversity?    1.2  Very extensive interaction    7.4  Extensive interaction  18.5  Moderate interaction  28.4  Some interaction  42.0  Little or no interaction    2.5  Don’t know  Q13. Overall, during the last 2 years, how useful has guidance concerning EEO,  affirmative employment, or workforce diversity from each of the following OPM  sources been for your office?  13a OPM personnel 13b Written materials 13e. Overall during the last 2 years, how useful has guidance on EEO, affirmative  employment, or workforce diversity from OPM Web resources been? 15.9  Very useful 31.8  Useful 29.6  Somewhat useful   11.4  Not at all useful   4.6  Don’t know  Q14. How useful was OPM’s guidance for the following?
Q15. How useful was OPM’s feedback on your department/agency’s performance or  feedback on the contents of reports or documents submitted to OPM for the  following?
DVAAP Hispanic Employment  Initiative, EO 13171  PMA standards on  under-representation  and workforce  diversity HCAAF Q16. During the past 2 years, has OPM given technical assistance to staff in your office  on aligning your department/agency’s affirmative employment, diversity, or human  capital goals and measures with OPM’s governmentwide cross-cutting affirmative  employment, diversity, and human capital goals and measures (such as those in  OPM’s strategic plan)?    2.2  Not familiar with OPM’s governmentwide cross-cutting goals and measures  Q17. Over the last 2 years, to what extent, if any, has OPM helped your office ensure EEO  in the workplace and achieve affirmative employment or workforce diversity  objectives?     0.0  Very great extent    2.2  Great extent  13.3  Moderate extent  33.3  Some extent  46.7  Little or no extent   Q18. Do you believe OPM should be doing more to help your department/agency  ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative employment or workforce  diversity objectives?      8.9  Don’t know   Q18a. Please briefly describe what types of additional assistance from OPM would  be most helpful to ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative  employment or workforce diversity objectives.
Q20. If you have any additional comments on the questions in this section or on OPM’s  assistance to ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative employment or  workforce diversity objectives, please write them below.
Q21. For which of the following, if any, is (or was) your office the primary point of  contact with EEOC?
Previous requirements under MD 713 for employment of  persons with disabilities   54.3 Previous requirements under MD 714 for minorities and women  58.0 Current requirements under MD 715   63.0 Providing Reasonable Accommodation, EO 13164  25.9 None of the above Q22. Excluding complaint processing, what has been the extent of your office’s  interaction (i.e., receiving or seeking guidance or feedback) with EEOC over the  last 2 years on EEO, affirmative employment, or workforce diversity?  [Check only  one answer] 17.5   Very extensive interaction  15.0   Extensive interaction  17.5   Moderate interaction  10.0   Some interaction  33.8   Little or no interaction    6.3   Don’t know  Q23. Excluding complaint processing, overall, during the last 2 years, how useful has  guidance on EEO, affirmative employment, or workforce diversity from each of the  following EEOC sources been for your office?
Q23e.  Excluding complaint processing, overall, during the last 2 years, how useful  has guidance on EEO, affirmative employment, or workforce diversity from  EEOC Web resources been?   39.6  Very useful 29.2  Useful 25.0  Somewhat useful     2.1  Not at all useful   2.1  Don’t know   Q24. How useful was EEOC’s guidance for the following?
Q25. How useful was EEOC’s feedback on your department/agency’s performance or  feedback on the contents of reports or documents submitted to EEOC for the  following?
Q26. During the past 2 years, has EEOC given technical assistance to staff in your office  on aligning your department/agency’s affirmative employment or workforce diversity  goals and measures with EEOC’s governmentwide cross-cutting affirmative employment  or workforce diversity goals and measures (such as those in EEOC’s strategic plan)? 2.1    Don’t know   8.3    Not familiar with EEOC’s governmentwide cross-cutting goals and measures  Q27. Excluding complaint processing, over the last 2 years, to what extent, if any, has  EEOC helped your office ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative  employment or workforce diversity objectives?   10.4   Very great extent    6.3   Great extent  25.0   Moderate extent  25.0   Some extent  31.3   Little or no extent    2.1   Don’t know Q28. Do you believe EEOC should be doing more to help your department/agency ensure  EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative employment or workforce diversity  objectives?   2.1     Don’t know   Q28a.  Please briefly describe what types of additional assistance from EEOC would  be most helpful to ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative  employment or workforce diversity objectives.
