Gender Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX
Published: 2004-07-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 extended protections against sex discrimination to students and employees at institutions receiving federal assistance for educational programs or activities. In the 32 years since Title IX was enacted, women have made significant gains in many fields, but much attention has focused on women's participation in the sciences. Because of the concern about women's access to opportunities in the sciences, which receive billions of dollars in federal assistance, this report addresses: (1) how do the Department of Education (Education), the Department of Energy (Energy), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) ensure that federal grant recipient institutions comply with Title IX in math, engineering, and science; (2) what do data show about women's participation in these fields; and (3) what promising practices exist to promote their participation?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Four federal science agencies have made efforts to ensure that grantees comply with Title IX in the sciences by performing several compliance activities, such as investigating complaints and providing technical assistance, but most have not conducted all required monitoring activities. Agency officials at Energy, NASA, and NSF told us that they refer complaints to Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where they are investigated. However, only Education has monitored its grantees by conducting compliance reviews--periodic, agency-initiated assessments of grantees to determine if they are complying with Title IX. Women's participation in the sciences has increased substantially in the last three decades, especially in the life sciences, such as biology. The proportion of women science students has grown, but to a lesser extent at the graduate level than the undergraduate level. Meanwhile, the proportion of faculty in the sciences who are women has also increased, but they still lag behind men faculty in terms of salary and rank. However, studies indicate that experience, work patterns, and education levels can largely explain these differences. Studies also suggest that discrimination may still affect women's choices and professional progress. We found several examples of agencies and grantees that have instituted practices designed to foster greater women's participation in the sciences. While some of the practices are aimed at encouraging more women to pursue the sciences, others provide time off and fewer teaching duties so faculty can balance work and family life. Finally, a few practices seek to expand the recruiting pool for jobs in the sciences and make them more attractive to a greater portion of the U.S. population, including women.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Discrimination against women in areas such as college admissions,  intercollegiate athletics, and employment was widespread 40 years ago.  Although civil rights laws in the 1960s barred discrimination in  employment, it was not until Title IX of the Education Amendments of  1972 that these protections were extended to students and faculty by  prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and  activities receiving any federal financial assistance. While researchers  would agree that Title IX has contributed to greater inclusion of women  and girls in sports programs, some have stated that there is little  awareness that the law applies to academics.
In the 32 years since Title IX was enacted, women’s roles in American life  have changed greatly and women have made significant gains in many  fields. Despite these gains, much attention has focused on the limited  participation of women in mathematics, engineering, and science.  Because of increased interest about women’s access to mathematics,  engineering, and science, which receive billions of dollars in federal  assistance, you asked us to determine what is being done to ensure  compliance with Title IX in regard to the sciences. This report addresses:  (1) how do the Department of Education (Education), the Department of  Energy (Energy), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) ensure that federal  grant recipient institutions comply with Title IX in mathematics,  engineering, and science; (2) what do data show about women’s  participation in these fields; and (3) what promising practices exist to  promote their participation?
To answer these questions, we reviewed the legislation and regulations to  identify all areas of compliance relevant to each federal agency. We  interviewed officials at each agency and gathered documentation to  identify agency activities to ensure compliance with Title IX. We analyzed  data from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at Education and the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the agencies where most  sex discrimination complaints are filed. Given its role as coordinating  agency of Title IX compliance, we also gathered data and interviewed  officials at the Department of Justice (Justice). We visited seven research  universities where we interviewed officials, students, and faculty. We also  visited six national laboratories and technology centers where we talked  with administrators and scientists. To gather information on women’s  participation and experiences in the sciences, we analyzed national data  from Education and NSF. We also reviewed literature about women in the  sciences and challenges they face preparing for and pursuing careers in  the sciences. To identify promising practices to promote women’s  participation in the sciences, we spoke with students and practitioners. To  assess the reliability of the various Education and NSF data sources, we  reviewed documentation on how the data were collected and performed  electronic tests to look for missing or out-of-range values. In addition, we  reviewed the methodology of studies and reports using generally accepted  social science principles as a basis for including their results in our report.  On the basis of these reviews and tests, we found the data and studies  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our review from July  2003 through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. (See app. I for a more extensive  explanation of this report’s objectives, scope, and methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: With certain exceptions, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972  requires all entities receiving any form of federal financial assistance to  prohibit sex discrimination in their education programs or activities,  which are defined broadly under Title IX to include all the operations of  the entity. Because most postsecondary schools have students who  receive federal financial assistance, such as federally supported student  aid, Title IX applies to most 2-year and 4-year schools, both public and  private. In addition to postsecondary schools, many other recipients of  federal educational grants, such as K-12 school districts, private  laboratories, and museums, are also subject to Title IX. Title IX’s  provisions apply to all operations and ancillary services of covered  programs. For example, the law applies to recruitment, student  admissions, scholarship awards, tuition assistance, other financial  assistance, housing, access to courses and other academic offerings,  counseling, employment assistance to students, health and insurance  benefits and services, and athletics. It also applies to all aspects of  employment, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, tenure, demotion,  transfer, layoff, termination, compensation, benefits, job assignments and  classifications, leave, and training.
