Equal Employment Opportunity: DHS Has Opportunities to Better Identify and Address Barriers to EEO in Its Workforce
Released: 2009-09-30T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Under MD-715, federal agencies are to identify and eliminate barriers that impede free and open competition in their workplaces. EEOC defines a barrier as an agency policy, principle, or practice that limits or tends to limit employment opportunities for members of a particular gender, race, ethnic background, or disability status. According to EEOC’s instructions, many employment barriers are built into the organizational and operational structures of an agency and are embedded in the day-to-day procedures and practices of the agency. In its oversight role under MD- 715, EEOC provides instructions to agencies on how to complete their barrier analyses and offers other informal assistance. Based on agency submissions of MD-715 reports, EEOC provides assessments of agency progress in its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, feedback letters addressed to individual agencies, and the EEO Program Compliance Assessment (EPCA).

At DHS, the Officer for CRCL, through the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, is responsible for processing complaints of discrimination; establishing and maintaining EEO programs; fulfilling reporting requirements as required by law, regulation, or executive order; and evaluating the effectiveness of EEO programs throughout DHS. Consistent with these responsibilities, the Officer for CRCL, through the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, is responsible for preparing and submitting DHS’s annual MD-715 report.

In addition, the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs and the Under Secretary for Management (USM) are also responsible for diversity management at DHS. Under the USM, the Chief Human Capital Officer is responsible for diversity management and has assigned these duties to the Executive Director of Human Resources Management and Services. According to CRCL’s Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, CRCL and OCHCO collaborate on a number of EEO and diversity activities through participation in work groups, involvement in major projects, policy and report review, and participation on the Diversity Council and its Diversity Policy and Planning Subcouncil. Figure 1 shows the officials who are primarily responsible for EEO and diversity management at DHS.

The DHS Diversity Council is composed of the members of the DHS Management Council, which is chaired by the USM and includes component representatives—generally a component’s equivalent of a chief management officer or chief of staff. The Diversity Council charter gives the DHS Management Council the responsibility of meeting as the Diversity Council at least bimontly. CRCL’s Deputy Officer for EEO Programs and OCHCO’s Executive Director of Human Resources Management and Services chair the Diversity Council’s Policy and Planning Subcouncil, which includes at least one member from each DHS component represented on the Management Council. The Diversity Policy and Planning Subcouncil meets every 2 weeks and is to identify, research, and analyze workforce diversity issues, challenges, and opportunities and report and make recommendations to the Diversity Council on DHS diversity strategies and priorities.

DHS Has Generally Relied on Workforce Data and Has Not Regularly Included Employee Input in Identifying Potential Barriers

According to EEOC’s MD-715 instructions, barrier identification is a two- part process. First, using a variety of sources, an agency is to identify triggers. Second, the agency is to investigate and pinpoint actual barriers and their causes. According to EEOC officials, this should be an ongoing process. Figure 2 shows the barrier identification steps under MD-715.

Our review of DHS’s MD-715 reports for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2007 showed that in 2004 DHS identified 14 triggers, which were present in each subsequent year. According to DHS’s MD-715 reports, DHS identified 13 of the 14 triggers based on its analysis of participation rates contained in the workforce data tables. The remaining trigger— incomplete accessibility studies on all facilities—was identified based on responses to the self-assessment checklist contained in the MD-715 form and comments made at disability awareness training for managers. In addition, in 2008, DHS identified one new trigger based on a joint statement from EEOC, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Labor related to heightened incidents of harassment, discrimination, and violence in the workplace against individuals who are or are perceived to be Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, or Sikh. Table 1 shows a summary of DHS-identified triggers and the sources of information from which they were identified.

To identify triggers, agencies are to prepare and analyze workforce data tables comparing participation rates to designated benchmarks (such as representation in the civilian labor force (CLF) or the agency’s total workforce) by gender, race, ethnicity, or disability status in various subsets of their workforces (such as by grade level or major occupations and among new hires, separations, promotions, and career development programs). According to EEOC’s MD-715 instructions, participation rates below a designated benchmark for a particular group are triggers. Along with the workforce data tables, according to EEOC’s MD-715 instructions, agencies are to regularly consult additional sources of information to identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups. Other sources of information include, but are not limited to EEO complaints and EEO-related grievances filed; findings of discrimination on EEO complaints; surveys of employees on workplace environment issues; exit interview results; surveys of human resource program staff, managers, EEO program staff, counselors, investigators, and selective placement coordinators; input from agency employee and advocacy groups and union officials; available government reports (i.e., those of EEOC, GAO, OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Department of Labor); and local and national news reports.