Q29. If you have any additional comments on the questions in this section or on EEOC’s  assistance to ensure EEO in the workplace and achieve affirmative employment or  workforce diversity objectives, please write them below.
Q48a. Based on your experience or knowledge, which two, if any, of the following that  deal with employment of persons with disabilities seem to have very similar or  redundant requirements (e.g. developing plans, assessing progress and preparing  reports)?   (Whole numbers presented instead of percentages.)  10    None have very similar or redundant requirements  22   DVAAP 39   Requirements under MD 715 regarding persons with disabilities  36   Employing Individuals with Disabilities, EO 13163    5   Providing Reasonable Accommodation, EO 13164    0   Other program or policy (please specify)  17   Don’t know  Q48b. Based on your experience or knowledge, which two, if any, of the following seem  to have very similar or redundant requirements (e.g., developing plans, assessing  progress, and preparing reports)?    (Whole numbers presented instead of percentages.)    9   None have very similar or redundant requirements  41   FEORP  19   Hispanic Employment Initiative, EO 13171    5   HCAAF performance standards    8   PMA standards on under-representation and workforce diversity  30   Requirements under MD 715    6   No FEAR Act    0   OSC 2302(c) certification program    0   Other program or policy (please specify)  15   Don’t know  Q49. If you believe that increased coordination between any two central leadership  agencies and the requirements and guidance they provide would benefit your  department/agency, which two agencies would you pick?  [Check only two boxes]  (Whole numbers presented instead of percentages.)  3  Don’t believe there would be benefit from increased coordination [Go to    2  Don’t know   Q49a. Why did you choose these two agencies?
Impact of Requirements on Department/Agency Human Capital Policies  Q51. To what extent, if at all, do the following currently influence the formulation of  your department/agency’s human capital policies, practices, and human capital  strategic planning?
Q52. If you have any additional comments on the impacts of these federal requirements   helping to ensure EEO in the workplace and achieving affirmative employment  or workforce diversity objectives and   influencing  your department/agency’s formulation of human capital policy and  its human capital strategic plan,   Please write them below.
Q53.  If you have any additional comments on any previous question or any other  comments about EEO in the workplace and achieving affirmative employment or  workforce diversity objectives, please make them below.
Thank you for completing this survey.
Please save this file now and send GAO a return e-mail, with your file as an attachment.
section_title: Agencies from Which Respondents Returned the EEO Leadership Survey Questionnaire
section_title: Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
paragraphs: The Honorable David M. Walker  Comptroller General of the United States  United States Government Accountability Office  Washington, D.C.  20548  Thank you for the opportunity to review the report entitled EQUAL EMPLOYMENT  OPPORTUNITY, Improved Coordination Needed between EEOC and OPM in Leading Federal  Workplace EEO. GAO-06-214.
First, we wish to make clear that it is EEOC’s view that the multiple areas of information collection which GAO has described as redundant in the GAO report are not in fact unnecessary.  Several federal agencies have information collection requirements which overlap but serve  different purposes.
By analogy, EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs serve  different legislative mandates but often collect similar information.  Also, the Wage and Hour  Division of the United States Department of Labor collects payroll information that EEOC seeks  in Equal Pay Act cases.
Likewise, OPM’s FEORP looks only at recruiting activities and outcomes as well as  human capital practices used to recruit and develop the federal workforce. In contrast, reports  submitted pursuant to EEOC’s Management Directive 715 look at wide-ranging employment  activities to ensure that equal employment opportunity is being embraced and implemented by  all federal agencies.
In conclusion, let me assure you that the Commission will continue to work closely with the Office of Personnel Management to eliminate reporting inefficiencies while adhering to our  respective statutory constraints. Attached to this letter are several more detailed observations we  have regarding this report.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this report.
Use of Survey Results and Overall Thrust of Report is Misleading The GAO draft report at several points suggests that various agency officials perceive the  requirements of OPM’s FEORP program and EEOC’s MD-715 as ‘very similar” or “redundant.”