Under Title IX, federal agencies that administer grants are required to  conduct several compliance activities. For example, Title IX regulations  require agencies to conduct periodic compliance reviews of their grant  recipients. A compliance review is an agency-initiated assessment of  grantees to determine if they are complying with the law. Agencies must  also make a prompt investigation in response to timely written complaints  from individuals who allege that a grantee has engaged in sex  discrimination, or whenever a compliance review or any other information  indicates a possible failure to comply with Title IX. If the investigating  agency does not find evidence that the grantee has failed to comply with  Title IX, it must inform both the grant recipient and the complainant in  writing. If the investigating agency does find evidence of noncompliance  with Title IX, then the agency must first attempt to resolve the matter  informally. For example, the agency could attempt to mediate the issue to  encourage the grantee to voluntarily modify its activities in order to  comply with the law. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, then the  agency must take additional steps to secure compliance, including  suspending or terminating federal financial assistance. Individuals or  groups are allowed to file their complaints with grantees or with funding  agencies such as Education or NSF. If complainants are not satisfied with  the result of investigations, they can file their complaints with another  entity. For example, if a complaint is filed at the grantee level and the  complainant is unhappy with the result, he or she can file a complaint at  the agency level.  In addition to filing complaints, individuals or groups  have the option of filing suit in federal court. (See app. III for information  on selected legal cases and events involving Title IX since 1972.)
While federal agencies have primary responsibility for ensuring  compliance with Title IX, recipients of federal grants also have some  compliance responsibilities. For example, grantees are required to provide  assurances that their education programs or activities are operated in  compliance with Title IX. Grantees are also required to designate at least  one employee to coordinate their compliance efforts and to establish  complaint procedures to resolve student and employee Title IX  complaints. Finally, grantees must provide notification to students and  employees that sex discrimination is prohibited in their programs or  activities.
All federal agencies have enforcement responsibilities under Title IX. All  federal agencies, including Education, Energy, NASA, and NSF, are  responsible for handling Title IX enforcement of their own grantees and  may refer complaints against educational institutions to Education’s OCR  and employment-related sex discrimination complaints to EEOC.  Education’s OCR plays a key role in ensuring compliance with Title IX  because it has primary responsibility to investigate most types of  complaints at educational institutions, including complaints referred from  other federal agencies.
Although EEOC does not have any authority under Title IX, it does have  authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to investigate sex- based complaints of employment discrimination, including sex  discrimination against faculty and scientists. Even though Title IX  regulations specifically include employment as a protected activity,  agencies generally send all employment-related discrimination complaints  to EEOC for investigation. EEOC officials told us that they process these  complaints as Title VII complaints. As such, EEOC will review referrals  from other federal agencies made under Title IX to see if they warrant  investigation under Title VII.
The Department of Justice (Justice) was given authority under Executive  Order 12250 for the “consistent and effective implementation” of several  civil rights laws, including Title IX. Specifically, Justice is responsible for  the coordination of agencies’ enforcement of Title IX, including   (1) reviewing and approving of agencies’ regulations, (2) developing  standards and procedures for conducting investigations and compliance  reviews, (3) arranging for referral of cases between agencies, and   (4) representing federal agencies in court proceedings. Justice  consequently published a Final Common Rule in August 2000, which  promulgated Title IX regulations adopted by 21 agencies, patterned after  the Department of Education’s Title IX regulations. Figure 1 broadly  outlines the various complaint processes under Title IX.
The four science agencies we reviewed for this request—Education,  Energy, NASA, and NSF—award billions of dollars in grants each year for  mathematics, engineering, and science grants and projects. Combined,  these four agencies awarded almost $5 billion in grants for the sciences in  fiscal year 2003. NASA, Energy, and NSF have been promoting scientific  and technological research and programs in K-12 schools, higher  education, and private industry for decades. Although Education’s mission  encompasses more than scientific research, it has several programs  dedicated to the sciences. One such program, Graduate Assistance in  Areas of National Need, provides fellowships, through academic  departments of institutions of higher education; these fellowships assist  graduate students with excellent records who demonstrate financial need  and who plan to pursue the highest degree available in a field designated  as an area of national need. This program has designated biology,  chemistry, computer and information science, engineering, geological  science, mathematics, and physics as areas of national need. This program  was funded at over $30 million in fiscal year 2003. (See app. IV for a list of  grants these agencies award for the sciences.)
section_title: The Four Federal Science Granting Agencies Made Efforts to Ensure Compliance, but Three Have Not Conducted Required Monitoring
paragraphs: The four federal science agencies have made efforts to ensure that federal  grant recipients comply with Title IX in the sciences by performing several  compliance activities, such as investigating complaints and providing  technical assistance, but most have not monitored grantees as required by  the law. Agency officials reported that Energy, NASA, and NSF refer  complaints involving educational institutions to Education and those  involving employment to EEOC, where they are investigated. Because  grantees are not required to report on complaints filed with them, the  agencies could not determine whether grantees have investigated Title IX  sex discrimination complaints they have received. To encourage  compliance with Title IX, federal agencies have provided grantees  technical assistance and also require an assurance statement from every  grantee that it will not discriminate. However, only Education has  monitored its grantees by conducting periodic compliance reviews—an  agency-initiated assessment of grantees to determine if they are complying  with the law. The lack of grantee monitoring was, in part, because  agencies have not effectively coordinated the implementation of  compliance reviews and, according to agency officials, a shortage of  resources to conduct the reviews.
