Women's Earnings: Federal Agencies Should Better Monitor Their Performance in Enforcing Anti-Discrimination Laws
Published: 2008-08-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2003, GAO found that women, on average, earned 80 percent of what men earned in 2000 and workplace discrimination may be one contributing factor. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor (Labor) enforce several laws intended to prevent gender pay discrimination. GAO examined (1) how EEOC enforces laws addressing gender pay disparities among private sector employers and provides outreach and what is known about its performance, and (2) how Labor enforces laws addressing gender pay disparities among federal contractors and provides outreach and what is known about its performance. GAO analyzed relevant laws, regulations, monitoring reports, and agency enforcement data and conducted interviews at the agencies' central offices and two field offices experienced in gender pay cases.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: EEOC addresses gender pay discrimination primarily by responding to individual charges, initiating investigations, and conducting outreach, but the agency does not fully monitor gender pay enforcement efforts. EEOC prioritizes incoming charges of discrimination against employers that appear to merit further investigation, and GAO's analysis of EEOC data showed that charges of gender pay discrimination were prioritized for investigation more frequently than non-gender pay charges. EEOC collects detailed information on all its enforcement efforts and uses these data to monitor enforcement performance overall as well as by statute, including one statute dedicated to gender pay. However, EEOC does not monitor gender pay enforcement efforts under another statute that covers multiple discrimination topics and under which more than half of gender pay charges are filed. As a result, EEOC does not make complete use of available information to help identify trends related to gender pay cases, set agency priorities, or understand how its gender pay enforcement efforts are contributing to overall performance goals relative to other efforts. EEOC also conducts both fee-based and free outreach on a broad range of topics, which can include gender pay. EEOC monitors the number and type of free outreach activities and holds itself accountable for providing outreach to both employers and employees and obtaining high audience ratings on some fee-based outreach. Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) conducts compliance evaluations targeted to federal contractors based on whether they may be engaging in systemic discrimination, but efforts to monitor the performance of enforcement and outreach activities are limited. OFCCP uses a mathematical model to select contractors for review based on the likelihood of noncompliance, but it has not yet evaluated the model for how well it predicts systemic discrimination due to resource constraints. In addition, regulations require contractors to conduct a self-evaluation of their compensation systems to identify and address gender pay disparities. However, OFCCP's guidance on this is found in different source documents that are not cross-referenced, and its data system lacks a unique code to help the agency easily determine the extent to which contractors are complying with the self-evaluation requirement. While OFCCP collects enforcement data by type of discrimination and monitors enforcement performance overall, it does not monitor enforcement trends and performance outcomes regarding gender pay or other specific areas of discrimination. Even if it were to do so, questionable reliability of certain enforcement data undermines performance monitoring. As a result, OFCCP may have difficulty determining how best to prioritize its resources among the different types of discrimination it addresses. To increase awareness of anti-discrimination laws, OFCCP also conducts outreach to federal contractors on topics that include gender pay. OFCCP holds itself accountable for achieving a targeted number of events, but does not systematically gather recipient feedback and use it to measure the quality of its outreach efforts. In contrast, Labor's Women's Bureau, which also provides outreach to working women, sets performance targets and systematically measures its impact.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with  judicial precedents, are credited in part with narrowing the pay gap  between men and women over the past several decades. Despite these  gains, in 2003 GAO found that women earned, on average, 80 percent of  what men earned in 2000 and that workplace discrimination may be one  contributing factor.
Discrimination can occur on an individual basis or on a systemic basis,  whereby an entire class of individuals is affected by an employer’s  practices or policies or where there is a broad impact on an industry,  profession, company, or geographic location. The Equal Employment  Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor’s (Labor)  Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) are responsible  for enforcing federal laws and regulations that prohibit pay and other  employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,  national origin, and disability. EEOC oversees the employment practices  of more than 600,000 private and public sector employers, in addition to  federal government agencies. OFCCP oversees the employment practices  of nearly 90,000 federal contractors—private sector employers who have  contracts with the federal government. Both EEOC and OFCCP provide  outreach and technical assistance to employers, workers, and the general  public about rights and responsibilities concerning anti-discrimination  laws. In addition, Labor’s Women’s Bureau also provides outreach on  topics specific to working women.
In light of the pay gap we reported previously and the potential that  workplace discrimination may be one contributing factor, you asked us to  examine a broad range of issues concerning gender pay disparities and the  enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in the private and public sectors.  In this report, we focus on EEOC and Labor enforcement and outreach  efforts in the private sector. Specifically, we address (1) how EEOC  enforces laws addressing gender pay disparities among private sector  employers and provides outreach, and what is known about its  performance, and (2) how Labor enforces laws addressing gender pay  disparities among federal contractors and provides outreach, and what is  known about its performance.
To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations  and each agency’s policies, procedures, and monitoring reports relevant to  enforcement and outreach efforts. We interviewed EEOC and Labor  officials in their respective central offices and visited two field offices for  each agency. We chose field offices with recent experience with gender  pay cases that varied by size and geographic location. We also analyzed  EEOC’s and OFCCP’s data on gender pay and non-gender pay cases  reviewed from fiscal year (FY) 2000 to FY 2007. We determined that  EEOC’s enforcement data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  this report by testing it for accuracy and completeness, reviewing  documentation about the data and systems that produced them, and  interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data and data  systems. Using similar methods, we found that OFCCP’s enforcement data  were not sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Therefore, we  could not analyze trends with respect to the number and resolution of  gender pay cases. To help assess what is known about the performance of  EEOC’s and OFCCP’s enforcement, outreach, and technical assistance  efforts, we reviewed each agency’s performance plans, reports, and other  management information. We also judgmentally selected and contacted  several private sector organizations representing employers, federal  contractors, researchers, and women’s groups to obtain their views of  EEOC’s and Labor’s enforcement and outreach efforts. Further details of  our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I. We conducted our  work from July 2007 to August 2008 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and  perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: EEOC and OFCCP carry out their enforcement responsibilities by either  investigating charges of discrimination filed by individuals or by initiating  their own reviews of employers’ workforces and employment practices in the  private sector. They also promote awareness and prevention of  discrimination through outreach to the public and technical assistance to  employers to help them understand and comply with their legal obligations. In  addition, Labor’s Women’s Bureau provides outreach to women and their  employers intended to improve the status of wage-earning women.
EEOC was created in 1964 to promote equal opportunity in the workplace  and enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the  basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability. EEOC  investigates charges of employment discrimination from the public,  conducts agency-initiated investigations, litigates major cases, and reaches  out to the public to educate and prevent discrimination.
The agency investigates charges of gender pay discrimination under two  laws: the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act  of 1964 (Title VII). The EPA generally requires that employers provide  men and women equal pay for equal work on jobs that require the same  skill, effort, and responsibility and that are performed under similar  working conditions. Title VII, which addresses issues related to equal  employment opportunity, makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate  against employees with respect to compensation or other aspects of  employment on the basis of sex. See appendix II for a comparison of the  key gender pay provisions under the EPA and Title VII.