The use of the word redundancy in both the survey responses and in the draft implies or creates  the impression that certain EEOC and OPM programs coverage and/or reporting requirements  are congruent, or similar in most or all respects.  However, the FEORP and MD-715 programs  are dissimilar in a great number of respects, and the scope of the information analyzed by MD- 715 is much broader than FEORP.  A short discussion of each program demonstrates this point:  FEORP is limited to recruitment, in the broader sense of hiring, training and career  development, by federal agencies. However, OPM by its own admission does not collect  applicant flow information about the race, national origin and sex of recruits for federal jobs.
Instead agencies comply with FEORP by submitting snapshot workforce information annually to  OPM on the workforce by race, national origin and gender of their employees.  Agencies also  provide anecdotal information on Workforce Planning, Recruitment and Outreach, Mentoring  and Career Development Opportunities.  Moreover, the 2005 OPM Annual Report to Congress  on FEORP actually gives no information on the race, national origin or sex of  applicants for  federal jobs, or of the impact of agencies’ efforts to enhance the diversity of federal recruits.
Instead, the Annual FEORP report only provides a snapshot of the race, national origin and sex  of individuals already employed in the federal workforce, whether recently hired or with 30  years service. The report implies that if the federal workforce is diverse, then federal agency  recruitment efforts must be working properly. The FEORP annual report also analyzes  employment participation for underrepresentation.  Some anecdotal information about agency  initiatives in the area of Workforce Planning, Recruitment and Outreach, Mentoring and Career  Development Opportunities is reported by individual agencies, but no statistical analysis of those  individual agency recruitment efforts, or of agency recruitment efforts government-wide, is  provided by OPM in the Annual Report. Finally, OPM, according to survey respondents, does  not provide feedback to agencies on their FEORP reports. (Figure 8, page 29)
Contrast that with the much broader scope of EEOC’s MD-715 which requires that  agencies  report by race, national origin, sex and disability of employees and applicants affected  by numerous federal agency employment practices from outreach and recruitment (requiring that  agencies collect and report applicant flow information) to hiring, participation rates across the  general schedule, and in major occupations, training, non-competitive promotions, merit  promotions for major occupations, participation in career development and training, awards and  separations. Moreover, and unlike OPM’s FEORP program, EEOC’s practice is to require  agencies to do in-depth barrier analysis to identify and eliminate barriers to the employment  opportunities, using snapshot information from the agency workforce, underrepresentation  analyses and several other sources of information.  After agencies submit their MD-715 reports,  EEOC provides them feedback, in the form of extensive technical assistance, both in person and  in writing.
GAO “did not evaluate the degree of similarity and redundancy among these requirements” (p.15).   Because GAO did not conduct a careful comparison of the degree of  redundancy of any of the programs mentioned in the draft report, the analysis is insufficient.
Statutory Requirements Limit Options to Streamline Reporting Requirements Although the survey conducted by GAO reports that several agencies officials expressed  views that there is redundancy in some programs (FEORP, CSRA and MD-715, Title VII),  (Rehabilitation Act and Executive Order 13163), neither OPM nor EEOC is free to eliminate any  redundancy by ignoring the requirements of statutes enacted by Congress or Executive Orders  promulgated by the President which assign responsibility over a given program to an individual  agency.  In other words EEOC clearly cannot simply “fold” OPM’s FEORP requirements into its  MD-715 program without going against the plain meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act  which assigns responsibility of reporting under the FEORP to OPM. See 5 U.S.C. 7201(e) (requiring OPM to prepare and transmit a report to each House of Congress on FEORP not later  that January 31 of each year).
Likewise, EEOC cannot simply absorb OPM’s responsibilities under E.O. 13163 into the  MD-715 Rehabilitation Act reporting requirements without ignoring the plain requirements of  the Executive Order.  See 3 C.F.R. 13163 (d) (requiring that each Federal agency shall prepare a  plan to increase the opportunities for individuals with disabilities to be employed in the agency).
If GAO is suggesting that EEOC and OPM should consolidate allegedly redundant  reporting requirements of EEO programs into a single agency, the Commission believes that  these solutions should be initiated by Congress and/or the President. This being said, EEOC  does not disagree with GAO that the Commission and OPM can further strengthen their  collaborative efforts.  There is always room for improvement.
