Sexual Harassment in STEM Research: Agencies Have Taken Actions, but Need Complaint Procedures, Overall Plans, and Better Collaboration
Released: 2020-03-19T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Funding for university STEM research. The five federal agencies included in our analysis provide billions of dollars annually for university research in STEM fields, with HHS-NIH providing more than the other four agencies combined. Figure 1 details the total amount of basic and applied STEM research funding provided to universities by each agency in fiscal year 2018, these data are preliminary and the most current data available during our review.

Sexual harassment. While sexual harassment is not a defined term in Title IX, it can constitute sex discrimination under Title IX in some circumstances if, among other things, the harassment is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.”

Some federal agencies and NASEM define sexual harassment based on specific behaviors. Specifically, according to NASEM, sexual harassment encompasses three types of behavior:

Sexual coercion: Favorable treatment conditioned on sexual activity.

Unwanted sexual attention: Verbal or physical sexual advances that are unwelcome, including sexual assault.

Gender harassment: Sexist hostility and crude behavior.

The most common form of sexual harassment is gender harassment, which generally involves behavior that conveys hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about a person’s gender. According to the Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey for NASEM, female medical and engineering students enrolled in the University of Texas System were more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty or staff compared with students enrolled in other majors.

Title IX enforcement responsibilities. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the primary federal law that addresses sex discrimination under education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, including federally funded grant programs at educational institutions, such as universities. Under Title IX, federal agencies that award grants to educational institutions, including universities, have enforcement responsibilities to ensure such institutions do not discriminate based on sex. Enforcement responsibilities fall under four main areas: 1. Issuing regulations. Title IX requires that agencies promulgate regulations to provide guidance on Title IX enforcement to recipients of federal financial assistance who administer education programs or activities. 2. Obtaining assurance from university grantees that they are in compliance with Title IX. Most of the agencies we reviewed require grantees to submit an “assurance of compliance” form as part of their grant application or award to attest compliance with anti-discrimination laws, including Title IX. 3. Conducting periodic compliance reviews of funding recipients.

Grant funding agencies are required to conduct periodic Title IX compliance reviews of university grantees. A Title IX compliance review is an agency’s assessment of whether a grantee is complying with the law. According to DOJ’s Title IX legal manual, federal agencies have broad discretion in determining which grantees to review for compliance. Federal agencies may conduct these reviews on-site at a university (grantee) or via a desk audit. In both types of review, agency officials, among other things, review documentation that indicates compliance, such as the universities’ policies and procedures for receiving, investigating, and resolving Title IX complaints. During on-site reviews, officials interview staff, faculty, and students about their awareness of Title IX and any issues of potential sex discrimination that they have encountered. 4. Investigating written complaints of sex discrimination against recipients in a timely way. Federal agencies are required to establish and publish procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of complaints. An individual alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by a university can file a discrimination complaint with multiple entities, including the university or one of the federal agencies that provides funding to the university, which could include Education or another funding agency.

In 2015, we reported on six federal agencies’ grant making to women in STEM research, including their Title IX compliance activities. We found that the Departments of Defense, and Health and Human Services were not conducting required Title IX compliance reviews at universities they funded and recommended that they periodically do so. In response to our recommendation, HHS conducted three Title IX compliance reviews in 2018 and according to officials, the agency initiated additional Title IX compliance reviews in 2019 and 2020.

Education and DOJ also have responsibilities for administering Title IX. Education plays a key role in ensuring compliance with Title IX as it provides funding to most universities in the United States. DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination of protected classes, including Title IX. Under Executive Order 12250, DOJ also has the responsibility for playing a leadership role in coordinating the “consistent and effective implementation” of several civil rights laws, including Title IX.

In 2015, we reported that DOJ had no formal information-sharing process for federal agencies to exchange best practices on Title IX compliance activities, and we recommended that it establish such a process. In response to our recommendation, DOJ reconstituted the Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group in February 2016 to facilitate information sharing across the six major STEM grant-making federal agencies.

Recipients of federal assistance—in this case, university grantees—also have Title IX compliance responsibilities. Specifically, universities are responsible for ensuring Title IX compliance, designating an employee to coordinate compliance (e.g., a Title IX coordinator), establishing procedures to promptly and equitably resolve student and employee complaints of sex discrimination made against the university, and publishing a notice stating that they do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Figure 2 outlines the various compliance activities required under Title IX and the entity responsible for carrying out each activity.

Offices and their responsibilities for Title IX and grant management.

Among the federal agencies we reviewed, different offices handle various aspects of Title IX and grant compliance activities. Generally, each agency’s civil rights or diversity office conducts Title IX compliance reviews, develops policies and procedures for grantees, and investigates allegations and complaints involving university researchers supported by their agency’s federal STEM grants. All five agencies (DOE, HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA-NIFA) primarily address Title IX complaints, including sexual harassment complaints, through their civil rights or diversity offices. However, these offices are responsible for more than just addressing complaints and preventing sexual harassment at grantees, including universities; these offices oversee a number of civil rights, diversity, and inclusion efforts for the entire agency. Moreover, most of these offices also address internal employee sexual harassment complaints and other discrimination issues.

The agency office that awards grants generally creates and modifies grant terms and conditions for universities receiving funding from the agency. Table 1 outlines each agency’s Title IX and grant management responsibilities by office.