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Have Conducted Complaint Investigations, but They Are Unaware of the Extent to Which Grantees Conducted Investigations
paragraphs: Each of the four agencies we reviewed has established a process to ensure  that complaints made under Title IX are reviewed and addressed.  Specifically, Education officials told us that it investigated or resolved all  Title IX complaints it has received involving educational institutions,  including those referred to it by other agencies through formal and  informal agreements. Excluding athletic complaints, Education reported  that it has received over 3,300 Title IX complaints against institutions of  higher education since 1993. Some of these complaints were referred to  Education by other agencies, including Energy, NASA, and NSF. Education  officials told us that they are unable to determine which of the complaints  concerned higher education programs in the sciences because their data  management system does not track that information. Officials at Energy,  NASA, and NSF told us that complaints meriting further investigation were  referred to Education if they involved educational institutions or to EEOC  if they were related to employment issues. However, officials at Energy,  NASA, and NSF told us that they have received very few Title IX  complaints each year. (See table 1 for information on compliance  procedures required by Title IX.)
EEOC also has established procedures to review complaints made under  Title IX, but the full number of complaints it has reviewed cannot be  determined. Officials at EEOC told us that it has received some Title IX  referrals, but since EEOC does not have statutory authority under Title IX,  it reviews complaints to determine if Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of  1964 applies. Consequently, EEOC does not track which complaints  originated as Title IX complaints, and it cannot determine how many Title  IX complaints it has investigated under Title VII. Although EEOC  investigates tens of thousands of complaints each year, officials told us  that they cannot determine if their investigations involved scientists, or  one of the four agencies, because EEOC’s database does not track the  employee’s occupation or the department in which the complaint  originated.
While grantees are required to establish procedures to resolve Title IX sex  discrimination complaints, agencies could not determine whether they had  done so because grantees are not required to report this information.  Despite this requirement, there is some evidence that some grantees have  not established these procedures. For example, Education recently  reviewed the Title IX compliance status of selected grantees and found  several instances in which grantees had not adopted or published  complaint procedures. Recognizing this issue, Education issued a “dear  colleague” letter in April 2004 to its grantees reminding them of their Title  IX requirements to establish and publicize complaint procedures. Even if  grantees have established procedures to address Title IX complaints, they  may not be tracking the complaints they handle. Officials from every  university we visited told us that they had an internal process to handle  Title IX sex discrimination complaints, but a few were unable to provide  us with actual numbers because they do not keep these data. Also, some  officials told us that most complainants choose to file at the grantee level  rather than with the federal government.
Students and university and laboratory officials we spoke with offered a  number of reasons why there have been so few Title IX sex discrimination  complaints involving the sciences filed with Education, Energy, NASA, and  NSF. Specifically, many students and staff suggested that their peers  would be unlikely to file a complaint because of a lack of awareness that  Title IX covers academics. For example, scientists and students at most  schools we visited told us that they thought Title IX covered only sports  and did not know the law also encompassed academic issues. Also, others  suggested they would be unlikely to file a complaint for fear of retribution  from supervisors or colleagues. For example, some women faculty  members we spoke with said that although they perceive that  discrimination exists in their department, filing a complaint could hinder  their ability to attain tenure. In addition, filing a sex discrimination  complaint would take time away from their research.
section_title: Federal Agencies Required Statements of Assurance from Grantees and Provided Technical Assistance to Promote Compliance with Title IX
paragraphs: Officials at federal agencies told us that they required statements of  assurance from grantees and provided technical assistance to grantees  upon request. Each agency required grantees to submit a statement of  assurance that their education programs or activities are operated in  compliance with Title IX, as well as with other civil rights laws, as part of  their grant application. (See table 1.)  In addition to obtaining these  statements, agencies provide outreach materials or technical assistance to  grantees. We found that each agency provided materials to grantees to  help them better understand Title IX and its requirements. At Education,  officials sometimes issue “dear colleague” letters to better inform grantees  about how to fulfill Title IX requirements.
section_title: Required Compliance Reviews Have Largely Been Neglected
paragraphs: We found that compliance reviews, which are required by Title IX  regulations, have been largely neglected by agencies. Officials at three of  the four agencies told us that they have not conducted any Title IX  compliance reviews of their grantees. Education has conducted 17  compliance reviews of academic programs’ adherence to Title IX at  institutions of higher education since 1993, 3 of which have dealt with the  sciences. Education officials told us that each year they plan to conduct a  number of reviews of compliance based on available funding remaining  after they conduct complaint investigations and provide technical  assistance to grantees. Officials reported that their goal is to use 20  percent of their budget for both outreach and reviews of compliance with  federal laws, but in reality only about 15 percent of their budget goes  toward these activities. When choosing which reviews would be  conducted, officials reported that they identify compliance issues based  on Education’s priorities and issues raised by Congress or interest groups.  Specifically, Education officials told us that the three compliance reviews  of science grantees—conducted in 1994 and 1995—were initiated because  of congressional interest. This year, Education plans to conduct over 50  compliance reviews on issues related to special education and  accommodations for the disabled. Officials told us that they are not  conducting any compliance reviews involving Title IX this year. In addition  to the requirement that Education conduct its own compliance reviews,  Education has agreements with 17 other agencies to conduct compliance  reviews of educational institutions under Title IX as well as other civil  rights laws. However, Education officials stated that performing  compliance reviews for other agencies was never feasible and that  Education has informed those agencies that it could not conduct these  reviews for them.