GAO’s draft fails to note (p. 6) that its survey was conducted between October 2004 and  December 2004 prior to agency submission of annual reports under MD-715 in January 2005 or  EEOC’s issuance of feedback letters. Thus, GAO’s comments regarding feedback were likely  based on feedback under the now obsolete Management Directives 713 and 714.
The GAO draft mischaracterizes EEOC’s positions or responses on some issues.  For  example, GAO reports that EEOC changed the nine occupational categories because the  PATCOB categories were outdated and too imprecise to allow the level of analysis desired.
However, EEOC expanded to the nine categories not only because this change provided a better  refinement and alignment of the data to be evaluated, but also because the nine categories are  based on the occupational categories EEOC uses for conducting similar analyses in the private  sector.  The Commission strives for consistency and uniformity in the enforcement of its EEO  responsibilities across sectors.
Also GAO mistakenly notes that EEOC officials said that it had “not offered official  guidance to agencies concerning applicant-flow data collection.”  In fact, MD-715 requires the  collection of applicant flow data.  EEOC formed an interagency working group in 2004 to assist  in the development of an applicant flow collection form.  EEOC sought to accomplish two  objectives: to assist in framing the questions on the form that ask for applicant information using  the revised race categories and methods approved by OMB, and to ensure that other proper  language and guidance was used in creating the forms.
In 2004, several agencies informed EEOC that they would not collect applicant flow data  unless and until OPM developed new race reporting codes that could be used by the agencies to  report the data in agency personnel and OPM databases.  OPM revised the race categories in the  CPDF database in August 2005, with required use by January 1, 2006.
Several of GAO’s concerns require further information and/or discussion:   The draft report noted “policy inconsistencies and disagreements’ that EEOC and OPM  should address and resolve, but failed to specifically identify them;  An explanation as to how EEOC’s more narrowly defined nine occupational categories  could be “too broad for meaningful analysis because they combine too many occupations  within one category,” but the six broader categories they replaced are not;   Specific identification of the inaccuracies and omissions in the “crosswalk“ developed to  classify federal occupations into one of the nine categories;   The basis for the statement that the collection of applicant flow data would be “costly, ineffective and a reporting burden” (p. 23); and  Support for the statement that collecting applicant data could involve significant legal  risks and that such collection could  be construed as “pressuring agencies to engage in  preferential treatment in order to achieve ‘results’ in terms of workforce composition, as  suggested by recent discrimination cases.”  It should be noted that federal agencies are  bound by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), which  require employers to request race and ethnic data from applicants and analyze applicant flow data.  UGESP is a joint federal rule issued by EEOC, DOL, DOJ, and OPM.
A large part of EEOC’s mission involves proactive prevention of discrimination.  In  addition to the work that the report describes on page 9, we have an extensive outreach and  technical assistance program within the federal sector.  We provide this service to all federal agencies, including many who were not participants in the survey that forms the foundation for this report.
Please note that we:   Conduct quarterly EEO Director’s meetings which cover a variety of topics, as well as  feedback sessions where EEO Directors can share with EEOC issues and suggestions for  other training sessions.
Provide regular opportunities for discussions on topics such as Model EEO Programs.
Completed 109 Technical Assistance visits to agencies in FY 05; to date, we have  completed 75 in-person Technical Assistance visits this fiscal year.
Conducted 486 in-person training sessions in FY 04 and 05, reaching more than 21,000 federal employees.
Received and reviewed 120 reasonable accommodation procedures from agencies and provided individualized written feedback on each set of procedures, as well as additional written feedback on 84 procedures that were subsequently resubmitted.
Recently published Practical Advice for Drafting and Implementing Reasonable  Accommodation Procedures which summarizes best practices and common problems identified through our review of reasonable accommodation procedures.
Updated our website to provide direct links to relevant OPM reports.  It now links to  information on OPM’s annual Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP)  report, as well as OPM’s Executive Order 13171 report (Hispanic Employment Program  Statistical Reports) at: http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/coordination/whatothersdo.html.
Lastly, GAO uses workforce data on FY 2004 when FY 2005 data are now available. (p. 3).
As of March 31, 2006, we have provided written feedback in response to 119 of the 120 submissions. Work on the remaining feedback letter is currently in progress.