EEOC officials said that these sources may reveal triggers that may not be present in the workforce data tables. Several of the above-listed sources provide direct employee input on employee perceptions of the effect of agency policies and procedures. For example, according to EEOC instructions, employee surveys may reveal information on experiences with, perceptions of, or difficulties with a practice or policy within the agency. Further, EEOC’s instructions state that reliance solely on workforce profiles and statistics will not meet the mandate of MD-715. When workforce data and other sources of information indicate that a barrier may exist, agencies are to conduct further inquiry to identify and examine the factors that caused the situation revealed by workforce data or other sources of information.

To identify triggers, CRCL stated that it regularly reviews complaint data it must submit annually to EEOC and data collected from reports CRCL is required to submit under various statutes, executive orders, and initiatives, including the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act, Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Recruitment Program, Executive Order 13171 on Hispanic employment in the federal government, Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities. According to CRCL officials, in the past, CRCL has also relied upon the DHS online departmental newsletter, periodicals, and news media to identify triggers.

We have previously reported that successful organizations empower and involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a frontline perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and morale. Obtaining the input of employees in identifying triggers would provide a frontline perspective on where potential barriers exist. Employee input can come from a number of sources including employee groups, exit interviews, and employee surveys. CRCL said that it does not consider input from employee groups in conducting its MD-715 analysis, but the Diversity Council’s Diversity Policy and Planning Subcouncil has recently begun to reach out to form partnerships with employee associations such as the National Association of African-Americans in the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, according to DHS’s 2008 MD-715 report, DHS does not currently have a departmentwide exit survey, but according to a senior OCHCO official, OCHCO plans to develop a prototype exit survey with the eventual goal of proposing its use throughout DHS.

Although DHS does not have the structures in place to obtain employee input departmentwide from employee groups and exit surveys, DHS could use the FHCS and DHS’s internal employee survey to obtain employee input in identifying potential barriers. OPM administers the FHCS biennially in even-numbered years, and DHS administers its own internal survey in off years. Both surveys collect data on employees’ perceptions of workforce management, organizational accomplishments, agency goals, leadership, and communication. We have previously reported that disaggregating employee survey data in meaningful ways can help track organizational priorities.According to information from officials in OPM’s Division for Strategic Human Resources Policy, which administers and analyzes the FHCS, results by gender, national origin, and race are available at the agency level (i.e., DHS) on each agency’s secure site. DHS’s internal survey also collects demographic data on race, gender, and national origin of respondents. DHS could analyze responses from the FHCS and its internal employee survey by race, gender, and national origin to determine whether employees of these groups perceive a personnel policy or practice as a possible barrier. For example, one question on the 2008 FHCS asked whether supervisors or team leaders in the employee’s work unit support employee development. Fifty-eight percent of DHS respondents agreed and 21 percent disagreed with the statement. The 2007 DHS internal survey asked whether employees receive timely information about employee development programs. Thirty-nine percent of respondents provided a positive response; 35 percent provided a negative response. Although a CRCL staff member reviews the FHCS and DHS’s internal survey data as part of an OCHCO employee engagement working group, the staff member does not review DHS responses based on race, gender, and national origin. Responses based on demographic group could indicate whether a particular group perceives a lack of opportunity for employee development and suggest a need to further examine these areas to determine if barriers exist. Without employee input on DHS personnel policies and practices, DHS is missing opportunities to identify potential barriers. Regular employee input could help DHS to identify potential barriers and enhance its efforts to acquire, develop, motivate, and retain talent that reflects all segments of society and our nation’s diversity.

DHS Identified Workforce Barriers in 2007

In fiscal year 2007, DHS conducted its first departmentwide barrier analysis. This effort involved further analysis of the triggers initially identified in 2004 to determine if there were actual barriers and their causes. According to DHS’s 2007 MD-715 report, DHS limited its barrier analysis to an examination of policies and management practices and procedures that were in place during fiscal year 2004. Therefore, according to the report, policies, procedures, and practices that were established or used after fiscal year 2004 were outside the scope of this initial barrier analysis. Based on triggers DHS identified in 2004, DHS’s departmentwide barrier analysis identified the following four barriers: 1. Overreliance on the Internet to recruit applicants. 2. Overreliance on noncompetitive hiring authorities. 3. Adequacy of responses to Executive Order 13171, Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government; specifically, in several components that there was no evidence of specific recruitment initiatives that were directed at Hispanics. 4. Nondiverse interview panels; specifically, interview panels that did not reflect the diversity of applicants.