All Five Agencies Conducted Compliance Reviews, and Two Published Promising Practices for Universities

All five agencies conducted periodic Title IX compliance reviews, as required by federal laws and regulations, from fiscal years 2015 through 2019, and three completed joint compliance reviews. Two agencies publicized promising practices from Title IX compliance reviews on their websites and did so to assist all grantees with Title IX compliance. The other three agencies have not clearly publicized such practices from their Title IX reviews on their websites.

All Five Agencies Conducted Required Title IX Compliance Reviews from Fiscal Year 2015 through 2019

The five agencies we reviewed conducted periodic Title IX compliance reviews, as required by federal laws and regulations. From fiscal year 2015 through 2019, DOE, HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA-NIFA officials reported that their agencies met the requirement for conducting periodic reviews. During this period, the agencies conducted between 4 and 11 Title IX compliance reviews among hundreds of grantees. No agency completed more than three reviews in a fiscal year. Two agencies— DOE and NASA—have requirements to conduct a minimum of two Title IX compliance reviews annually. DOE and NASA meet their statutory requirements by starting at least two Title IX compliance reviews each year, according to officials. HHS, NSF, and USDA do not have an annual minimum requirement and are not required to have one, according to officials.

Agencies conducted visits to universities to assess compliance and developed written compliance reports. In the compliance report, agencies can recommend a grantee take action to improve existing compliance efforts to prevent sex discrimination and may highlight promising practices by grantees. For example, NASA recommended in a written compliance report that a grantee provide more targeted Title IX training geared toward STEM students and faculty, noting that such training should focus on subtle forms of gender bias that pervade STEM programs as well as on more egregious examples of sexual harassment. Similarly, HHS made recommendations in three of its compliance reviews for grantees to notify students and faculty of their right to file a Title IX complaint with the HHS Office for Civil Rights. University grantees are not required to implement the agency’s recommendations, but they must take corrective actions to resolve findings of Title IX noncompliance, according to DOE, HHS-OCR, NASA, and NSF officials.

Agencies are required by law to seek voluntary compliance for Title IX violations. If an agency finds that a grantee has violated Title IX (noncompliance), it first seeks to establish voluntary compliance through a resolution agreement—an agreement with the agency and grantee outlining corrective actions for the grantee. If the agency is unable to achieve voluntary compliance in a Title IX case, it may initiate proceedings to suspend or terminate federal funding, or refer the case to DOJ for possible litigation. According to officials, the five agencies we reviewed have not suspended or terminated funding to enforce Title IX, including sexual harassment. Instead, according to agency officials, their reviews have found that most grantees are in compliance with Title IX from fiscal year 2015 through 2019, except for one grantee, where the agency worked with the grantee to achieve voluntary compliance.

To leverage limited resources, three of the five agencies—DOE, NASA, and NSF—conducted joint Title IX compliance reviews. These reviews occur when two agencies providing funding to the same grantee jointly assess whether the grantee is complying with the law. DOE and NSF conducted three joint compliance reviews in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, while NASA and NSF conducted a joint review in fiscal year 2019. These joint reviews helped agencies leverage resources.

Two Agencies Publicized Promising Practices for Title IX Compliance to Assist All Grantees, but the Other Three Agencies Have Not Clearly Publicized Practices from Title IX Reviews on Their Websites

NASA and NSF publicized on their websites a list of promising practices identified as part of their compliance reviews to assist grantees with Title IX compliance. Promising practices—grantee actions that have the potential to advance equal opportunities, diversity, and inclusiveness for program participants regardless of sex—may be considered, adopted, and replicated by other grantees, according to NASA and NSF officials. Some actions may go beyond meeting Title IX compliance requirements. NASA identifies promising practices to provide grantees with information and examples on practices they may wish to consider replicating to help enhance or supplement their equal opportunity efforts, according to officials. For example, NASA noted a promising practice in which a grantee presents campus training sessions on Title IX at which participants develop bystander behavior skills, discuss consent and sexual respect, and learn how to encourage and support reporting of sexual misconduct. In addition, this university grantee facilitates the workshop using clickers to allow real-time, anonymous audience response, enabling the facilitators to measure learning progress and see attitudinal shifts in real time. According to NASA, since the inception of its Title IX compliance program, the agency has followed a philosophy of providing meaningful technical assistance to universities, including identifying and reporting on promising practices of the universities that the agency reviews. NASA officials told us this approach mitigates the fact that the agency only has the resources to conduct compliance reviews at a few of its hundreds of grantees annually.

NSF takes a similar approach. For example, NSF’s webpage for promising practices has a link to a university’s complaint resolution flow chart as an example for others to draw on. According to NSF officials, the agency values opportunities to learn about practices that have the potential to make significant and meaningful impacts on grantees’ efforts to create and maintain research environments that are safe and free from sexual and gender-based harassment. Moreover, according to officials, NSF grantees have expressed gratitude to the agency for sharing what other universities are doing that is working well.

In contrast, while DOE, HHS, and USDA identified promising practices in some of their Title IX compliance reviews, they have not clearly publicized a list of these practices to the broader grantee community.

DOE has posted reports of Title IX compliance reviews, but no list of promising practices. As a result, grantees who want to learn from other universities would need to review individual compliance reports and search for promising practices. DOE does plan to develop a publication that identifies promising practices and lessons learned from its Title IX compliance reviews in fiscal year 2020, according to officials. The agency did not provide any plans or timeframes because officials stated that DOE’s Office of Civil Rights is determining the best approach for this project.