The following are GAO’s comments on EEOC’s letter dated May 16, 2006.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. EEOC expresses the view that the multiple areas of information  collection, which we have described as redundant, are in fact  necessary, and points out that several federal agencies have  information collection requirements that overlap but serve different  purposes. EEOC offers as an example that it and the Department of  Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)  serve different legislative mandates but often collect similar  information. Our research shows that EEOC and OFCCP jointly  developed a form (EEO-1) to meet the needs of both agencies. Further,  parties make a single submission to the joint committee, made up of  EEOC and Department of Labor staff. We believe that EEOC’s  collaboration with OFCCP is a positive example of collaboration that  EEOC and OPM could emulate in seeking opportunities for  streamlining and consolidating information gathering from federal  agencies. 2. We recognize the differences in EEOC’s and OPM’s authorized  responsibilities. However, this does not obviate our point that similar  information to meet both requirements could be collected through a  single common instrument, from which EEOC and OPM could extract  the information needed for their separate reports. EEOC and OPM  should look for ways to minimize the impact of these differences on  agencies.  3. This draft report and an earlier report on the EEO framework present  similarities and differences in responsibilities of EEOC and OPM and in  the requirements they place on agencies. In this report, we present the  informed views of EEO and human capital officials surveyed for the  report who deal with various requirements daily. In presenting these  views, it was beyond the scope of our review to independently analyze  the validity of the responses. We believe that it is more appropriate for  EEOC and OPM to explore opportunities to streamline and consolidate  similar and redundant requirements and, in doing so, to seek the views  of agency EEO and human capital managers who are responsible for  carrying out the requirements.  4. The statutes and executive orders place responsibility for EEO-related  programs on EEOC and OPM, as noted. However, the responsibility  relates to administering the programs and reporting results, not in  collecting data. We believe that there is no statutory impediment in title  VII or in the CSRA that would prevent EEOC and OPM from devising  and distributing a common data collection instrument, the information  from which would be subsequently used by the two agencies in  separately analyzing the data and reporting under FEORP and  Management Directive (MD) 715. Should EEOC and OPM conclude that  certain coordination or streamlining efforts might not be authorized  under current statutes, executive orders, or regulations, they could  modify regulations, request that the President revise relevant executive  orders, or request that Congress amend relevant statutes to bring about  greater efficiency in how EEOC, OPM, and federal agencies meet the  requirements of the EEO framework. We clarified this in the report. 5. Figure 7, which shows survey respondents’ perceptions of the  usefulness of feedback from EEOC on agency performance or contents  of reports or documents submitted under MD-713 and MD-714, contains  a note that these requirements were operational during the early part of  the survey period. Together, the requirements under MD-713 and MD- 714, including submitting annual reports, had much in common with  the requirements under MD-715. In addition, EEOC issued feedback  letters to agencies on reports submitted under MD-713 and MD-714.  Because the first reports under MD-715 were not due until after the  survey period, it was not possible to ask survey recipients for their  views on feedback from EEOC on these reports. Though MD-713 and  MD-714 have been superseded, respondents’ views on the usefulness of  EEOC feedback are not invalid. 6. EEOC’s statement about the professional, administrative, clerical, other  white-collar and blue-collar (PATCOB) categories was taken from its  guidance “Frequently Asked Questions About Management Directive- 715,” wherein EEOC said “The EEOC determined that the PATCOB  categories are outdated, overly broad and too imprecise to allow the  level of analysis desired.” In that same guidance, EEOC also said it  adopted the same nine occupational categories for use in analyzing the  federal workforce to conform with occupational categories on the  EEO-1 report used by private employees in reporting information to  EEOC in order to provide more useful information and facilitate  comparisons between the federal and private sectors. We have  modified the report to reflect this. 7. We agree that MD-715 requires that agencies gather and analyze data on  applicants’ race, national origin, gender, and disabilities and provides a  form for reporting the data gathered. However, in its instructions,  EEOC did not provide guidance to agencies on how they should collect  such data from applicants, which can only be collected voluntarily, or  provide a form that agencies could use to request information from  applicants. At the time of our review, no written guidance had been  issued in this regard. As we state in our report, EEOC provided verbal  guidance when requested by individual agencies.  8. This phrase “policy inconsistencies and disagreements” appears in the  summary of the recommendations in the Results in Brief section of the  report. The inconsistencies and disagreements are discussed in the  report. These include inconsistencies between EEOC and OPM in how  federal occupations are categorized for analytical purposes and  disagreement on the need and authority to collect race and national  origin data from applicants for employment.  9. EEOC commented that further information is needed with regard to  our discussion about the occupational categories and applicant flow  data. This discussion is intended to illustrate the existence of policy  disagreements and differences between EEOC and OPM. The  comments to which EEOC refer were made to us by OPM, and were  explicitly attributed to OPM in our report. That these differences exist  further illustrates the lack of coordination and collaboration between  EEOC and OPM, and they are among the issues we recommend that the  two agencies resolve.