Energy, NASA, and NSF officials reported that they have not conducted  any Title IX compliance reviews of their grantees. Energy officials  reported that they have provided their field office staff with guidance on  conducting compliance reviews and that many field office staff attended  training on compliance reviews offered by Justice. Energy officials also  told us that they have conducted site visits to several field offices to  determine if compliance reviews were being done, but found that no  compliance reviews have been conducted, primarily due to resource  constraints. While NASA has an agreement with Education for Education  to conduct compliance reviews, neither Education nor NASA has  conducted reviews of NASA’s grantees. Recognizing this, NASA has begun  to take steps toward ensuring that compliance reviews are conducted on  their grantees.  NASA officials reported that they are developing a  compliance review program and have requested compliance information  from all of their grantees. Officials reported that they are in the process of  reviewing grantee responses to systematically ascertain if grantees are in  compliance, identify problem areas, and assist in targeting grantees for  possible on-site compliance reviews. Officials at NSF reported that a lack  of funding and staff precludes development of a compliance review  program. (See table 1.)
section_title: Interagency Coordination of Compliance Activities Is Limited
paragraphs: Justice officials told us that it carries out three main activities to  coordinate agency compliance with Title IX. Specifically, it provides  technical assistance to agencies when questions arise about compliance  activities or requirements, brokers agreements between agencies and  Education to carry out complaint investigations and compliance reviews  of educational institutions, and requires agencies to submit an annual  report on their compliance activities. Some technical assistance has taken  the form of published guidance for agencies to assist them with Title IX  compliance, while other assistance is provided to agency officials directly  to address specific issues. For example, Energy officials reported that they  consult with Justice from time to time on how to handle complex  complaints they receive.
Justice officials reported that they helped to arrange the agreements  between Education and other agencies whereby Education has agreed to  conduct complaint investigations and compliance reviews on behalf of the  other agencies. Justice officials reported that they were not aware that  Education has not been adhering to the compliance review portion of the  agreements.  However, Justice officials were aware that other agencies,  including Energy, NASA and NSF, were not conducting compliance  reviews as required, due to limited resources.
Justice officials reported that every agency submitted annual reports on  their compliance activities. Agencies are required to report the numbers of  complaints they received under Title VI and Title IX and what action was  taken on those complaints. Agencies must also report on the total number  of grants the agency awarded and whether those grantees completed a  statement of assurance not to discriminate. In addition, agencies have to  report and characterize any agreements they may have with other  agencies, such as Education. Justice officials reported that they review  these reports to determine gaps in compliance and subsequently provide  agencies with guidance on how to alleviate those gaps. Although  Executive Order 12250 requires Justice to coordinate the implementation  and enforcement by executive agencies of various nondiscrimination  provisions of several civil rights laws, including Title IX, it has no legal  authority to make agencies conduct required compliance activities. Justice  officials reported that aside from reminding the agencies of the need to  comply with Title IX regulations and providing the agencies with guidance  and technical assistance, there is little they can do to ensure compliance  with Title IX.
In addition, Executive Order 12250 states “the Attorney General shall  annually report to the President through the Director of the Office of  Management and Budget on the progress in achieving the purposes of this  Order. This report shall include any recommendations for changes in the  implementation or enforcement of the nondiscrimination provisions of the  laws covered by this Order.” However, Justice officials told us that this  report has not been issued since 1998 because the reports were not an  effective mechanism to encourage agency compliance with regulations.
section_title: Women’s Participation in the Sciences Has Increased Substantially since the Early 1960s, but Their Representation in Mathematics and Engineering Continues to Be Low
paragraphs: Women’s participation in the sciences has increased substantially in the  last three decades, especially in the life sciences, such as biology. The  proportion of women science students has grown, but to a lesser extent at  the graduate level than the undergraduate level. Meanwhile, the proportion  of faculty in the sciences who are women has also increased since the  early 1970s.  However, women still lag behind their male counterparts in  terms of salary and rank, and much of their gain in numbers has been in  the life sciences, as opposed to mathematics and engineering. A variety of  studies indicate that experience, work patterns, and education levels can  largely explain differences in salaries and rank. Studies also suggest that  discrimination may still affect women’s choices and professional progress.
subsections: section_title: Women’s Participation in the Sciences Has Increased Substantially in the Last Three Decades
paragraphs: Although women’s participation in the sciences has improved steadily over  the last three decades, men still outnumber women in nearly every field in  the sciences. In 1960, women made up less than 3 percent of all scientists,  but by 2003 women constituted nearly 20 percent of all scientists.  Although the number of women increased in every field of science, the  participation of women in scientific occupations varied by field, with  women having the largest percentage gains in science and the smallest  percentage gains in mathematics. In 1960 women constituted less than   1 percent of engineers, 8 percent of scientists, and 26 percent of  mathematicians. By 2003 women made up 14 percent of engineers,   37 percent of scientists, and 33 percent of mathematicians.
Data on women in faculty positions at 2 and 4-year colleges and  universities in 1999 indicate that women’s participation differs based on  when they earned their PhD. Specifically, NSF data reveal that 11 percent  of faculty at a 2 or 4-year college in 1999 who received their PhD in the  early 1970s were women, as were 34 percent who received their PhD in the  in the late 1990s. Figure 2 shows that women working at 2 and 4-year  colleges in 1999 have the greatest participation in life sciences. Nineteen  percent of life sciences faculty at a 2 or 4-year college in 1999 who  received their PhD in the early 1970s were women, as were 44 percent who  received their PhD in the late 1990s. However, data show that women still  constitute a relatively small share of faculty in the sciences. For example,  engineering has the lowest participation levels for women faculty. Less  than 1 percent of engineering faculty at a 2 or 4-year college in 1999 who  received their PhD in the early 1970s were women, as were 19 percent who  received their PhD in the late 1990s.