USDA-NIFA is planning to create mechanisms to publicize best practices, according to officials, but it has not yet done so. According to USDA officials, the agency is discussing and determining the best promising practices from compliance reviews to publicize; however, recent staff changes have delayed this effort. As a result, USDA did not provide further details about how and when it will publicize promising practices.

In October 2019, HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (HHS-OCR) updated its Title IX webpage to include a section dedicated to sexual harassment, including links to resources, guidance, and effective practices (also called promising practices) from other agencies, as well as a written resolution agreement between HHS and a university grantee that resolved findings of sex-based harassment. While a dedicated webpage for sexual harassment is a positive step, HHS’s webpage includes promising practices from other federal agencies—Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and NSF—but not HHS. HHS- OCR officials told us that promising practices are similar across federal agencies. However, HHS Title IX compliance reviews cover grantees that may be different from other federal agencies, such as medical colleges, and these grantees may face unique challenges in complying with Title IX.

For example, according to the 2018 NASEM report, women students, trainees, and faculty in academic medical centers experience sexual harassment by patients and patients’ families, in addition to the harassment they experience from colleagues and those in leadership positions. HHS-OCR officials told us that the resolution agreement lists corrective actions that may be considered promising practices. However, a grantee who wanted to learn about these practices would need to know that they exist in the agreement and then review the document to find them. The agency has already identified potential promising practices in some its completed Title IX reviews. Therefore, publishing a separate list of these practices and corrective actions from resolution agreements on its website would require few resources and could benefit grantees.

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should use quality information to achieve its objectives and externally communicate such information to achieve objectives. The vast majority of grantees are reviewed for Title IX compliance infrequently by the five agencies and therefore receive little to no information on such compliance from these agencies. Moreover, while grantees can access completed Title IX reviews on some agencies’ websites, this endeavor would still require grantees to review the written reports in detail to uncover any promising practices. Without clearly publicizing promising practices to the broader grantee community, such as a stand-alone list of practices, DOE, HHS-OCR, and USDA are missing an opportunity to provide quality information to grantees about how best to ensure compliance with Title IX requirements and reduce the likelihood of sexual harassment.

Agencies Vary in their Efforts to Address Allegations of Sexual Harassment

The five agencies we reviewed received Title IX complaints, but varied in their efforts to address sexual harassment allegations, including: 1) finalizing procedures for processing Title IX complaints, 2) communicating complete information about the complaint process to grantees, and 3) addressing allegations outside of the Title IX process. Four agencies received three or fewer formal Title IX complaints total from fiscal year 2015 through 2019. Two of the five agencies do not have written procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of Title IX complaints—including allegations of sexual harassment—as required by federal regulations. According to agency officials, all five agencies use their websites as the primary means of communicating Title IX complaint information to grantees and individuals at universities; however, one of the five agencies’ websites does not provide clear guidance for grantees on the basics of the complaint filing processes—such as who can file. Additionally, two agencies have gone beyond the formal Title IX complaint process and also review sex discrimination concerns—including sexual harassment—as a means of improving agency Title IX oversight of university grantees.

Four Agencies Received Few Formal Title IX Complaints

Title IX affords individuals the ability to file formal complaints of Title IX violations directly to the federal agency providing funding for the program. According to agency officials, the five agencies generally define formal complaints as those that:

Are submitted in writing;

Are filed within 180 days of the incident—or if ongoing, within 180 days of the last incident—to be considered timely;

Provide the name and contact information of the person who is

Provide a general description of the person or people injured by the alleged discriminatory act(s) (names of those injured are not required); and

Provide a description of the alleged discriminatory act(s) in sufficient detail to enable the agency to understand what occurred, when it occurred, and the basis for the alleged discrimination (sex discrimination in the case of Title IX).

All five agencies accept formal Title IX complaints in multiple ways— including at minimum through email and postal mail.

From fiscal year 2015 through 2019, four agencies received three or fewer formal complaints (see table 2).

Agency officials provided several reasons why they believe agencies receive few formal Title IX complaints:

Complaints are more commonly filed with the university or with Education and are rarely directly reported to the agency; Individuals may be unaware of their right to file complaints directly with the agency or how to file such a complaint; and Individuals may fear retaliation or a negative impact on their scientific career (see sidebar).

Retaliation At a state university, a graduate student reported her advisor for sexual harassment. The university substantiated her claim and the professor left the university. According to the victim, fellow students upset at the impact of the professor’s departure on their own research and academic careers, retaliated against her. Student-centered retaliation included taking her lab equipment without permission, ostracizing her from social events, and withholding critical information and resources necessary for her research. This retaliation caused her to move her workspace and lose progress on her own work.

Officials from DOE, NASA, HHS-NIH, and NSF stated they usually learn about instances of sexual harassment from other sources (e.g. media reports) and rarely from voluntary reporting from universities or other federal agencies. Title IX officials at two universities we interviewed agreed with agency officials about why few formal complaints are filed with agencies. For example, one Title IX official stated that concerns about retaliation for filing a complaint are amplified when there is an agency involved due to concerns over risk to the funding. Officials from NSF, which received the most formal Title IX complaints of the five agencies from fiscal year 2015 through 2019, stated that complaints to their agency have increased in recent years. They could not state definitively the reason for the recent increases, but said it may stem from the increased publicity of sexual harassment cases in STEM—including a Twitter movement known as #MeTooSTEM—along with NSF’s revised grant terms and conditions.