EEOC’s responsibility for providing outreach is also established by law.  Title VII requires EEOC to conduct outreach targeted to populations it  serves, particularly those that have been historically underserved, in  cooperation with other federal agencies, and to provide fee-based  training to employers and others on equal employment opportunity  topics. EEOC conducts outreach to educate the public about their rights  under the law, and provides technical assistance to inform employers of  their responsibility to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
In addition to its central office in Washington, D.C., EEOC is organized  into 15 districts, each with several field, area, and local offices. These  offices, with support from the central office, investigate the approximately  80,000 to 90,000 charges that EEOC receives each year, litigate cases, and  provide outreach to the public and employers. EEOC has jurisdiction over  more than 600,000 employers with over 90 million employees. At the end  of FY 2007, EEOC had 2,158 full-time equivalent staff positions, which  included 1,093 investigators, trial attorneys, and mediators. Its FY 2007  budget was $329 million. Since FY 1997, when its budget was $240 million,  EEOC’s budget has increased by approximately 6.7 percent after adjusting  for inflation.
Established in 1965, OFCCP is primarily responsible for ensuring that federal  contractors, subcontractors, and federally assisted construction contractors  comply with applicable federal affirmative action and equal opportunity  requirements. OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, as amended, which  prohibits employment discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of  race, sex, creed, color, or national origin. OFCCP also evaluates whether  large contractors meet an additional obligation: to develop an affirmative  action program that identifies any areas in employment and compensation  where employees are not receiving equal opportunities and describes in detail  specific steps to remedy the problems.
OFCCP’s central office in Washington, D.C., directs the nationwide  enforcement of equal employment opportunity laws and regulations, while  field staff in OFCCP’s six regional offices and 50 district and area offices  conduct the actual enforcement activities. These activities include  initiating compliance evaluations—reviewing federal contractors’  compliance with the applicable laws and regulations—and providing  outreach and technical assistance to help contractors comply with federal  employment requirements.
In FY 2008, OFCCP had 585 full-time-equivalent staff positions. Its FY 2007  budget was about $82 million, which is 9 percent higher than its FY 1997  budget of $76 million after adjusting for inflation.
subsections: section_title: Women’s Bureau
paragraphs: Congress established Labor’s Women’s Bureau in 1920 to formulate  standards and policies intended to promote the welfare of wage-earning  women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and  advance their opportunities for profitable employment. The Bureau  operates from its central office in Washington, D.C., as well as from 10  regional offices. In FY 2007, the Women’s Bureau’s budget was about $10  million, with an authorized 60 full-time equivalent employees.
section_title: EEOC-Labor Memorandum of Understanding
paragraphs: In 1999, EEOC and Labor signed a Memorandum of Understanding to  enhance the effectiveness of their enforcement efforts specifically  regarding compensation discrimination. The memorandum states that  EEOC and Labor may share information with each other about potential  issues of compensation discrimination, provide each other with semi- annual reports of actions taken on compensation discrimination referrals,  and meet periodically to coordinate enforcement.
section_title: EEOC Responds to Individual Charges of Discrimination and Provides Broad Outreach, but Does Not Track Performance Related to Gender Pay Issues
paragraphs: Consistent with its legal mandate, EEOC addresses gender pay  discrimination primarily by responding to individual charges, although it  also conducts some agency-initiated investigations. EEOC collects detailed  information on its enforcement efforts, but its does not specifically  monitor its performance related to gender pay enforcement. As a result,  EEOC does not use the information that it collects to identify trends  related to gender pay, which could in turn help EEOC understand how its  gender pay enforcement efforts contribute to overall performance goals  and agency priorities. EEOC also conducts fee-based and free outreach on  a broad range of topics, including gender pay. It monitors free outreach to  ensure that it reaches both employers and workers and holds senior  regional officials accountable for achieving high quality ratings on some  fee-based outreach.
subsections: section_title: EEOC Responds to All Individual Charges Using a Prioritized Approach and also Conducts Some Agency-Initiated Investigations
paragraphs: EEOC responds to all individual charges of gender pay discrimination, as  well as other individual charges of discrimination, filed under federal law.  Once an individual notifies EEOC of alleged discriminatory treatment,  EEOC arranges an interview and the individual decides whether to file a  charge of discrimination against the employer.
Over the last 8 years, the number of gender pay charges has decreased  while the number of total charges has remained relatively constant.  Specifically, from FY 2000 to FY 2007, the number of gender pay charges  filed annually with EEOC decreased by 35 percent (from 3,165 to 2,064),  while the number of other individual charges filed annually remained  relatively constant at approximately 84,000. See figure 1. EEOC officials  told us they did not know the specific reasons for the downward trend in  gender pay charges, but noted that the types of charges filed with the  agency can be affected by issues covered in the media, changes in law, or  the state of the national economy. In FY 2007, gender pay charges  accounted for about 2 percent of all charges.
To effectively use its resources, EEOC prioritizes each charge as it is  received according to whether it appears to merit further investigation.  Specifically:
EEOC assigns charges that appear to have merit based on the available  evidence for further investigation to determine whether the employer  violated anti-discrimination laws.
EEOC offers mediation services for charges that may have merit, but for  which evidence needs to be further developed. Mediation between an  individual and employer is offered as an alternative to a lengthy  investigation. Participation in the mediation program is confidential,  voluntary, and requires the consent of both parties. If mediation is not  successful in resolving the charge, it is assigned for investigation.
EEOC usually dismisses charges that do not appear to have merit or where  the agency does not have jurisdiction.
If EEOC finds a violation as a result of its investigation, it attempts to  reach an agreement between the charging party and employer through a  conciliation process. If conciliation fails, EEOC may decide to litigate the  case in federal court. EEOC may resolve any charge with an employer  early in the process through settlement, which is a voluntary process. The  charge resolution process is depicted in figure 2.
Compared to other types of charges, we found that gender pay charges  were less likely to be dismissed and more likely to be prioritized for  further investigation. Over the last 8 years, approximately 32 percent of  gender pay cases were prioritized for investigation, compared to about 21  percent of non-gender pay charges, as shown in figure 3. According to  EEOC officials, this difference may be attributable to the apparent  strength of evidence, such as payroll data, initially presented by charging  parties in gender pay cases as compared to non-gender pay cases.