Women continue to major in the sciences and earn degrees in the sciences  to a lesser extent than men, even though women now make up a majority  of all college students. In 2000, two of five undergraduates in the sciences  were women. Similarly, in 2000, while women made up over half of all  graduate students, they accounted for less than a third of graduate  students in the sciences.
section_title: Women Tend to Pursue More Degrees in Life Science and Fewer in Engineering and Mathematics
paragraphs: The percentage of women students differs across scientific fields, as  shown in figure 3. In 1999-2000, women were a majority of both  undergraduate and graduate students in life sciences, while only one-fifth  of engineering students were women, at both the undergraduate and the  graduate levels. Regarding degrees earned, the majority of degrees in fields  other than the sciences, at all levels—bachelors, masters, and  doctorates—are earned by women. However, with one exception, women  continue to earn fewer degrees than men in the sciences, at all levels.  Again, the exception is life sciences, in which women earned more  bachelors and masters degrees—but not doctorate degrees—than men.  The proportion of degrees in the sciences earned by women is highest in  life sciences and lowest in engineering. (See app. VI for enrollment and  degrees earned by men and women by field and level of study.)
The proportion of bachelors degrees in various science areas awarded to  women has grown relatively steadily since the mid-1960s, with the  exception of degrees in mathematics, which fluctuated within the narrow  range of 33 to 39 percent. (See fig. 4.) Similarly, the percentage of PhDs  awarded to women has generally increased in these science fields,  including mathematics, since 1966. Women made the greatest gains in life  sciences. (See fig. 5.)
Some researchers suggest that the shortage of women pursuing degrees in  science is due to a lack of preparation and mentoring. Recent research  reported that women are not adequately prepared in K-12 or  undergraduate school and so they lose interest in the sciences. According  to several studies, in grade 12, high school girls took fewer courses in  science, scored slightly lower on standardized science exams, were more  likely to have negative attitudes toward science, and were less likely to  declare science as a college major, as compared with high school boys.  Some of the women students and faculty with whom we talked reported  that a strong mentor was a crucial part of their academic training. In fact,  some students and faculty told us they had pursued advanced degrees  because of the encouragement and support of mentors. Some felt that  having women mentors, who served as role models, was important for  women considering careers in the sciences. Some pointed out that with  few faculty women in some departments in the sciences, it was hard for  women students to find women mentors.
However, we found that women who begin college with an engineering,  mathematics, or science major had similar rates of completing a bachelors  degree within 6 years as their male counterparts, according to the  Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study. About   65 percent of women did so in 2001, while 18 percent were still enrolled at  the end of 6 years and about 17 percent left college without a degree.  Comparably, about 62 percent of men completed a bachelors degree  within 6 years, while about 19 percent were still enrolled at the end of   6 years and about 19 percent left college without a degree. Women who  begin college with majors in the sciences had higher rates of completing a  degree in 6 years than women who started college with other majors or  undeclared majors. (See app. V for the enrollment status in 2001 of  students who began postsecondary education in 1995, by type of initial  major and sex.)
section_title: Salary and Rank Differences between Men and Women Scientists Are Largely Explained by Work Patterns and Choices
paragraphs: Several recent studies show that salary and rank differences between men  and women can largely be explained by work patterns and choices. Even  though the percentage of women in faculty positions has increased, many  studies show that women faculty have not yet caught up with men faculty  in several areas, including salary and tenure. However, a recent study  found that just over 91 percent of the discrepancy between men’s and  women’s faculty salaries could be explained by differences in experience,  work patterns, seniority, and education levels. Our review of faculty data  found that women science faculty compared with men faculty    more often taught as their primary responsibility,  less often conducted research as their primary responsibility,  less often held a first professional degree or PhD,    more often worked part-time,    more often had less experience,    more often were younger, and    more often were native U.S. citizens.
Similarly, a recent study of the top 50 departments of engineering and  science, as ranked by NSF, revealed that women faculty were more often  associate or assistant professors than full professors and that women  faculty were a minority of tenured faculty in the sciences. Figure 6 shows  that the percentage of women faculty by rank varies by field.
Several studies have discussed that some women trade off career  advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage  work and family responsibilities. In fact, a recent study on part-time  faculty found that women faculty are 6 percent more likely than men to  prefer part-time employment. During our site visits, women faculty told  us that juggling family life with a tenure track faculty position was  extremely challenging. Some women told us that they felt discouraged  from pursuing a tenure track university position because the biological  clock and the tenure clock tend to tick simultaneously. Some faculty  members told us that they felt they had to put off having children until  they achieved tenure or entirely give up the goal of having children,  choices that men faculty do not necessarily have to make. Others we  spoke with commented that they observed the long hours and difficult  work of professors at research universities in the sciences and felt they  could not perform well while also devoting time to family responsibilities.