Two Agencies Lack or Have Outdated Title IX Complaint Procedures

DOJ’s regulations provide that federal agencies must establish and publish procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of complaints. While all five agencies specify general requirements for a formal complaint, two do not have clear or updated written procedures for processing and disposing of formal Title IX complaints. Specifically:

While DOE’s agency regulations stipulate that the agency will investigate allegations of discrimination under Title IX, agency officials stated that DOE does not currently have written Title IX complaint procedures. In November 2019, the agency provided a preliminary draft outline of its procedures, but officials stated that the agency does not have a timeline for when they may be finished. This is because the agency is devoting its resources to investigating current complaints, according to DOE officials.

The website for USDA’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights—the office handling complaints across the agency—contains a summary of procedures used to process and investigate discrimination complaints, but a USDA official stated that the procedures need more clarity with regard to the university and research environment. In November 2019, USDA officials highlighted a 1999 USDA Departmental Regulation that addresses processing administrative complaints of discrimination filed against any program or activity receiving financial assistance from USDA. Officials stated that this regulation was revised in fiscal year 2019 and is currently under review for approval. The Departmental Regulations as they stand are outdated, referencing out-of-date organizational responsibilities and department names.

Despite the absence of formal complaint procedures for DOE and outdated procedures for USDA, both agencies have evaluated formal Title IX complaints to determine if they meet the necessary criteria for investigation. Specifically, according to agency officials, USDA evaluated and investigated a formal Title IX complaint in fiscal year 2017, and DOE is currently evaluating a complaint to determine if it meets the criteria for a formal complaint. However, without clear and specific guidance for the processing and disposition of complaints, DOE is not complying with DOJ’s regulations—which require federal agencies to establish and publish complaint procedures—and may not be able to consistently and efficiently handle formal Title IX complaints. Moreover, under Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should implement control activities through policies. For example, management should periodically review procedures for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving the entity’s objectives or addressing related risks. Without updated complaint procedures, USDA does not have procedures that are aligned with the current structure and oversight responsibilities of the agency.

In contrast, NASA, NSF, and HHS-OCR have developed written procedures for how the agency receives, investigates, and resolves formal Title IX complaints. As seen in appendix I, the formal complaint process is extensive and complex, with evaluative benchmarks to be met prior to investigation.

USDA’s Complaint Website Is Unclear on Who Can File Title IX Complaints

According to officials, all five agencies use websites as the main mechanism for communicating information about Title IX complaints to individuals at university grantees. However, USDA’s website is not clear about who can file a Title IX complaint. NASA, HHS-OCR, NSF, and DOE each have a website intended to provide information about filing complaints specifically to individuals involved with agency-funded grants. On these websites, the agencies state that they accept Title IX complaints or sex discrimination complaints, among other types.

In contrast, USDA communicates information on its complaints process via a general discrimination website that is not specific to Title IX complaints or to individuals on agency-funded grants, making it unclear who can file Title IX complaints. Specifically, USDA provides information about complaint resolution through its Office of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights website, but grantees wishing to file a formal complaint would need to do so as a “customer,” a term that is not defined on the agency’s website and that individuals on agency-funded grants may not recognize as including them. A USDA official acknowledged that such individuals may not realize that they can file through the website. USDA officials told us that the agency would consider revising its website to make clear that individuals on USDA grants can file a formal discrimination complaint with the agency.

If USDA does not revise its website, the lack of clarity about who is a customer that can submit a complaint may inhibit its ability to obtain information necessary for Title IX oversight. Under Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. For example, management may communicate and receive information through established reporting lines, such as websites, from external parties that can help the agency achieve its objectives, such as oversight of Title IX. The lack of clear communication of quality information may reduce the effectiveness of USDA’s Title IX enforcement.

Unlike USDA, both HHS-OCR and DOE recently took action to improve website clarity on who can file a Title IX complaint. Specifically:

HHS-OCR’s website provides information on filing formal complaints for multiple forms of discrimination—such as race, age, and sex discrimination—and allows formal complaints from all who feel they have been discriminated against by a program or activity that receives funding from any part of HHS. In part due to issues raised during the course of our study, HHS-OCR published several new or updated websites in October 2019—including a Title IX page with university- based examples of entities covered under Title IX and a website on sex-based harassment outlining definitions and examples of what constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX. Before this update, it was not clear if individuals working on HHS-funded grants could file formal Title IX complaints via HHS-OCR’s website.

In October 2019, DOE updated its Title IX website to include clear information on the multiple ways individuals can file a formal Title IX complaint with the agency, after we pointed out that this information was missing from DOE’s website, according to officials. The updated website specifies that individuals can notify the agency of a Title IX complaint in person, by email, fax, or mail. Prior to this update, the website only provided information on how to mail the agency a Title IX complaint.

Two Agencies Communicate Other Reporting Options for Concerns

In addition to investigating Title IX complaints as required by Title IX, two agencies—HHS-NIH and NSF—go beyond this requirement by also reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual harassment— and publicly communicating the option for individuals to notify the agency of such concerns outside of the formal Title IX complaint process. “Concerns” are generally defined as information from individuals seeking to inform or notify the agency that sex discrimination has occurred or is occurring, but information is not intended to be a formal Title IX complaint. For example, HHS-NIH established a website, email, and online portal specifically for concerns of sexual harassment, publicly communicating this effort not only on the website, but also in public presentations and official statements. NIH officials stated the agency began reviewing concerns to provide clear channels of communication to NIH.