Although EEOC prioritized a greater percentage of gender pay cases for  investigation, the agency ultimately obtained a similar rate of outcomes  that were favorable to the charging party in gender pay cases as it did in  all others. Specifically, about 24 percent of gender pay charges, and 21  percent of all other charges, resulted in conciliation, settlement, or a  withdrawal that yielded monetary or non-monetary benefits from FY 2000  to FY 2007. Agency officials said the similarity in resolutions may be  attributable to the fact that most charges that enter mediation are resolved  in a manner that is favorable to the charging party but that charges filed  under the EPA are not mediated, pursuant to EEOC policy. According to  these officials, even though EPA charges are only one component of all  gender pay charges, this may lower the rate of favorable outcomes for  gender pay charges relative to non-gender pay charges.
In addition to responding to individual charges, EEOC also initiates a  limited number of investigations, including gender pay investigations. As  shown in table 1, EEOC filed 35 agency-initiated gender pay investigations  and 153 non-gender pay agency-initiated investigations between FY 2000 to  FY 2007. The number of EEOC’s agency-initiated investigations is small  compared to the more than 78,000 individual charges addressed annually  over the same period of time. Although EEOC is legally authorized to  pursue agency-initiated investigations, it is not required to do so.  According to agency officials, the large number of individual charges and  the agency’s budgetary constraints make it difficult for EEOC’s field  offices to carry out agency-initiated investigations. At the same time,  gender pay cases accounted for 19 percent of all agency-initiated  investigations.
In 2006, EEOC instituted a greater focus on investigations of systemic  discrimination. These include agency-initiated charges and individual  charges that could benefit many individuals.  This increased focus on  systemic discrimination may explain an increase in agency-initiated non- gender pay investigations from 4 in 2005 to 25 in 2007. A similar rise is not  seen for agency-initiated gender pay cases.
In addition, EEOC and OFCCP entered into a Memorandum of  Understanding in 1999, agreeing to coordinate efforts on compensation  discrimination cases. Pursuant to the memorandum, EEOC officials stated  that their field offices have liaisons with area Labor offices and that each  agency refers cases to the other. Agency officials said OFCCP has referred  some cases to EEOC, but did not know if any of these involved  compensation discrimination in recent years.
section_title: EEOC’s Performance Monitoring Related to Gender Pay Enforcement Is Limited
paragraphs: EEOC has performance goals related to its overall enforcement efforts,  which are not specific to gender pay or any other particular type of  discrimination issue. The agency’s strategic plan defines 10 agencywide  performance measures, including the annual percentage increase in the  number of people benefiting from EEOC’s enforcement program. Data on  all of EEOC’s enforcement efforts, including those related to gender pay,  are aggregated to report on the agency’s performance relative to these  measures.
EEOC uses the data that it collects on every charge to track and regularly  report on disaggregated trends and outcomes related to its performance  goals, but these reports do not address gender pay cases in a  comprehensive manner. For example, EEOC generates monthly and  quarterly reports on a number of charge statistics—such as average charge  processing time, charge resolutions, and workplace and monetary  benefits—by statute, including the EPA and Title VII. While the EPA  statistics exclusively reflect gender pay cases, the Title VII statistics cover  many topics and are not broken down by type of discrimination, such as  gender pay. Because over half of gender pay cases are filed only under  Title VII (see appendix II), trends involving cases filed under the EPA  would not necessarily be representative of all gender pay cases. The  agency also posts annual statistics on its Web site, showing the number of  charges filed under particular statutes, such as the EPA, as well as charges  pertaining to certain types of discrimination, including gender-based  discrimination. The statistics on gender discrimination include but are not  broken out by charges related to harassment, hiring, promotion, or gender  pay.
EEOC also generates ad hoc reports for specific analyses pertaining to  issues of interest to agency stakeholders, such as members of the  Commission and community and advocacy groups. With respect to gender  pay, EEOC has used its enforcement workload information to help  determine human capital needs within the agency. Specifically, EEOC  analyzed its litigation workload in 2001 by type of case and, as a result of  this analysis, the agency developed a training course on resolving gender  discrimination charges, including charges of gender pay discrimination,  for its investigative and legal staff.
Because performance information specific to gender pay charges is not  regularly monitored and reported, EEOC does not use that information to  identify trends or set priorities for enforcement or outreach related  specifically to gender pay. While EEOC generally reports charge  information by statute, gender pay charges can be processed and resolved  under multiple statutes; however, EEOC’s reports do not show trends for  types of discrimination that are addressed under multiple statutes..  Reports that show only total charges by statute may make it difficult to  discern changes in the number of charges filed for particular types of  discrimination that result from new legislation, court decisions, or media  coverage of current events. For example, the Supreme Court issued the  Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision in 2007, which affected  the filing timelines for pay discrimination charges under Title VII. EEOC’s  regular reports would not show whether the number of pay discrimination  charges changed following the decision, because it affected a subset of  Title VII charges, namely charges of pay discrimination.
EEOC does not know the extent to which its gender pay efforts, or its  enforcement efforts pertaining to any other particular type of  discrimination, are contributing to overall performance goals relative to  other types of discrimination. For example, EEOC has set an agencywide  goal of resolving 72 percent of its cases within 180 days for FY 2007.  Based on our review of EEOC data, 54 percent of gender pay charges meet  the 180-day goal, as compared to 63 percent of all other charges (see fig  ure 4). The only charges that consistently met EEOC’s timeliness goal  were dismissals.
In addition, even though the number of gender pay charge filings has  declined from FY 2000 to FY 2007, they are more frequently referred for  further investigation, which takes longer on average than mediation and  significantly longer than dismissals (see table 2). Such analyses could  provide EEOC a better understanding of its workload, which could assist  in setting performance targets related to timeliness. Conversely, without  monitoring enforcement trends and performance outcomes by specific  type of discrimination, including gender pay, EEOC is not fully equipped to  pinpoint relatively effective or ineffective strategies, identify gaps and  priorities, or allocate its limited resources to address specific  discrimination issues.
section_title: EEOC Conducts Outreach Covering Broad Topics, including Gender Pay, and Measures Performance of Some Fee-Based Outreach
paragraphs: EEOC’s outreach takes many forms and addresses various audiences.  Outreach events include presentations, booths at information fairs,  consultations with individuals via phone or in person, media releases, and  information available on its Web site. EEOC provides two types of  outreach: free events for employers, employee groups, and individuals,  and fee-based conferences and training for employers, who may request  either pre-planned seminars on broad topics or customized training to  address specific needs at their worksite.
Both free and fee-based outreach efforts cover various topics, including  gender pay discrimination, but the focus is rarely on a single issue. Topics  include various aspects of EEOC’s services, such as:    various types of discrimination (such as compensation),    different bases for discrimination (such as gender),    applicable laws (such as the EPA and Title VII), and  relevant EEOC processes (such as mediation and litigation).
About half of EEOC’s free outreach events in FY 2007 included a general  overview that, according to EEOC officials, would likely have covered  gender pay discrimination along with other topics. In the same year, about  29 percent of the fee-based outreach events covered an overview of  EEOC.