In addition, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that  men and women faculty also worked in different types of institutions.  Among full-time faculty, women were more likely than men to work in   2-year institutions (33 percent versus 23 percent), while men were more  likely than women to work in research universities (20 percent versus   14 percent). Women PhD students we interviewed revealed that very few  would seek tenure track positions at research institutions. Most said that  they would rather become faculty at small colleges or scientists at a  laboratory where they thought work pressures would be less intense and  they could maintain a more healthy balance between work and family life.
section_title: Women May Also Face Practices That May Affect Their Participation
paragraphs: Studies have also argued that the variability in men and women’s  participation in the sciences may result from discrimination in the  workplace or subtler discrimination about what types of career or job  choices women can make. NCES recently reported that preparation is not  the sole factor leading to women’s low participation in science  occupations but that workplace discrimination is a consistent barrier to  women in the sciences. In addition, when studying women science faculty  issues at MIT, researchers found that, after tenure, many senior women  faculty began to feel “marginalized.” These faculty members reported that  they sensed they may not have been treated equally with their men  colleagues. During our site visits, some women faculty and students told  us that the climate in some academic departments was changing for the  better over time, as older men faculty, who were unused to working with  women, retire. On the other hand, in other departments, women students  reported that fellow men students were hostile to women and made it very  uncomfortable for women to pursue their studies.  Students and faculty  we talked with reported that deans, department chairs, and other officials  were attempting to bring about positive change for women on their  campuses, but that progress would be slow.
section_title: Some Agencies and Grantees Have Activities That May Foster Greater Participation in the Sciences by Women
paragraphs: We found several examples of grant-making agencies that have instituted  policies and practices designed to foster greater participation by women in  the sciences. While some of the policies and practices are aimed at  encouraging more women to pursue and to persist in education in the  sciences, others provide time off and fewer teaching duties so junior  faculty can balance work and family life while beginning a university  career. Finally, a few policies and practices seek to expand the recruiting  pool for jobs in the sciences and make them more attractive to women.
subsections: section_title: Grant-Making Agency Includes Evaluation Criteria to Encourage Greater Participation in the Sciences
paragraphs: NSF, as part of its formal evaluation of grant applications, uses a “second  criterion,” the impact of the project on U.S. society. NSF makes a  particular effort to recruit reviewers, experts in the substantive area of the  proposal, from nonacademic institutions, minority-serving institutions, and  disciplines closely related to the one addressed in the proposal. These  reviewers evaluate grant proposals based on two merit criteria: first, what  is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; second, what are the  broader societal impacts of the proposed activity. This second criterion  includes promoting teaching, broadening the participation of  underrepresented groups, and enhancing research infrastructure, such as  facilities and partnerships, as well as the integration of diversity into NSF  projects, and research mentoring, particularly for students typically  underrepresented in the sciences.
Projects meeting NSF’s societal impact criterion may increase interest in  the sciences among students or provide valuable experience to a diverse  group of researchers, but to date there has not been a full evaluation of  this criterion. Beyond the first year of graduate school, science education  is largely laboratory centered. NSF grantees may take more care to include  graduate students or other researchers from diverse backgrounds as staff  on their projects. This could help ensure that women and minorities can  get the training and experience they need to complete advanced degrees  and work in an academic environment. However, the effects of  implementing the second criterion have yet to be fully evaluated. A review  by the National Academy of Public Administration in 2001 found that NSF  does not have adequate data to track changes or improvements to  encourage greater participation by underrepresented minority researchers.
In addition, researchers told us that many NSF supported projects include  outreach components, frequently aimed at undergraduates and K-12  students. Often, analysts speak of an insufficient “pipeline” of women high  school and college students planning to pursue higher levels of education  in the sciences. The goal of outreach programs is to pique the interest of  younger students in the sciences. Outreach activities can include speeches  or demonstrations or work opportunities in a laboratory. These outreach  activities may encourage some young women, who otherwise might have  lost interest, to pursue education in the sciences.
section_title: Certain Practices Seek to Relieve Some of the Pressures for Women of Beginning a Tenure Track University Career
subsections: section_title: Adjusted Tenure Clock
paragraphs: Some universities extend the tenure clock by one semester or one year  when a junior faculty member has a child. Most commonly, tenure  decisions are made several years after appointment as assistant professor.  To achieve tenure in the sciences, high productivity in research and  publication is required. As one faculty member expressed it, “the  biological clock and the tenure clock are perfectly in sync.” Some female  faculty put off children until after they gain tenure, often in their late 30s.  Allowing junior faculty to “stop the clock” relieves some of the pressure  on junior faculty seeking tenure. Many universities allow female faculty  only 6 to 8 weeks of paid maternity leave.
At some universities, the tenure clock adjustment that comes with the  arrival of a child applies to male faculty members as well. Some professors  we spoke with told us that often male professors do not play as large a  role as women in caring for newborns and can use the extra year to add to  their research and publication portfolios. In addition, some junior faculty  fear that stopping the clock will be counted against them in the tenure  decision. Even though adjusting the tenure clock may be university policy,  that policy may not be evenly implemented in all departments. Moreover,  assistant professors seeking tenure must have many recommendations  from established academics in their field, some of whom may not be aware  that the tenure candidate stopped the clock. Therefore, some tenure  recommendations may criticize resulting gaps in a résumé.
section_title: Reduced Teaching Duties
paragraphs: Some universities, primarily major research institutions, relieve faculty  members of one semester of teaching duties when a child is born or other  urgent family issues arise. Some faculty we spoke with noted that there  are events other than childbirth that require large amounts of a faculty  member’s time and attention, such as assisting elderly parents. Reduced  teaching loads may operate in tandem with stopping the tenure clock and  generally applies to both men and women professors.