We clarified the report to include a reference to the Uniform  Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. 10. EEOC’s discussion of the technical assistance it provides does not  directly address the findings in our report that, as of the time of our  survey in the fall of 2004, some EEO and human capital managers did  not consider EEO guidance to be useful, and a substantial number did  not consider EEOC feedback to be useful.
EEOC’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2004-2009 states that as a  means of assessing its performance, the agency will survey federal  agency leadership to assess how EEOC's evaluations enable agencies  to improve their EEO programs. This survey, when it is done, will be  one means of providing EEOC with more current and comprehensive  information on agency views concerning the effectiveness of its  guidance and feedback. 11. The fiscal year 2004 data were used to describe the proportion of the  federal workforce employed at the agencies at the time of our survey.
section_title: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on OPM’s letter dated April 21, 2006.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. We are not recommending that OPM go beyond its statutory authority  and do not assume areas of overlap to be dysfunctional and unintended.  Our recommendations are intended to help EEOC and OPM develop  means to cooperate and collaborate in gathering information from  agencies to identify opportunities to reduce the administrative  requirements on agencies while satisfying existing EEO framework  requirements.  2. We neither recommend that EEOC and OPM merge into a collective  approach nor recommend that Congress require EEOC and OPM to  adopt the recommendations we make in this report. We recommended  that Congress require EEOC and OPM to report annually on actions  taken or planned to increase coordination and communications with  each other, streamline like requirements and resolve inconsistencies  where appropriate, and improve guidance and feedback to agencies. 3. We acknowledge in our report that there are differences in EEOC’s and  OPM’s responsibilities. In the draft provided to OPM for its comment,  we state that OPM’s mission is to build a high-quality and diverse  federal workforce and that under title 5 of the U.S. Code, OPM is  responsible for executing, administering, and enforcing civil service  laws and regulations in the executive branch, including the merit  system principles that require fair and equitable treatment and equal  opportunity and prohibit discrimination in all aspects of federal  employment. The differences in EEOC’s and OPM’s responsibilities,  however, should not preclude the two agencies from exploring, and  taking advantage of, opportunities for coordination and cooperation in  areas of common interest in the oversight of EEO in federal agencies.
4.
In our discussion of duplication of efforts, we were mindful of the legal  distinctions between the various components of the EEO framework.  See comment 3. 5. OPM expressed concern over use of the phrase “affirmative  employment,” stating that the phrase may be misunderstood as relating  to past EEO programs that have come under criticism and are the  subject of ongoing litigation involving allegations of improper  preferential treatment. We are aware of case law that has addressed  federal EEO policies or practices and the issue of improper preferential  treatment, as well as the ongoing litigation involving allegations of  preferential treatment related to affirmative employment plans which  date back to superseded management directives issued by EEOC.  However, under the federal antidiscrimination statutes, the federal  sector remains obligated to go beyond merely addressing complaints of  alleged discrimination—to take positive (affirmative) steps to ensure  EEO. It is this federal sector obligation to which we refer when we use  the phrase “affirmative employment.” Further, OPM expresses concern  about our reference to “workforce diversity.” We do not believe our use  of the term “workforce diversity” is unique or inconsistent with OPM’s  broad policies in the area. Rather, as our definition clearly provides,  workforce diversity is a very broad concept and is not limited to  recognizing the differences protected from discrimination by statute.  6. We have added a footnote to page 1 referring readers to the definition  later in the report. 7. We have modified the report in line with OPM’s comment. 8. Please see comment 5 above regarding our use of the term “affirmative  employment.” While OPM specifically objects to our characterization of  MD-715 as an affirmative employment program, EEOC, in its  comments, raised no objections to our use of this phrase as it relates to  MD-715, or otherwise. 9. The statements referred to by OPM are the comments of agency EEO  and human capital officials who filled out our survey. They are intended  to illustrate the survey results. We did not independently evaluate the  validity of the statements made in the comments, and they are not  presented as facts or as findings. 