Few EEOC outreach events have specifically focused on gender pay in  recent years. For example, in 2007, the EPA was the primary topic at 3  percent of all free outreach events and 2 percent of fee-based events.  EEOC’s central office also has several national initiatives that focus both  outreach and enforcement efforts on specific issues, but none have  covered gender pay in the past 10 years. Officials said this is because the  topics of national initiatives are based on the specific interests of agency  leadership, along with a general desire for initiatives to focus on a range of  issues.
Since FY 2004, EEOC has conducted an increasing number of free  outreach events, despite a general decline in EEOC’s overall budget for  outreach after adjusting for inflation. Between FY 2004 and FY 2007, total  outreach events increased by 6 percent, driven largely by a 9 percent  increase in free events. At the same time, EEOC’s inflation-adjusted  spending on outreach fell by 29 percent, driven largely by a 47 percent  decline in free outreach spending. EEOC officials told us that EEOC’s  overall declining budget and shifting priorities led to the decline in free  outreach spending. They attributed EEOC’s ability to conduct more  outreach with less money to changes in delivery methods, such as less  travel, greater use of technology, and shorter presentations. In contrast,  EEOC experienced a 22 percent decline in the number of fee-based events  and a 23 percent increase in the budget for these events, adjusted for  inflation, during the same time period.
EEOC has some mechanisms for monitoring the performance of its fee- based outreach. EEOC surveys audiences at some fee-based seminars  and uses this feedback to measure the quality of the outreach, make  improvements, and plan future events. EEOC senior regional officials are  held responsible for conducting a specific number of these events and are  evaluated on achieving ratings of “highly successful” or above, as well as  on the percentage of attendees who complete evaluations.
In contrast, free outreach is evaluated on whether it reaches a mix of  audiences and promotes agency priorities. EEOC sets nationwide goals for  the number of free outreach events conducted in conjunction with some of  its national initiatives. It monitors progress toward these goals by using  data collected on the number of attendees, type of event, audience  characteristics, and topics covered at each event. EEOC also uses its data  to evaluate whether each field office’s annual outreach plans strike a  balance between employers and employees—a balance that officials told  us is a priority for the agency. Unlike fee-based outreach, EEOC does not  evaluate its free outreach on its level of quality. Senior EEOC officials said  that EEOC does not survey or gather feedback from recipients of free  outreach, because many free events, such as media releases or information  booths, lack a well-defined audience that could provide feedback.
EEOC has faced challenges in measuring the outcomes of its outreach  efforts overall. Officials stated that EEOC’s outreach contributes to two  agencywide performance measures in its strategic plan: public confidence  in EEOC’s work and public awareness of individual rights and  responsibilities. Although EEOC monitors the amount of outreach it  provides, it recently stopped using this information to measure the extent  to which its outreach efforts helped to achieve its agencywide measures,  after determining it could not do so accurately. However, in 2002, GAO  found that while it is difficult to measure outcomes, it is possible to tie  intermediate efforts, such as the number of events and attendees, to  outcomes using methods such as a logic model. EEOC officials told us  they are continuing to consider ways to measure the outcomes of EEOC’s  outreach, including a program evaluation.
section_title: Labor Targets Systemic Gender Pay Discrimination and Conducts Outreach, but Limitations Exist in Enforcement Efforts and Monitoring Performance
paragraphs: Labor’s OFCCP conducts compliance evaluations of federal contractors,  including those who may be engaging in systemic gender pay  discrimination, but the mathematical model used to target contractors for  systemic discrimination has not yet been evaluated. In addition, OFCCP  regulations require that contractors conduct self-evaluations of their  compensation systems, but relevant guidance is located in different  sources and not cross-referenced. The agency also lacks a tracking  mechanism to help ensure that contractors meet this requirement. While  OFCCP collects detailed enforcement data by type of discrimination, it  does not use this data to monitor enforcement trends and performance  outcomes regarding gender pay or other specific areas of discrimination.  Even if it chose to monitor specific areas of discrimination, questionable  reliability of enforcement data undermines OFCCP’s ability to monitor  performance. As a result, OFCCP does not know the extent to which its  gender pay enforcement efforts contribute to agencywide performance  goals. OFCCP also conducts outreach to federal contractors on topics that  may include gender pay, but does not systematically measure the  performance of these efforts. In contrast, Labor’s Women’s Bureau, which  also provides outreach on topics focused on working women, sets specific  performance targets and measures its impact.
subsections: section_title: OFCCP Conducts Compliance Evaluations and Targets Systemic Discrimination
paragraphs: OFCCP’s enforcement of employment discrimination, including gender  pay-related discrimination, largely consists of compliance evaluations of  federal contractors. To help allocate resources efficiently, OFCCP  prioritizes some of its evaluations of federal contractors based on whether  they may be engaging in any type of systemic discrimination. The  compliance evaluation process begins with the semi-annual selection of  contractors. OFCCP selects contractors for review, in part, using a  mathematical model that predicts the likelihood of finding systemic  discrimination . The remainder of contractors reviewed are selected  based on other factors, including the amount of time elapsed since their  prior review and random selection. OFCCP completed nearly 5,000  compliance evaluations in FY 2007, representing about 5 percent of all  federal contractors.
Once OFCCP selects which contractors to review, it uses a tiered  approach to identify indicators of systemic discrimination, which in turn  determine the extent and resource intensiveness of the compliance  evaluation. Every evaluation starts with a desk audit, which is a screening  procedure to identify areas requiring further review. OFCCP examines a  contractor’s compensation practices as part of the evaluation. If no  significant indicators of systemic discrimination are found, OFCCP closes  the desk audit. However, if such indicators are found, OFCCP conducts a  more in-depth compliance evaluation that entails a more rigorous  statistical evaluation and an on-site audit. If, at the end this process,  OFCCP finds systemic unexplained differences, such as systemic pay  differences between men and women in similar occupations, it issues a  notice of violation and begins conciliation negotiations to seek remedial  actions to correct deficiencies, such as back pay and retroactive seniority,  among other remedies. If conciliation fails, OFCCP can pursue  administrative enforcement proceedings against the employer before an  administrative law judge, or debar the company from contracting with the  federal government.
Under OFCCP policy, the agency does not focus on individual cases of  discrimination like EEOC does, but both agencies have agreed to  coordinate efforts enforcing legal prohibitions against unlawful pay  discrimination, pursuant to a 1999 Memorandum of Understanding.  According to a senior OFCCP official, the agency has taken some steps to  implement the memorandum’s provisions, such as referring individual  complaints on compensation and other matters to EEOC as appropriate.