DHS Has Identified Planned Activities to Address Barriers, but Has Modified Nearly All of Its Target Completion Dates

According to EEOC guidance, barrier elimination is vital to achieving the common goal of making the federal government a model employer. Once an agency identifies a likely factor (or combination of factors) adversely affecting the employment opportunities of a particular group, it must decide how to respond. Barrier elimination is the process by which an agency removes barriers to equal participation at all levels of its workforce. EEOC’s instructions provide that in MD-715 reports, agencies are to articulate objectives accompanied by specific action plans and planned activities that the agency will take to eliminate or modify barriers to EEO. Each action item must set a completion date and identify the one high-level agency official who is responsible for ensuring that the action item is completed on time. In addition, according to EEOC’s instructions, agencies are to continuously monitor and adjust their action plans to ensure the effectiveness of the plans themselves, both in goal and execution. This will serve to determine the effectiveness of the action plan and objectives. Figure 3 shows the barrier elimination and assessment steps under MD-715.

DHS Modified Nearly All Target Completion Dates on Planned Actions to Address Barriers

Our analysis of DHS’s MD-715 2007 and 2008 reports showed DHS articulated 12 different planned activities to address the identified barriers, including 1 new planned activity in 2008. Of the 12 planned activities, 2 relate to recruitment practices and strategies, specifically implementing a departmentwide recruitment strategy and targeting recruitment where there are low participation rates. Two other planned activities relate to the development of additional guidance, specifically on composition of interview panels and increasing educational opportunities. For each barrier, DHS identifies at least one planned activity—eight in total— related to collecting and analyzing additional data. According to DHS’s 2007 and 2008 MD-715 reports, DHS’s primary objective is to capture and analyze the additional data needed to link the barriers to the relevant triggers.

In addition, of the 12 different planned activities, 5 involve collaboration between CRCL and OCHCO. One planned activity to address overreliance on the use of the Internet to recruit applicants calls for the development of an applicant flow tool to gather data on applicants, which would enable CRCL and OCHCO to analyze recruitment and hiring results. According to CRCL, its staff collaborate with OCHCO by evaluating and providing feedback on development of the tool. We have previously reported on the benefits of coordination and collaboration between the EEO and the human capital offices within agencies. During our previous work reviewing coordination of federal workplace EEO, an EEOC official commented that a review of barrier analyses in reports submitted under MD-715 showed that the highest-quality analyses had come from agencies where there was more coordination between staff of the human capital and EEO offices.

Table 2 shows DHS’s planned activities, the identified barriers to which they relate, and the target completion dates.

For the planned activities identified in its 2007 MD-715 report, DHS has modified the target date for all but one of them. As reported in the 2008 MD-715 report, the original target completion dates have been delayed anywhere from 12 to 21 months. In addition, since DHS filed its 2008 MD- 715 report, DHS modified one of the target dates it had previously modified in its 2008 report. DHS has not completed any of the planned activities articulated in its 2007 and 2008 MD-715 reports. According to CRCL officials, although it has not completed any planned activities to address identified barriers, DHS has completed some planned activities identified in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 related to improving its EEO program.

According to CRCL, DHS modified target dates primarily because of staffing shortages in both CRCL and OCHCO, including the retirement in 2008 of three senior CRCL officials (including the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs) and extended absences of the remaining two staff. In addition, according to senior officials, during fiscal year 2008, OCHCO experienced significant staff shortages and budgetary issues and lost its contract support. According to the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, fiscal year 2009 is a rebuilding year. CRCL is adding five new positions, in addition to the existing three, to the CRCL unit responsible for preparing and submitting DHS’s MD-715 reports and implementing MD-715 planned activities. According to CRCL, once it is fully staffed, it will be able to expand services and operations.