Relief from teaching duties frees up time to deal with family issues and  provides added flexibility in arranging work hours. However, when one is  involved in scientific research, pressure remains to produce results.  Researchers still have to run their laboratories. Scientists responsible for  research projects have to organize the work, supervise graduate students  working on the projects, and also advise students on their academic  course work and projects. Some faculty we spoke with pointed out that  relief from teaching duties may benefit male faculty more than female  faculty. In connection with the arrival of a child, to the extent that male  faculty may have less involvement in caring for newborns, male faculty  may use the extra time to do additional research or laboratory work.
section_title: Several Practices Seek to Expand the Recruiting Pool for Scientific Jobs and Make Them More Attractive to Women
subsections: section_title: On-site Child Care
paragraphs: Some universities and at least one laboratory we visited have developed or  expanded on-campus child care or made arrangements with nearby  facilities. Sometimes, when on-campus facilities are unavailable or  inadequate, arrangements may be made with nearby child care providers  to reserve a certain number of openings for faculty and staff. However,  obtaining child care can still be a problem in some situations such as care  for sick children. One laboratory we visited had plans for developing a  separate day care facility for sick children, but it has not come about  because of lack of funding.
section_title: Inclusive Hiring Processes
paragraphs: Universities may specify a search process for new faculty. Such a process  might involve widespread advertising, might specify representation of  women and minorities on search committees, and might require that there  be members of underrepresented groups in the candidate pool. This type  of formal process may extend the hiring time. However, if hiring pools, at  first, are not sufficiently broad, further publicity and additional work by  the search committee may be required.
section_title: Measuring Status of Women Faculty
paragraphs: Universities may also conduct periodic studies of recruiting, hiring, tenure  decisions, salaries, and resources provided. These are among the aspects  of university employment that can be quantified so comparisons can be  made between male and female professors. Periodic reviews of such data  can call the attention of the university or laboratory community to  imbalances that may exist.  Continuing review of such data helps ensure  that inequities do not develop.
section_title: Addressing Climate Issues
paragraphs: Schools and laboratories can conduct periodic surveys of faculty concerns  to develop information about factors such as inclusive social atmosphere,  or sexist attitudes. Though not easily quantifiable, such factors  nonetheless impact women’s employment experience. Periodic surveys  raise awareness of the university or laboratory community to attitudes and  practices that may make it uncomfortable for women at the institution.  University officials hope that greater awareness will help to avoid  “marginalization” of female faculty and foster an inclusive atmosphere.
section_title: Funding Additional Education
paragraphs: Some laboratories subsidize the expenses of obtaining additional  education and training for their current employees.  Further education  may lead to promotions or higher-level work. Such support is not limited  to women, but at one laboratory we visited, a high proportion of  beneficiaries were women.
section_title: Flexible Work Schedules
paragraphs: Some laboratories allow part-time or flexi-time schedules, allowing staff to  vary their arrival and departure times. Additionally, at least one laboratory  we visited allowed job sharing, whereby two employees each work on the  same job on a part-time basis, coordinating closely with one another to  accomplish the assigned tasks. Each of these alternative work  arrangements helps workers balance their personal lives with their work  lives and makes it easier for researchers to deal with family  responsibilities, which some scientists told us are often are borne more by  women than men.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Over the past three decades, women have made substantial gains as  professionals in the sciences, particularly in the life sciences. A review of  their numbers and roles today in the educational pipeline suggests,  however, that women will continue to fall short of equal participation.  Their lower levels of participation also suggest that they remain a less than  well tapped resource in the nation’s growing demand for scientists.
Our review of federal science agencies’ oversight for Title IX suggests that  much of the leverage afforded by this law lies underutilized in the science  arena, even as several billion dollars are spent each year on federal  science grants. Although Energy, NASA, and NSF have carried out most of  the activities required of them under Title IX, the impact of their work may  be limited without compliance reviews of grantees and their practices.  Given the general lack of knowledge and familiarity with the reach of Title  IX and the disincentives for filing complaints against superiors,  investigations of complaints alone by federal agencies are not enough to  judge if discrimination exists. Without making full use of all compliance  activities available, agencies lack a complete picture of federal grantee  efforts to address occurrences of sex discrimination. On the other hand, a  more aggressive exercise of oversight on the part of agencies that wield  enormous influence in the world of science funding—Energy, NASA, and  NSF—would provide an opportunity to strengthen the goal of Title IX and  enable this legislation to better achieve intended results.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To fully comply with Title IX regulations, we recommend the Secretary of  Energy and Director of NSF ensure that compliance reviews of grantees  are periodically conducted.
To fully comply with Title IX regulations, we recommend the  Administrator of NASA continue to implement its compliance review  program to ensure that compliance reviews of grantees are periodically  conducted.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education, the  Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science  Foundation for review and comment. Officials at each agency confirmed  that they had reviewed the draft and generally agreed with its findings and  recommendations. Officials from all five agencies provided us with  technical comments, many of which we have incorporated into the report,  and formal comments from Education, Energy, NASA and NSF are  included in appendixes VII through X. Justice did not provide formal  written comments for this report.
As discussed in their formal comments and in our report, Energy, NASA,  and NSF have begun to take steps, such as providing technical assistance  and collecting compliance information from grantees, to ensure greater  compliance with Title IX. Although officials at these agencies agree that  compliance reviews have not been conducted, officials from each agency  reported that they are making efforts to carry out compliance reviews in  the future. Where appropriate, we incorporated information about agency  efforts in the final version of this report.