While OFCCP has met periodically with EEOC to discuss enforcement, the  official did not know whether compensation cases were discussed at these  meetings because OFCCP does not track pay cases specifically for these  purposes.
section_title: OFCCP Has Not Yet Evaluated Its Mathematical Model to Select Contractors
paragraphs: OFCCP targets contractors based partly on a mathematical model that  predicts the likelihood of finding systemic discrimination, but the agency  has not yet evaluated it. The model, which is one of three methods used to  select contractors for review, is based on research conducted by the firm  Westat and assigns a higher likelihood of systemic discrimination to some  contractor establishments than others. This model uses multiple factors  that compare the workforce profile of the targeted establishment to  profiles of other establishments in the same industry classification and to  the profile of the local labor market using Census data. While the model  predicts the likelihood of discrimination, OFCCP does not make an actual  determination of discrimination until further review.
OFCCP officials said that they began using the Westat model in FY 2004,  but have not yet assessed how effectively the model predicts systemic  discrimination and targets appropriate contractors for review. While  OFCCP reported that it originally expected to evaluate the model in 2007,  officials told us that they have not done so due to limited resources.  Officials indicated that they now plan to do this later in FY 2008, when  compliance evaluations from the 2 prior years are completed and  sufficient and appropriate staff resources are anticipated. OFCCP officials  indicated that the evaluation of the Westat model will incorporate lessons  learned from evaluating a prior model used to help select contractors for  review: the Equal Opportunity Survey. During the evaluation of that model,  OFCCP encountered unreliable data from some of the respondents and  low response rates, and did not verify contractors who claimed that the  agency did not have jurisdiction over them. According to OFCCP officials,  the agency subsequently addressed some of these challenges. For  example, OFCCP officials said that the reliability of the data has  significantly improved and that an initiative to identify establishments with  federal contracts—known as Contracts First—has resulted in a more  comprehensive list of establishments that fall under its jurisdiction.
However, because OFCCP has not yet developed evaluation plans for the  Westat model, it is unclear whether low response rates will remain an  issue and, if so, how this will be addressed. Appendix III contains more  information on the Equal Opportunity Survey.
section_title: Related Guidance from OFCCP Is Not Cross- Referenced and the Office Lacks a Tracking Mechanism to Help Ensure Contractors Self-Evaluate as Required
paragraphs: In addition to targeting contractors for compliance evaluation, OFCCP  enforces discrimination laws by requiring contractors to self-evaluate their  compensation systems and other aspects of their employment process.  OFCCP’s implementing regulations require that contractors’ affirmative  action programs identify problem areas. Therefore, contractors must  perform in-depth analyses of their employment processes, including their  compensation systems, to identify any disparities for women and  minorities. However, OFCCP does not always review compliance with the  compensation self-evaluation requirement for the contractors selected for  a compliance evaluation. Officials in one regional office we visited told us  that, during the desk audit, they review whether the contractor’s  affirmative action program contains a general narrative statement that a  self-evaluation was conducted. However, the other regional office we  visited did not perform this review. Central office officials expressed little  concern over this inconsistency, noting that the compensation self- evaluation aspect of contractors’ affirmative action programs during desk  audits was not critical, because the desk audit would identify problem  areas with or without the contractor’s affirmative action program.
Inconsistent reviews of self-evaluation requirements may be due, in part,  to the fact that OFCCP’s guidance for conducting these reviews is  contained in different source documents without clear cross-references or  links to each other. Specifically, OFCCP’s compliance manual—which is  posted to OFCCP’s Web site and was last updated in 1998—does not  explicitly direct OFCCP investigators to review whether contractors have  satisfied the self-evaluation requirement, and does not contain specific  procedures for OFCCP investigators to follow when examining a  contractor’s compensation self-evaluation. Since 1998, OFCCP has issued  additional notices that have superseded the manual, one of which, issued  in 2006, contains voluntary guidelines for contractors to follow when  conducting their compensation self-evaluation. As a result, to ascertain  current policy, investigators and federal contractors have to check  multiple information sources. OFCCP’s Web site includes references and  hyperlinks to some recently issued guidance on other issues, but has no  linkages to the voluntary self-evaluation guidelines.
Even when OFCCP discovers through a compliance evaluation that the  contractor did not perform the required self-evaluation, OFCCP’s  compliance evaluation database records this violation as a general  recordkeeping violation rather than a specific violation of the self- evaluation requirement, according to OFCCP officials. OFCCP officials  stated, however, that while the database lacks a specific code, the  underlying information is available in case files. Unless OFCCP performs a  manual file review, it cannot easily determine from its database the extent  to which contractors are in compliance with the self-evaluation  requirement.
section_title: Labor Does Not Monitor Performance Related to Gender Pay Enforcement and Underlying Data Are Questionable
paragraphs: OFCCP monitors agencywide enforcement efforts using broad  performance measures but does not monitor performance by specific  types of discrimination such as gender pay. OFCCP has two broad  performance indicators: reducing discrimination and increasing  compliance, both of which the agency met in FY 2007. According to  agency officials, there are no plans to introduce performance indicators by  specific type of discrimination because these two broad indicators  appropriately reflect the agency’s overall mission, which focuses on  discrimination in general. While OFCCP’s compliance evaluation database  captures detailed data on all types of discrimination, including gender pay,  OFCCP does not use the data to monitor its performance regarding gender  pay or any other type of discrimination.
OFCCP does conduct internal monitoring beyond its agency performance  indicators, but not with respect to gender pay enforcement. OFCCP has  stated that compensation discrimination—while not an agency  performance indicator—is a national priority; thus, OFCCP has  established performance standards for each of its senior regional officials  to evaluate how well each region develops systemic compensation cases.  However, these standards pertain to pay discrimination overall without  specifying whether it is based on gender, race, or some other basis.  OFCCP officials also said that they use a number of sources, such as  detailed weekly and quarterly reports, along with monthly phone calls, to  monitor how well regional offices carry out specific enforcement cases;  but this information is not structured to track trends, assess performance  outcomes, or prioritize limited agency resources by specific type of  discrimination. In general, OFCCP senior officials said they do not see the  benefit of using the data already collected to internally monitor trends in  gender pay enforcement—or any other subset of the performance  indicators. However, without this type of monitoring, OFCCP may have  difficulty determining how best to prioritize its resources among the  different types of discrimination it addresses.