DHS has not established interim milestones for the completion of planned activities to address barriers. According to DHS officials, its MD-715 reports and Human Capital Strategic Plan represent the extent of DHS project plans and milestones for completing planned activities. These documents include only the anticipated outcome, not the essential activities needed to achieve the outcome. For example, in DHS’s 2007 and 2008 MD-715 reports, CRCL identifies an applicant flow tool to analyze recruitment and hiring results as a planned activity to address the barrier of overreliance on the use of the Internet to recruit applicants. DHS’s Human Capital Strategic Plan also identifies an applicant flow tool to analyze recruitment and hiring results as an action to achieve its departmentwide diversity goal. DHS does not articulate interim steps, with milestones, to achieve this outcome in either document.

In order to help ensure that agency programs are effectively and efficiently implemented, it is important that agencies implement effective internal control activities. These activities help ensure that management directives are carried out. We have previously reported that it is essential to establish and track implementation goals and establish a timeline to pinpoint performance shortfalls and gaps and suggest midcourse corrections. Further, it is helpful to focus on critical phases and the essential activities that need to be completed by a given date. In addition, we recommended in our 2005 report on DHS’s management integration that DHS develop a management integration strategy. Such a strategy would include, among other things, clearly identifying the critical links that must occur among initiatives and setting implementation goals and a timeline to monitor the progress of these initiatives and to ensure that the necessary links occur. Identifying the critical phases of each planned activity necessary to achieve the intended outcome with interim milestones could help DHS ensure that its efforts are moving forward and manage any needed midcourse corrections, while minimizing modifications of target completion dates.

DHS Reports Progress on EEO and Diversity Initiatives

According to CRCL and OCHCO officials, DHS is making progress on initiatives relating to (1) outreach and recruitment, (2) employee engagement, and (3) accountability. DHS’s Executive Director of Human Resources Management and Services told us that DHS is currently implementing a targeted recruitment strategy based on representation levels, which includes attending career fairs and entering into partnerships with organizations such as the Black Executive Exchange Program. CRCL officials also said that CRCL staff participate on the Corporate Recruitment Council, which meets each month and includes recruiters from each of the components. In addition, according to the Human Capital Strategic Plan diversity goal, DHS plans to establish a diversity advisory network of external stakeholders. According to CRCL, this effort includes specific outreach and partnership activities with such groups as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Blacks in Government, League of United Latin American Citizens, Organization of Chinese Americans, Federal Asian Pacific American Council, Federally Employed Women, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and Women in Federal Law Enforcement.

DHS has also reported progress on employee engagement efforts. The Executive Director of Human Resources Management and Services also told us that DHS is in the planning stages of forming a department-level employee council comprising representatives from each diversity network at each of DHS’s components. In addition, according to DHS’s Human Capital Strategic Plan, DHS will incorporate questions into its internal employee survey specifically addressing leadership and diversity. The planned completion for this effort is the first quarter of fiscal year 2010.

To address accountability, the Executive Director of Human Resources Management and Services said that DHS added a Diversity Advocate core competency as part of DHS’s fiscal year 2008 rating cycle for Senior Executive Service (SES) performance evaluations. Under DHS’s SES pay- for-performance appraisal system, ratings on this and other core competencies affect SES bonuses and pay increases. According to DHS’s Competency Illustrative Guidance, the standard provides for each senior executive to promote workforce diversity, provide fair and equitable recognition and equal opportunity, and promptly and appropriately address allegations of harassment or discrimination. According to the Executive Director of Human Resources Management and Services, OCHCO is currently developing plans, with the participation of CRCL, to implement a similar competency in 2010 for managers and supervisors, although the specific details on implementation are not yet finalized.

DHS Reports Using a Variety of Means to Oversee and Support Components

According to MD-715 and its implementing guidance, a parent agency is to ensure that its components implement the provisions of MD-715 and make a good faith effort to identify and remove barriers to equality of opportunity in the workplace. Among other requirements, the parent agency is responsible for ensuring that its reporting components—those that are required to submit their own MD-715 reports—complete those reports. The parent agency is also responsible for integrating the components’ MD-715 reports into a departmentwide MD-715 report. According to officials from EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations, how a department oversees and manages this process is at the discretion of the department. In addition, to ensure management accountability, the agency, according to MD-715, should conduct regular internal audits, at least annually, to assess, among other issues, whether the agency has made a good faith effort to identify and remove barriers to equality of opportunity in the workplace.