HHS-NIH also developed internal guidance, which is still evolving, for agency staff on how to process concerns from individuals at university grantees through coordination with the grantee. While formal Title IX complaint investigations are agency-led, investigations of sex discrimination concerns, including sexual harassment, filed with HHS-NIH are university-led, with HHS-NIH assessing the university grantee’s response to the allegation to ensure appropriate action is taken to ensure a safe research environment (see appendix II for more details). NSF also publicly communicates the option to notify the agency of concerns of sex discrimination via their Awardee Civil Rights website. In addition to providing details on who should file a formal complaint and how, NSF also provides information on how to notify the agency of concerns and what is done with this information. For example, NSF has initiated a Title IX compliance review for fiscal year 2020 based in part on information contained in a concern it received, according to officials.

In fiscal year 2019, HHS-NIH received 93 concerns of sex discrimination and NSF received 47, according to officials from each respective agency (see table 3).

In contrast, the remaining agencies—NASA, USDA, DOE, and HHS- OCR—do not publicly communicate the option to notify the agency of concerns of sex discrimination or sexual harassment. Although these agencies stated that they do review all information received—including information from those seeking to notify the agency of concerns—the review is primarily to determine if the information provided meets the agency’s criteria for a formal complaint. Those complaints meeting the criteria for a formal complaint are processed by the agency following the legally required Title IX complaint process. According to officials, the agencies may use the information from concerns to help select a site for a Title IX compliance review. As shown in table 3 above, officials from DOE, USDA, and NASA stated their respective agencies received no concerns of sex discrimination in fiscal year 2019, and HHS-OCR does not track concerns—referred to as communications—that the agency cannot investigate under Title IX, according to HHS-OCR officials. DOE officials stated that the agency received its first sex discrimination concern in fiscal year 2020 and therefore DOE was not aware individuals were looking to notify the agency of concerns. While these agencies accept concerns, they have received few or no concerns and have not publicly communicated that individuals may send concerns to them.

The 2018 NASEM report, agency officials, and stakeholders we interviewed all noted the importance of informal ways for individuals to report concerns outside of formal complaint processes. The NASEM report states that formal reporting procedures can re-victimize targets of harassment, and informal procedures—including the acceptance of anonymous complaints—may let them bring concerns forward without fear of retaliation. A stakeholder we interviewed pointed out the arduous nature of agencies’ formal complaint processes, and multiple stakeholders highlighted the difficulty of meeting the federal standard for a Title IX violation. All five agencies agreed that informal information— such as concerns—is helpful in providing the agency with additional information about the research environment on campus. Of the 140 total concerns of sex discrimination received in fiscal year 2019 by the agencies in our study, all were filed with either NSF or NIH. A comparison of the number of concerns and formal complaints received by the agencies shows that the five agencies as a whole received more than three times as many concerns in 1 year as they did formal complaints in 5 years.

Title IX specifies federal agencies’ Title IX oversight responsibilities— including enforcing Title IX compliance at the universities they fund. Under Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. For example, management may communicate and receive information through established reporting lines from external parties—in this case, through formal complaints and concerns—which can help the agency achieve its objectives, such as oversight of Title IX. By publicly communicating to individuals that they may notify the agency of a concern of sex discrimination outside of the formal Title IX complaint process, NASA, USDA, DOE, and HHS-OCR could receive additional information necessary for appropriate Title IX oversight. According to NSF officials, concerns not only reveal potential issues with the climate at an awardee university, they also aid in Title IX oversight by alerting the agency to possible Title IX violations a university may need to notify the agency of under the grant terms and conditions.

In addition to reviewing concerns of sex discrimination from individuals at university grantees, NSF receives notifications directly from university grantees. In 2018, NSF modified its grant terms and conditions to require university grantees to notify the agency if there is a finding of sexual harassment against a principal investigator (PI) or co-PI on an NSF-funded grant, or if administrative action was taken against a PI or co-PI due to an allegation or complaint of sexual harassment. In 2019, NSF established written procedures to review these notifications from university grantees to determine if the university handled the matter adequately and appropriately, and if further action is needed by NSF. NSF received 13 notifications from university grantees through the new grant terms and conditions in fiscal year 2019, according to agency officials. NASA, similar to NSF, proposed changes to its grant terms and conditions. NASA published its notice of the proposed change in July 2019. However, according to NASA officials, the Office of Science and Technology Policy requested that NASA consult with the National Science and Technology Council’s joint committee’s subcommittees— Safe and Inclusive Research Environments Subcommittee and Coordinating Administrative Requirements for Research Subcommittee— prior to moving forward with finalizing the terms and conditions. NASA consulted with the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2019 and received concurrence to move forward with finalizing the change to its terms and conditions, according to NASA officials. On March 10, 2020, NASA published a final notice of its new terms and conditions for grants. Upon implementation, the new terms and conditions requires, among other things, grantees to report to NASA any findings or determinations of sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault regarding a NASA funded PI or co-PI. The reporting requirement will be applied to all new NASA awards and funding amendments to existing awards made on or after the effective date—30 days from the date of the publicized notice.