In the comments from Education, officials reported about compliance  reviews and other efforts that Education has conducted on school districts  and on nonscience programs at institutions of higher education. While we  agree that these efforts may provide greater access for women in higher  education science programs, as they may for women in other fields, they  were not within the scope of our review and, therefore, were not included  in this report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, the  Secretary of Energy, the Attorney General, the Administrator of NASA, the  Acting Director of NSF, appropriate congressional committees, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please call me at (202) 512-8403 if  you or your staff have any questions about this report. Other major  contributors to this report are listed in appendix XI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Because of increased interest about women’s access to mathematics,  engineering, and science, which receive billions of dollars in federal  assistance, you asked us to determine what is being done to ensure  compliance with Title IX in regard to mathematics, engineering, and  science. This report addresses: 1) how do the Department of Education  (Education), the Department of Energy (Energy), the National Aeronautics  and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation  (NSF) ensure that federal grant recipient institutions comply with Title IX  in mathematics, engineering, and science; 2) what do data show about  women’s participation in these fields; and 3) what promising practices  exist to promote their participation?
We reviewed the legislation and regulations to identify all areas of  compliance relevant to each federal agency. We interviewed officials at  Education, Energy, NASA, and NSF and gathered documentation to  identify agency activities to ensure compliance with Title IX. We analyzed  data from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at Education and the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agencies where most  sex discrimination complaints are filed. Given its role as coordinating  agency of Title IX compliance, we also gathered data and interviewed  officials at the Department of Justice (Justice).
We chose to visit research universities and national laboratories because  by visiting those institutions we were able to interview future and  practicing scientists working in a wide variety of areas. During this phase  of the review, we visited seven research universities where we interviewed  grant recipients, students and faculty.  We also visited six national  laboratories where we talked with administrators and scientists. Research  universities were selected for site visits because they received grants from  at least three of the four agencies we reviewed and were near at least one  national laboratory and another research university that also met our  criteria. Those selected were:    Clemson University,    Columbia University,    Duke University,    Stanford University,    State University of New York at Stony Brook,    University of California, Berkeley, and    University of South Carolina.
Brookhaven National Laboratory,    Environmental Measurements Laboratory,    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,    Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, and    Savannah River National Laboratory.
To gather nationwide information on women’s participation and  experiences in mathematics, engineering, and science, we analyzed data  from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the  Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study, and the  National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) from Education and the  Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), and the Survey of Doctorate  Recipients (SDR) from NSF. We also reviewed literature to obtain  information about women in the sciences and issues they face preparing  for and pursuing careers in the sciences. In addition, we spoke with  practitioners regarding promising practices to promote the participation of  women in mathematics, engineering, and science. To assess the reliability  of the various Education and NSF data sources, we reviewed  documentation on how the data were collected and performed electronic  tests to look for missing or out-of-range values. In addition, we reviewed  the methodology of studies and reports using generally accepted social  science principles as a basis for including their results in our report. Based  on these reviews and tests, we found the data and studies sufficiently  reliable for our purposes. We conducted our review from July 2003  through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: National Laboratories and Technology Centers
section_title: Appendix III: Selected Legal Events and Cases Involving Title IX
paragraphs: First federal law specifically prohibiting sex discrimination at educational  institutions receiving federal financial assistance.
Held that private parties may file suit in Title IX cases.
Delegated to Justice authority to coordinate the implementation and  enforcement by federal agencies of various nondiscrimination provisions,  including Title IX.
Held that Title IX applied only to programs that directly receive or benefit  from federal financial assistance.
Requires all programs of an educational institution receiving federal  funds to be subject to Title IX, superseding the Grove City College v. Bell decision.
Held that monetary damages are available to plaintiffs in private Title IX  actions.
Provided policy guidance on Title IX prohibitions against sexual  harassment in schools.
Provided Title IX enforcement regulations for 21 agencies  20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688.  45 C.F.R. Part 86, currently found at 34 C.F.R. Part 106.
C441 U.S. 677 (1979).  465 U.S. 555 (1984).  20 U.S.C. § 1687.  65 Fed. Reg. 52858 (Aug. 30, 2000).
section_title: Appendix IV: Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Grant Programs Funded by Education, Energy, NASA, and NSF
subsections: section_title: Renewable energy research and development
paragraphs: Obligations were not separately identifiable.
Estimated.
section_title: Appendix V: Comparison of Enrollment Status
paragraphs: Data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal  Study show that for those who started with a major in the sciences, there  is no appreciable difference between men and women in the proportion  that have completed a bachelors degree 6 years after starting college.  Among those who started college with nonscience or undeclared majors, a  greater proportion of women than men had achieved bachelors degrees  within 6 years. For both men and women, those who began college  majoring in the sciences were more likely to have earned degrees within 6  years than those who began college with nonscience or undeclared  majors.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comparison of Enrollment and Degrees Earned
paragraphs: Data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)  show that the proportion of students, and of degree earners, who are  women varies substantially from one area to another in the sciences.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
section_title: Appendix X: Comments from the National Science Foundation
section_title: Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Kopp Michelotti, Kelsey Bright,   John Mingus, James Rebbe, Richard Burkard and Sue Bernstein made  important contributions to this report.