At DHS, according to the DHS Acting Officer for CRCL and the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, component EEO directors do not report directly to CRCL but to their respective component heads. While this EEO organizational structure is similar to other cross-cutting lines of business (LOB), other cross-cutting LOBs have indirect reporting relationships, established through management directives, between the component LOB head and the DHS LOB chief for both daily work and annual evaluation. In contrast, the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs stated that he relies on a collaborative relationship with the EEO directors of the components to carry out his responsibilities. According to the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, component EEO programs have supported department-wide initiatives when asked to join such efforts.

On February 4, 2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security delegated authority to the Officer for CRCL to integrate and manage the DHS EEO Program, and currently a management directive interpreting the scope of this authority is awaiting approval. The Deputy Officer for EEO Programs stated that until the management directive is approved and implemented, the actual effect of the delegated authority is unclear. Lacking direct authority, the Deputy Officer stated that he relies on a collaborative relationship with the EEO directors of the components to carry out his responsibilities. According to the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, one means of collaboration with the components is through the EEO Council, which meets monthly and is chaired by the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs and is composed of the EEO directors from each component. The Deputy Officer for EEO Programs said that he uses the EEO Council to share best practices, enhance cooperation, and enforce accountability.

To assist the components in their MD-715 analyses, according to CRCL officials, CRCL prepares the workforce data tables for each of the components required to submit its own MD-715 report. CRCL obtains the data from OCHCO and sends them to a contractor to create the workforce data tables. According to CRCL officials, DHS is pursuing an automated information management system that will allow CRCL to conduct in-house centralized workforce data analysis at the component level.

To ensure timely submissions of component MD-715 reports, DHS’s CRCL sets internal deadlines by which reporting components are to submit their final MD-715 reports. CRCL instructs the components to follow EEOC guidance in completing their reports. CRCL also gives components the option of submitting a draft report for CRCL to review and provide technical guidance on before the final report is submitted. For those components that have submitted draft reports, CRCL has provided written comments that could be incorporated into the components’ final reports. A CRCL official told us that for fiscal year 2009 draft submissions, CRCL will continue this practice and encourage components to submit draft reports.

Since DHS was formed in 2003, CRCL has completed a full EEO program evaluation of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in fiscal year 2007, which focused on FLETC’s EEO Office’s operations and activities. In fiscal year 2008, CRCL conducted the audit work on a full program evaluation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Equal Rights Office’s operations and activities, but to date CRCL has not issued the audit report. In fiscal year 2006, CRCL conducted a partial evaluation of the Transportation Security Administration’s Office for Civil Rights, which focused on EEO counseling, complaint tracking, and alternative dispute resolution. In addition, in fiscal year 2009, a contractor issued a report describing the findings of a program review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Office of Civil Rights. The Deputy Officer for EEO Programs told us that CRCL intends to conduct program reviews of the EEO programs at all operational components by 2010, although no schedule for completing these audits has been established.

Conclusions

Input from employee groups reflects the perspective of the individuals directly affected by employment policies and procedures and could provide valuable insight into whether those policies and procedures may be barriers to EEO. Because CRCL does not regularly include employee input from available sources, such as the FHCS and DHS’s internal employee survey, it is missing opportunities to identify potential barriers to EEO. For barriers DHS has already identified, it is important for DHS to ensure the completion of planned activities through effective internal control activities, including the identification of critical schedules and milestones that need to be completed by a given date. Effective internal controls could help DHS ensure that its efforts are moving forward, manage any needed midcourse corrections, and minimize modifications of target completion dates. Additional staff, which DHS plans to add in 2009, could help DHS implement effective internal control activities.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following two actions: Direct the Officer for CRCL to develop a strategy to regularly include employee input from such sources as the FHCS and DHS’s internal survey in identifying potential barriers to EEO.

Direct the Officer for CRCL and the CHCO to identify essential activities and establish interim milestones necessary for the completion of all planned activities to address identified barriers to EEO.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security for review and comment. In written comments, which are reprinted in appendix I, the Director of DHS’s Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office agreed with our recommendations. Regarding the first recommendation, the Director agreed that DHS should develop a departmentwide strategy to regularly include employee input from the FHCS and DHS internal employee survey to identify barriers, but noted that DHS component EEO programs already use employee survey data to develop annual action plans to address identified management issues. Regarding the second recommendation, the Director wrote that CRCL has already begun revising its plans to identify specific steps and interim milestones to accomplish the essential activities. DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and other interested parties. The report also will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Belva Martin, Acting Director; Amber Edwards; Karin Fangman; Melanie H. Papasian; Tamara F. Stenzel; and Greg Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.