HHS Components Do Not Share Information on Complaints and Concerns

HHS differs from the other four agencies in that formal complaints and concerns are handled by two different components, which do not communicate with each other regarding information on sexual harassment, according to officials from both HHS-OCR and HHS-NIH. HHS-OCR—the enforcement authority of the agency—has the authority to conduct Title IX compliance reviews and investigate formal Title IX complaints. However, as previously mentioned, HHS-NIH—the grant- making component—has independently developed its own avenue for receiving concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment.

The Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should internally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve its objectives. This communication includes conveying information down and across reporting lines to allow staff to perform key roles in achieving objectives and addressing risks. There are no formal procedures within HHS for communicating information across the agency components regarding Title IX complaints, concerns of sex discrimination including sexual harassment, or Title IX compliance, according to officials from both HHS-NIH and the HHS-OCR. An official from HHS-OCR stated that the department already shares broad information about findings of Title IX violations and completed Title IX compliance reviews via a listserv to HHS employees and stakeholders who subscribe, but HHS-NIH officials stated they were not aware of this information. HHS-NIH officials also stated they do not share information with HHS-OCR regarding concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, received by HHS-NIH or actions taken in response to these concerns. According to HHS-NIH officials, grantees are expected to provide safe and healthy working conditions—a term and condition of the grant—and therefore if harassment threatens the research environment, this is a potential violation of grant terms and conditions and officials stated that HHS-NIH has the authority to handle it.

Establishing procedures for communicating grantee sexual harassment findings could improve efforts by both HHS-NIH and HHS-OCR to prevent sexual harassment at universities. For example, HHS-OCR could use HHS-NIH data to aid in selecting grantees for Title IX compliance reviews. Additionally, HHS-NIH could use HHS-OCR’s compliance review findings to inform oversight of NIH grants—including modifying university grantees’ grant terms and conditions if there were findings of non- compliance. Officials from HHS-OCR agreed that information on concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, from HHS-NIH would be helpful. HHS-NIH officials also agreed that information sharing may be useful for cross agency awareness, but HHS-NIH officials asserted that a formal agreement would be necessary to ensure privacy when sharing information. HHS-NIH officials did not provide any further details on what should be included in a formal agreement for sharing information on sex discrimination concerns, including sexual harassment.

Agencies Have Established and Communicated New Grantee Sexual Harassment Prevention Policies but Lack an Overall Plan

All five agencies have taken additional steps beyond Title IX compliance requirements to address sexual harassment by university grantees. As we reported in June 2019, all five agencies have developed and communicated grantee sexual harassment prevention policies, with some providing more detailed guidance than others. All five agencies have also established grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts beyond those required by Title IX, to varying degrees. For example, as we noted above, HHS-NIH launched a website to receive concerns of sex discrimination including sexual harassment, and NSF and NASA have modified grant terms and conditions that require universities to report findings of sexual harassment. All of the agencies we reviewed established and communicated their sexual harassment prevention efforts to grantees within the last 3 fiscal years, and most of them have continued to update and communicate them since we last reported on their efforts in June 2019 (see sidebar for an agency example and appendix III for more information on agencies’ efforts).

Agencies have taken steps to create goals for and evaluate some of their individual grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts. However, four of the five agencies have not created goals for all prevention efforts. In addition, none of the five agencies have a plan designed to assess progress toward achieving those goals, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate their various grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts together—both those that are required by Title IX and those that go beyond these requirements.

USDA created a poster for grantees that describes how the agency prohibits discrimination in all forms, including discrimination on the basis of sex. The poster also provides information on how to file a discrimination complaint with USDA by phone, mail, fax or email. USDA requires all grantees to prominently display the poster in all offices where there is a USDA presence and where it may be read by customers. USDA also requires that the poster be a specific size.

NSF and USDA-NIFA do not have goals for all of their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts, according to officials. In addition, NASA and DOE have or are in the process of establishing goals for some prevention efforts related to Title IX requirements, while HHS-NIH has created goals for all of their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts. NASA and DOE have goals or plan to establish goals for sexual harassment prevention efforts required by Title IX—such as compliance reviews—but they lack goals that include all other sexual harassment prevention efforts for university grantees. For example, according to NASA officials, NASA’s strategic plan has goals for equal opportunity and diversity and inclusion for the NASA workforce and grantees, and it includes a goal for the agency to promote equal opportunity for grantees and to encourage them to use best practices identified by NASA. To measure progress toward this goal, NASA officials told us that the agency plans to establish a timeline to track the percentage of Title IX compliance activities completed by grantees. However, NASA has not established goals for its other grantee sexual harassment prevention initiatives. In addition, DOE officials told us that they are in the process of establishing a goal for the number of Title IX compliance reviews they conduct each year, but DOE does not have goals or a plan for evaluating other DOE grantee sexual harassment prevention initiatives.

In contrast, HHS-NIH’s Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director has created goals for HHS-NIH’s various grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts and steps to achieve them. These goals include assessing the current state of sexual harassment allegation investigation, reporting, remediation, and disciplinary procedures at NIH- funded organizations; advising grantees on oversight, accountability, and reporting measures that will encourage a reduction in, and prevention of sexual harassment; and developing strategies for encouraging research on anti-harassment policies, procedures and training, and measures and evaluations of their effectiveness. HHS-NIH developed recommendations for the steps needed to achieve these goals, including immediate, actionable efforts and longer-term efforts to change the culture within NIH and at universities to end sexual harassment. HHS-NIH officials published a final report and recommendations in December 2019. The report recommended that HHS-NIH establish a hotline and a web- based form for reporting sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior by any principal investigator or key personnel funded by HHS-NIH, and that HHS-NIH also conduct an analysis of the prevalence and antecedents of sexual and gender harassment in order to develop interventions that address goal-specified gaps, among others.