Even if OFCCP chose to monitor gender pay enforcement, questionable  data reliability would undermine OFCCP’s ability to assess how well its  overall enforcement efforts were working. While officials said that the  reliability of OFCCP’s enforcement data has improved significantly since  FY 2005, problems still exist with erroneous, inconsistent, or missing data.  For example, using OFCCP’s data, we were unable to determine the  correct number of gender pay cases that OFCCP handled over the 8-year  period of our review. In addition, in testing of OFCCP’s data, we found  incorrect violation codes, inconsistent case closure dates entered, and  conciliation or financial agreements dates entered but corresponding  violations missing. While OFCCP officials said they check the data  accuracy of some compliance evaluations entered into the data system and  verify the accuracy of contractor data submitted at regular intervals,  OFCCP officials acknowledged a lack of standardized data entry  instructions and adequate internal controls to screen for data problems.  They added that these problems would be addressed with the planned  replacement of the data system next year. OFCCP has requested $2 million  dollars for a new data system in its FY 2009 budget but does not yet have  funding for it.
section_title: OFCCP Provides Outreach to Federal Contractors, but Does Not Systematically Measure Its Performance
paragraphs: OFCCP’s outreach consists primarily of technical assistance to federal  contractors. According to OFCCP officials, targeting federal contractors  rather than their employees is consistent with its role as an enforcement  agency. Technical assistance may include presentations and workshops at  industry group meetings; information and Web-based seminars available  on OFCCP’s Web site; individual consultation with contractors via  telephone, e-mail, or walk-in appointments; and information provided  during audits.
OFCCP’s technical assistance covers the discrimination issues and laws  over which OFCCP has jurisdiction, including gender pay. Most of  OFCCP’s technical assistance efforts are designed to help federal  contractors meet their affirmative action requirements or understand  OFCCP’s recent policy changes, including two changes involving gender  pay. For example, OFCCP issued new guidance in 2006 describing how it  will examine contractors’ compensation practices by race and gender  during audits. Prior to and during the time these changes were  implemented, OFCCP officials provided technical assistance on how the  new policies would affect contractors.
With respect to performance of its outreach efforts, OFCCP monitors the  number of outreach and technical assistance efforts. For example, OFCCP  has regional and national goals for the number of outreach events  conducted. Regional offices submit weekly reports to the central office,  which generally include the date, type, and location of outreach events,  but these reports do not always indicate the issue discussed at these  events, nor do they include the number of attendees. OFCCP uses this  information to generate quarterly and annual reports measuring its  progress toward its outreach targets. OFCCP also tracks the topics of e- mail and telephone inquiries, which it uses to develop the Frequently  Asked Questions section of its Web site, and requests feedback from  participants in its Web-based seminars.
However, OFCCP’s approach to measuring and monitoring the  performance of its outreach efforts is less systematic than EEOC’s. Like  EEOC, OFCCP has no agencywide performance measures for outreach  and evaluates senior regional officials’ performance based on the outreach  and technical assistance they provide. Conversely, unlike EEOC, OFCCP  has no specific targets related to the quality of outreach that senior  officials are required to meet. In addition, OFCCP is less systematic than  EEOC in collecting and reporting feedback on the quality of its outreach.  Officials told us that contractors and industry groups sometimes contact  OFCCP to provide informal feedback on outreach, and representatives of  several industry groups we spoke with said that OFCCP’s outreach  generally meets their needs. Nonetheless, the weekly reports from the  regional offices we reviewed included a few favorable comments from  audience members rather than comprehensive feedback from all  attendees, making it difficult to objectively determine the audience’s  overall assessment of the outreach. OFCCP officials said that these  informal methods of collecting and reporting feedback are sufficient.  However, by not systematically collecting and tracking objective feedback  from recipients, OFCCP has no reliable means of measuring the quality of  its outreach or using this information to assess the impact of its outreach  and improve future efforts.
In addition to not knowing whether its outreach is effective, OFCCP does  not know how much it is spending on outreach. Officials estimate about 30  percent of the budget is spent on outreach. However, OFCCP officials we  spoke with did not know exactly how much was spent on outreach and  technical assistance, and they could not provide details on how these  funds are used. Lacking accurate spending information, OFCCP is unable  to gauge the cost-effectiveness of its outreach spending or evaluate  whether this spending is in line with its priorities.
section_title: Labor’s Women’s Bureau Provides Direct Services to Women and Is Meeting Most of Its Goals
paragraphs: Labor’s Women’s Bureau also provides outreach related to gender pay by  creating and promoting programs to address specific needs of working  women, such as financial literacy among Generation X women. The  Bureau develops these programs as demonstration projects in a few sites  for 3 to 4 years and cultivates partnerships to encourage other  government, private, or community-based organizations to replicate and  fund the projects on a continuing basis. In FY 2007, the Bureau ran three  demonstration projects serving at least 2,238 women and 387 employers.  Since FY 2005, the Women’s Bureau reports 45 replications in over 30  cities, providing services to more than 6,000 women.
In contrast to OFCCP, the Women’s Bureau sets and systematically  measures its performance against numerical targets. Like OFCCP, the  Women’s Bureau has targets for the number of outreach efforts (i.e.,  demonstration projects) it will conduct. However, in addition to measuring  the number of outreach efforts, the Women’s Bureau has assigned each  project two to three performance measures that gauge the ultimate impact  of the project on participants’ behavior, using follow-up surveys to gather  this information. For example, one project’s goal is to increase women’s  financial security, and its performance measure calculates the percent of  participants who decrease their debt or increase their savings. Only one  project includes a performance measure related to gender pay, which  tracks the percent of participants who increase their earnings after  participating in a demonstration project designed to increase women’s  employment opportunities. While the Bureau did not meet all of its goals  for this project in 2007, it exceeded its goals for its other two  demonstration projects.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the pay gap between men and women has narrowed over the last  several decades, as of 2000 women still earned less than their male  counterparts, suggesting that discrimination may still exist. This pay gap  underscores the importance of the federal government’s role of enforcing  anti-discrimination laws and raising awareness of legal requirements  through outreach. While both EEOC and OFCCP have appropriately set  broad goals for enforcing all types of discrimination, limited monitoring of  specific enforcement efforts, such as gender pay, relative to other  areas,diminishes EEOC’s and OFCCP’s ability to pinpoint relative  workload trends, effective and ineffective strategies, and contributions to  performance goals. In turn, these agencies are ultimately less able to strike  an effective balance in allocating increasingly limited resources to address  overall discrimination issues. A robust performance monitoring effort  requires reliable enforcement data to obtain a complete and accurate  picture of how well anti-discrimination laws are being enforced, but the  absence of effective internal controls has undermined the reliability of  OFCCP’s data. Additionally, OFCCP strives to help contractors understand  and meet their obligations—spending about one-third of its budget on  technical assistance and outreach—yet does not systematically collect and  review information that would help it gauge the cost-effectiveness of these  efforts.
In addition to improving performance monitoring, OFCCP needs to  address limitations in its enforcement, particularly since compensation is a  national priority for the agency. Because OFCCP has chosen to use its  limited resources to audit selected federal contractors, OFCCP needs an  effective means of both prioritizing contractors for compliance evaluations  and ensuring contractors carefully evaluate their own pay systems.  However, until OFCCP evaluates the mathematical model used to help  target contractors, it cannot know how effectively it is using its limited  resources, or whether it is missing opportunities to apply a more effective  model. Because OFCCP conducts compliance evaluations on about 5  percent of federal contractors each year, contractor self-evaluations are a  principle means of achieving compliance with federal law for the vast  majority of establishments. However, the absence of links between current  and pertinent guidance and the lack of a distinct violation code to help  track compliance with the self-evaluation requirement limit OFCCP’s  oversight in this area.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To gauge how well EEOC is carrying out its responsibilities regarding  gender pay discrimination, we recommend that the Chair of the EEOC  devise a cost-effective method to improve its ability to monitor the  performance of its gender pay enforcement efforts relative to other areas,  using information already captured in its databases and supplementing  information already reported.