10. We have made a change in accordance with OPM’s comment. 11. We understand that OPM and EEOC do not carry out identical reviews;  however, workforce diversity issues share a common foundation with  EEO issues, which in our view creates the opportunity for cooperation  and coordination in oversight. It is important that staff performing  work in these areas have an awareness of efforts of the other agency so  that their individual and collective efforts could be more efficient. 12. We have changed the wording in accordance with OPM’s comment.  13. We have changed table 1 in accordance with OPM’s comment. 14. Executive Order No. 13171 mandates that “the head of each executive  department and agency shall establish and maintain a program for the  recruitment and career development of Hispanics in Federal  employment.” In the Fifth Annual Report to the President on Hispanic  Employment in the Federal Government, dated February 16, 2006, OPM  said it asked federal agencies to identify human capital practices they  found effective in recruiting Hispanics.  15. We have modified the discussion of the PMA in the report to clarify our  source, in accordance with OPM’s comments. (We are referring to the  scorecard the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses to assess  agencies’ implementation of the PMA, commonly referred to as the  “PMA scorecard” that contains the standard of reducing  underrepresentation and sustaining workforce diversity.) 16. We have changed the title of table 2 in accordance with OPM’s  comments. With regard to OPM’s point that the combination of “some,  little, or no extent” seems broad, our methodology specialists have  advised that collapsing “some extent” with “little or no extent” is a  common practice. We have clarified this in appendix I. 17. The reference to “common features” was part of the two survey  questions on whether any two of the specific requirements listed were  in fact similar or redundant, and refers to those requirements.
While it is true that OPM now supplies agencies with Central Personnel  Data File (CPDF) workforce data for their FEORP reports, agencies are  still obligated to analyze these data to assess their workforces under  FEORP requirements and respond to OPM’s requests for information.  18. As stated in our report, we were informed by agency EEO and human  capital managers that they have to make separate efforts for each  reporting requirement and consider this a significant burden. OPM and  EEOC, in their roles as leadership agencies, should work together to  understand how their collective requirements affect agencies and  explore how administrative burdens on agencies could be reduced. 19. We have modified the report to more fully explain EEOC’s requirements  as they relate to OMB’s revised standards for race and ethnicity  classification. 20. We have removed the comment which cited the categories which have  since been revised. 21. We have modified the report in accordance with OPM’s comment. 22. We have modified the report in accordance with OPM’s comment. 23. We have added more specific information concerning the NPR’s  recommendations to the report.  24. We have modified the report to attribute the comment directly to the  NPR. 25. We have modified our discussion of the handbook to reflect OPM’s  comment.  26. We understood OPM’s comments about changing URLs, but believe that  it is more convenient for Web users to be able to go directly to the  relevant EEOC page than to go to a home page and search for needed  information. We believe that necessary changes in the links can be done  by coordination between OPM and EEOC Web managers. 27. We do not believe that EEOC’s and OPM’s responsibilities are so  different that these agencies could not explore the opportunity to  conduct joint oversight reviews, which may not necessarily entail doing  all audit work jointly. We also do not believe that such joint efforts  would, in and of themselves, compromise the confidentiality of OPM’s  oversight work. Moreover, joint efforts would involve both EEO and  human capital staff at agencies and, in this way, could help foster  collaboration between agency EEO and human capital staff. 28. In our report, we counted as responding positively to EEOC or OPM  guidance and feedback only those respondents who answered “useful”  or “very useful” to the relevant questions. We regarded “somewhat  useful” as a response that did not indicate satisfaction with EEOC or  OPM guidance and feedback. 29. We have modified our presentation of the results of the question to use  whole numbers rather than percentages.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Belva M. Martin, Assistant  Director; Steven J. Berke; Karin K. Fangman; Anthony P. Lofaro; Anthony  Patterson; Amy Rosewarne; Samuel H. Scrutchins; Gregory H. Wilmoth;  and Monica L. Wolford made major contributions to this report.