Agencies Do Not Have an Overall Plan to Regularly Monitor and Evaluate All Grantee Sexual Harassment Prevention Efforts

In addition to most of the agencies not having goals for all of their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts, none of the five agencies have a plan to measure progress toward achieving those goals, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate them all. Some of the agencies have taken steps toward conducting evaluations of some—but not all—of their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts:

Evaluations of policies and procedures. Three agencies—NASA, NSF, and DOE—have evaluated or are beginning to evaluate some of their sexual harassment policies and procedures for university grantees. NASA officials said they conduct evaluations every five years for all of their agency’s civil rights compliance and complaints procedures, including their Title IX compliance review procedures. NSF is also developing an evaluation plan for its new sexual harassment reporting requirements and how they have affected grantees. NSF officials said that they have an evaluation team in place, which has outlined an approach for evaluating the new grant terms and conditions and has begun gathering information from universities. In addition, DOE officials told us that they are currently reviewing other agencies’ policies and using them as a benchmark as they draft their own grantee policies.

However, agencies have not periodically evaluated all of their own sexual harassment policies and procedures related to university grantees. Agencies provided examples of evaluations of grantee or employee prevention policies, rather than an evaluation of their own policies created for university grantees. It is unclear why agencies have not yet established methods to evaluate all of their sexual harassment prevention efforts for university grantees, and we recognize the challenge in doing so. Yet agencies have found ways to evaluate the policies of other entities. For example, officials from HHS-OCR told us that they use information from past compliance reviews to improve their compliance review and resolution requirements for grantees. However, compliance reviews are an evaluation of the university grantee’s sexual harassment prevention policies and procedures, not HHS’s. In addition, when asked whether HHS-NIH evaluates its grantee sexual harassment policies, HHS-NIH officials did not give any examples of evaluations of their own policies created for university grantees. Instead, they gave an example of a climate survey they administered to their employees for work-life climate and harassment. Title IX officials from two universities and one university system all said none of the five agencies had asked for their opinions on how effective the agencies’ sexual harassment prevention policies for grantees are. Nor had they requested suggestions for improvement, even though at least one of the five agencies had been in direct contact with two of these officials for a recent compliance review.

Evaluations of communication mechanisms. None of the five agencies periodically evaluate the mechanisms for how they communicate their sexual harassment prevention policies and procedures to individuals at universities receiving federal grants. Instead, agencies rely on general efforts to evaluate their website or are developing plans for such an evaluation. As a result, the agencies do not know the extent to which their various communication mechanisms are working and whether students, researchers, faculty, and university officials are getting the information they need from these mechanisms.

For example, as previously stated, all five agencies use their website as the main mechanism to communicate information about Title IX complaint procedures to individuals at universities receiving federal grants. While agencies have taken steps to add more information to their websites for individuals at universities receiving federal grants, we found some of the agencies’ websites difficult to navigate. Even when key content existed, it was sometimes spread across multiple sections of the website or buried in supplemental materials, or in one case, associated with an incorrect destination page. For example, NSF officials stated that they prefer formal Title IX complaints be filed via their online complaint portal. However, this tool is not linked to the tab of the website discussing how to file complaints. Additionally, HHS-OCR’s newly-developed Title IX and sex-based harassment websites are not referenced or linked to the information on laws and regulations enforced by HHS-OCR or the complaints page. Rather, from the HHS-OCR home page, one would have to know to click on the “Special Topics” link to find links to the two new websites or find the link to the “Sex-based Harassment” page embedded within the new Title IX website. All of the agencies acknowledged issues with their websites. For example, NSF officials acknowledged that their agency’s website may not be user-friendly to individuals at universities—such as students—and is in the process of revising the website to increase ease of use.

None of the five agencies have periodically evaluated this key communication tool at this time. NASA officials said that they evaluate their website for grantees, but these evaluations are not systematic and have not specifically focused on their sexual harassment prevention efforts for grantees. HHS-NIH officials said that they receive some feedback on the agency’s webpages, and the agency keeps track of website user satisfaction to improve their quality in general, but this effort is not specific to evaluating how HHS-NIH communicates information on sexual harassment prevention to grantees. NSF officials said they are planning to conduct an evaluation on the effectiveness of their communication efforts with their grantee community and will include actions that result from that evaluation in NSF’s corrective action plan. As previously mentioned, HHS-OCR and DOE recently took action to improve website clarity on who can file a Title IX complaint, in part due to issues raised during the course of our study.

Evaluating the effectiveness of their communication mechanisms is important, as agencies may not be clearly communicating their sexual harassment prevention policies and procedures to their intended audiences. Nor can they be sure these policies and procedures are reaching the right university officials. For example, Title IX officials from two universities and one university system said that they had not received any information from the five agencies on their sexual harassment prevention policies for grantees. Two Title IX officials stated that, even if this information is already provided to the university departments or offices conducting scientific research, it should also be given to the university’s Title IX office, with one official noting they are the part of the university responsible for overseeing compliance with sexual harassment policies and procedures under Title IX. Title IX university officials also told us that the federal agencies providing their grants had never provided them with information on agencies’ policies and procedures for how individuals at their institutions could file sexual harassment complaints. One Title IX university official described how they would not know how to tell someone to proceed if they wanted to file a complaint with the agency funding their research project.