To strengthen OFCCP’s enforcement and outreach efforts and gauge the  performance of those efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor  direct the Director of OFCCP to:    Evaluate the Westat mathematical model and incorporate lessons learned  from the prior model to ensure contractors are appropriately being  selected for compliance evaluations and to maximize limited enforcement  resources; Improve oversight of compliance evaluations for contractors by  establishing linkages between relevant and current guidance on  conducting compensation self-evaluations and devising a unique violation  code to document any non-compliance with the compensation self- evaluation requirement;   Ensure the planned new data system incorporates standardized data entry  instructions and adequate internal controls to screen for erroneous,  inconsistent, or missing data, and ensures violation codes are correctly  entered;   Develop a cost-effective means for monitoring performance of gender pay  enforcement efforts relative to other areas, using information generally  already captured in existing databases, once determined reliable; and   Devise a method for systematically collecting feedback from recipients of  outreach and technical assistance and using this information to measure  and monitor outreach performance.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: EEOC and Labor provided written comments on a draft of this report,  which are reprinted in appendixes IV and V, respectively. EEOC also  provided several technical comments, which we have incorporated as  appropriate.
EEOC agreed with our recommendation that it obtain and review gender  pay data and stated it already has undertaken discussions about the best  approach for doing so. However, the agency noted that regularly  monitoring charges filed under the EPA provides a representative  assessment of overall gender pay charge activity and an effective means of  monitoring charge activity, given agency resources. As a result, EEOC  officials stated they are able to highlight areas of concern and effectively  respond to changes in charge activity. In addition, EEOC stated that,  because it monitors many different types of discrimination, it cannot  meaningfully examine every possible type on a regular basis. We  acknowledge that monitoring gender pay charges filed under the EPA can  help to inform EEOC’s decisions. However, as we noted in our report,  more than half of gender pay charges are filed only under Title VII.  Further, reviewing gender pay charges filed under only EPA may not  reveal the impact of external factors such as new legislation, court  decisions, or media coverage that may disproportionately affect charges  filed under one law, but not the other. We agree that regular examination  of every type of discrimination would not be realistic; therefore, we  limited our recommendation to improving EEOC’s ability to monitor its  performance regarding gender pay discrimination using available  information.
Labor neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but  provided additional perspective on its broader enforcement efforts and  clarifying comments regarding some of our findings. With respect to its  broader enforcement efforts, Labor stated that it opens more reviews,  monitors a larger number of federal contractors than it has in the past, and  prioritizes resources where most needed. Labor reports that these efforts  have resulted in an increase in both total financial remedies obtained and  number of workers benefited.
In response to our recommendation that OFCCP take steps to improve its  oversight of contractors’ compensation self-evaluations, Labor noted that  it does not rely on the self-evaluations during a compliance evaluation and  conducts its own audit. However, as we stated previously, OFCCP  performs compliance evaluations on about 5 percent of contractors each  year; therefore, the compensation self-evaluation remains an important  compliance tool for the remaining 95 percent of contractors.
In response to our recommendations that Labor improve its performance  monitoring, Labor agreed that improved data quality will enhance its  monitoring efforts. In addition, Labor stated that OFCCP employs many  methods to monitor performance and does not rely on anecdotes. We  clarified our report to acknowledge this point. However, while we  identified the tools that Labor relies on to monitor performance, we found  they were not structured to track performance by specific type of  discrimination.
With regard to our discussion of the Westat model, Labor suggested  clarifying that the model is only one of several methods used to select  contractors for compliance evaluations, not the sole method. Although we  had already noted this in the preceding section of our report that describes  the contractor selection process, we also incorporated this information in  the report section that specifically discusses the Westat model.
Labor disagreed with our assessment in appendix III of the Abt Associates’  study of the Equal Opportunity Survey in two respects. First, Labor stated  that the number of contractors who did not respond to the survey— claiming no jurisdiction—was reasonable. However, without verifying  contractors’ claims of no jurisdiction, OFCCP cannot be certain that non- responses did not introduce bias into the results of the study. Second,  Labor noted that Abt analyzed the impact of one group of contractors with  missing data and found no effect on the study’s conclusions. We revised  our report to acknowledge this and clarified that our finding refers to  additional contractor establishments with missing data for one or more of  the study’s four predictor variables. We found no indications that Abt  analyzed the impact of missing data with respect to these contractors.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of Labor, the Chair of EEOC, relevant congressional committees, and  other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report. If you  or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-7215 or lasowskia@gao.gov. Contacts for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To obtain information on how the Department of Labor (Labor) and the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforce laws and  provide outreach addressing gender pay disparities, we reviewed  documents and data and conducted interviews. Documents we reviewed  included relevant federal laws and regulations; the agencies’ policies,  plans, monitoring reports, and guidance; outreach materials, such as  slides, brochures, and information from Web sites; program assessments;  and other documents relevant to enforcement and outreach efforts.
In addition, we interviewed EEOC and Labor officials in their respective  central offices and two field offices for each agency. We visited Labor’s  Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) offices in San  Francisco and Philadelphia and conducted phone interviews with a senior  investigator in Portland, Oregon, with experience handling gender pay  cases. We also visited EEOC offices in San Francisco and New York. We  selected these locations because they had recent experience with gender  pay cases, varied in size, and were geographically disperse. However, they  do not constitute a representative sample. In addition to agency staff, we  judgmentally selected and interviewed representatives of several private  sector organizations representing employers, federal contractors, women’s  groups, and researchers. While we sought a diversity of viewpoints  through these interviews, the views provided do not necessarily represent  the opinions of all employers or groups.
subsections: section_title: Data Reliability and Analysis
paragraphs: We requested data on enforcement and outreach activities from each  agency as part of our review of the agencies’ efforts regarding gender pay.  Specifically, we obtained:    EEOC data on enforcement and activities for fiscal year (FY) 1997 to    EEOC data on outreach activities for FY 1998 to FY 2007; and    OFCCP data on enforcement activities for FY 2000 to FY 2007.
While we requested outreach data from OFCCP, the agency does not  maintain this information electronically.
We assessed the reliability of the agencies’ electronic data by testing the  data for accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing information about  the data and systems that produced them, and interviewing agency  officials knowledgeable about the data and data system. We determined  that the EEOC enforcement data we used were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. However, we found that the OFCCP enforcement  data was not sufficiently reliable for our use and have not included any  analyses of gender pay trends based on these data in this report. We found  evidence that critical information, such as the type of violation found  during an investigation, was not sufficiently reliable for our use due to  concerns over data entry. The agency itself relies on a separate, manual  process to compile enforcement statistics for its annual report. We were  unable to reproduce these same statistics using its case data system,  because some violations were improperly identified during OFCCP’s data  entry process. OFCCP’s current data system, which is almost 20 years old,  is slated for replacement in FY 2009.
To assess EEOC’s enforcement efforts, we analyzed EEOC’s case data  from FY 2000 to FY 2007 to determine how many charges of discrimination  were filed concerning gender pay disparities, which statutes the charges  were filed under, how these charges were classified and resolved, and how  many agency-initiated investigations EEOC conducted. We also analyzed  EEOC’s data to examine its rates of success under two of its performance  goals (e.g., the percentage of cases processed within 180 days and the  number of individuals benefited) for gender pay cases compared to non- gender pay cases.
To assess EEOC’s outreach efforts, we examined EEOC’s outreach and  budget data from FY 2004 to FY 2007 to determine how many free and fee- based outreach and technical assistance activities were conducted, what  primary topics were covered, what types of audiences were reached, and  how much was spent. EEOC officials told us their methods of counting  audience members recently changed. Therefore, although we collected  EEOC’s data on the number of recipients of its outreach, we did not use  this information in our report, as it was not suitable for year-by-year  comparisons.
Finally, to help us understand the context of EEOC’s and OFCCP’s  enforcement and outreach efforts, we presented budget data from both  agencies from FY 1997 and FY 2007 to identify the level of funds available  over the past 10 years. We adjusted budget numbers for inflation by using  the Consumer Price Index to convert nominal dollars to constant 2008  dollars.
section_title: OFCCP’s Equal Opportunity Survey
paragraphs: As part of our assessment of OFCCP’s Equal Opportunity Survey, we  conducted interviews with OFCCP staff and reviewed documents and  studies. Specifically, we evaluated the methodology of OFCCP’s study of  the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunity Survey and reviewed  documents related to the development and discontinuation of the survey.
section_title: Appendix II: Comparison of Key Gender Pay Provisions under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
paragraphs: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces  charges of gender pay discrimination under two laws: the Equal Pay Act of  1963 (EPA) or under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).  Slightly more than half of EEOC’s gender pay charges are filed under Title  VII only, while most of the remainder are filed under both the EPA and  Title VII. Two percent of the charges are filed under the EPA only, as  shown in figure 5.
Some of the key provisions of the EPA and Title VII relative to gender pay  discrimination are compared in table 3. According to EEOC officials, there  are at least two notable differences between the statutes that may account  for some of the difference in filing rates:    The EPA generally requires that employers provide men and women  equal pay for equal work on jobs that require the same skill, effort, and  responsibility and that are performed under similar working  conditions. Title VII, which addresses issues related to equal  employment opportunity, makes it unlawful for employers to  discriminate against employees with respect to compensation or other  aspects of employment on the basis of sex, but does not require the  same close comparison of workers as the EPA; and    The remedies available to plaintiffs under Title VII may be more  favorable in some cases.
Although some plaintiffs may find it preferable to file under Title VII as  compared to the EPA, it also has some disadvantages. Specifically, the  statute of limitations under Title VII is shorter (generally within 180 or 300  days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, depending on the state)  than under the EPA (within 2 or 3 years after the alleged discrimination  occurred, depending on whether the violation was willful or not). In  addition, plaintiffs may need to consider the Ledbetter decision in  determining under which law or laws to file charges.
section_title: Appendix III: Assessment of Equal Opportunity Survey
paragraphs: The Equal Opportunity Survey was introduced in 2000 to help select  federal contractors for compliance evaluations based on annually  collected data that included compensation by race and gender. The survey  was part of the Equal Pay Initiative, which, among other things, provided  additional funding for and coordination of the enforcement of the laws  against pay discrimination by employers, in part by improving the  collection of compensation data.
In developing the survey, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance  Programs (OFCCP) commissioned a study to evaluate the survey’s power  to predict findings of discrimination. This study (Bendick et al)  encountered data problems associated with the pilot survey—such as  incomplete or inconsistent responses—that prevented a full-scale analysis  of its predictive power. A second study (Abt Associates) was subsequently  conducted after OFCCP officials said the agency began focusing on  systemic discrimination to evaluate how well the model based on the  survey could predict this type of discrimination. The Abt study found that  the model’s predictive power was only slightly better than a random  selection of contractors. OFCCP concluded that the survey was of limited  value in predicting systemic discrimination and subsequently discontinued  it in 2006.
In reviewing OFCCP’s evaluation of and its decision to discontinue the  survey, we found that the Abt study’s methodology was adequate for the  most part, but we also identified several issues. First, more than a quarter  of contractors sampled asserted that OFCCP had no jurisdiction to review  them and were therefore removed from the sample, but there was no  evidence that these contractors’ assertions had been verified. Excluding  them from the sample could introduce significant bias into the results if  some of these establishments were in the scope and were more likely to  engage in systemic discrimination than those that remained in the sample.  Second, after removing those establishments from the sample, the overall  response rate was about 50 percent. This low response rate also  potentially biases the study results and calls into question the extent to  which the sample is representative. For example, establishments with  systemic discrimination in the sample could have very different  characteristics than those that were not in the sample or asserted no  jurisdiction. Finally, although Abt analyzed the impact of one group of  contractors with missing data, an additional 388 (15 percent)  establishments had missing data for one or more of the final four predictor  variables in the model, and we found no indications that the study  analyzed these contractors.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Michele Grgich, Assistant  Director; James Ashley; Elizabeth Curda; Meeta Engle; Christoph Hoashi- Erhardt; Cynthia Grant; Sheila McCoy; Brittni Milam; Christine San;  Yunsian Tai; Kate Van Gelder; Charles Willson; Gregory H. Wilmoth; and  Elizabeth Wood made major contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Sharing Promising  Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human Capital Planning  Can Improve Management of Growing Workload. GAO-08-589.  Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2008.
Equal Employment Opportunity: The Policy Framework in the Federal  Workplace and the Roles of EEOC and OPM. GAO-05-195. Washington,  D.C.: April 29, 2005.
Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between  Men’s and Women’s Earnings. GAO-04-35. Washington, D.C.:   Oct. 31, 2003.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint Caseloads  and Underlying Causes Require EEOC’s Sustained Attention.   GAO/T-GGD-00-104. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000.
Equal Employment Opportunity: DOL Contract Compliance Reviews  Could Better Target Federal Contractors. GAO/HEHS-95-177. Washington,  D.C.: Sept. 28, 1995.
EEOC: An Overview. GAO/T-HRD-93-30. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 1993.