Officials from all five agencies acknowledged the value of evaluating their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts and noted that they may be able to conduct such evaluations in the future. In addition, four of the agencies have a general goal to prevent sexual harassment by their university grantees, and all have recognized the need to move beyond their current grantee sexual harassment policies and procedures. As we reported in June 2019, their completed or planned actions include modifying current department- level or agency-wide policy statements to include more specific definitions and examples of sexual harassment and strengthening requirements for their university grantees to report on findings of sexual harassment. The 2018 NASEM report also noted that, while it is clear that the agencies are concerned about sexual harassment in STEM, it is not yet apparent whether and how actions such as their new policy statements will translate into meaningful action.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances; for example, in defining objectives, management may clearly define what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government also state that federal agencies should establish and operate monitoring activities to evaluate results, select and periodically evaluate methods of communication, and define objectives in specific and measurable terms. We recognize that the agencies’ civil rights or diversity offices are responsible for enforcing and overseeing a number of other civil rights laws, Executive Orders, regulations, and policy directives for grantees and their own employees, and that sexual harassment prevention efforts for grantees are just some of their many discrimination prevention initiatives. We also recognize that most agencies’ grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts are new, and in some cases, still under development. However, establishing goals and an overall plan to assess progress toward achieving those goals—including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms— would better position the agencies to effectively coordinate and integrate such activities. It would also help them holistically evaluate all their efforts—both those that are required by Title IX and those that go beyond these requirements—to help grantees prevent sexual harassment at universities, determine whether their policies and procedures are reaching the populations they intend to receive the information, and allow them to more effectively target outreach if they find that there are deficiencies.

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM Discussion Group Aids Collaboration but Has Not Fully Implemented Two Key Leading Practices

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group provides a forum for the five agencies to collaborate and share information on Title IX compliance. While DOJ has implemented four of the six relevant leading practices on federal interagency collaboration, it has not fully implemented two key practices—agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities and developing mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting collaborative efforts. Outside of the discussion group, the five agencies have taken collaborative steps to address the culture and climate for women in STEM.

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM Discussion Group Facilitates Information Sharing across Agencies, but DOJ Has Not Fully Implemented Two Key Leading Practices on Collaboration

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group facilitates collaboration and shares best practices on Title IX enforcement across the five agencies. Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when organizations act separately. Since February 2016, after reconstituting the Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group, DOJ has held quarterly group meetings to share information on Title IX enforcement. According to DOJ officials, the agencies discuss several topics, including:

Strategies for conducting Title IX compliance reviews, including joint

Strategies for investigating Title IX complaints

General discussion of Title IX complaints, including sexual

Title IX court cases and case history Officials at the five agencies agreed the group is useful to coordinate and share information on Title IX, for example, by avoiding duplication in compliance reviews and complaint investigations. Indeed, when multiple agencies received the same Title IX complaint, the three agencies collaborated with DOJ to determine which one would handle the complaint, according to officials. DOJ also provides technical assistance and training on Title IX enforcement, according to officials.

Some agency officials identified steps that could potentially improve collaboration within the group, including:

Clarifying and documenting the group’s purpose, scope, and roles and responsibilities to ease transition of new agency staff and leadership Incorporating more specific topics related to sexual harassment in meeting agendas Involving all federal agencies that fund STEM research at universities.

Although agencies are not required to follow leading practices for interagency collaboration, doing so can enhance and sustain such collaboration, thereby improving performance and results. DOJ officials told us the agency has adopted leading practices for interagency collaboration as part of the group. Based on information from DOJ, we found the agency’s actions were consistent with four out of six of the relevant leading practices we have identified for collaborating across agencies. We also found that DOJ could take additional steps to fully adopt the remaining two leading practices, as shown in table 4.

Without implementing the two interagency collaboration leading practices, DOJ is missing an opportunity to enhance and sustain collaboration among the five agencies we reviewed as they continue to address the problem of sexual harassment at universities.

Agencies Have Taken Steps to Address the Culture and Climate for Women in STEM

All five agencies reported taking collaborative steps with universities and federal agencies to address the culture and climate for women in STEM. For example, in 2019, HHS-NIH established a working group with university experts to collaboratively assess the current state of procedures for sexual harassment allegation investigation, reporting, remediation, and discipline at NIH-funded organizations. In December 2019, the working group made several recommendations. For example, it recommended that NIH require each principal investigator and key personnel on an NIH grant attest that they have not been found to have violated their institution’s code of professional conduct, including having a finding of sexual harassment, for a determined period of time. The working group also recommended that NIH create a parallel process to treat professional misconduct, including sexual harassment, as seriously as research misconduct.

In addition, DOE, NASA, NSF, and USDA collaborated with universities at conferences and meetings.

According to DOE officials, the agency attends the annual conference of university Title IX administrators, where participants discuss issues related to Title IX, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

In 2016, NASA held a conference to help universities address sexual harassment and share best practices to increase participation of underrepresented populations in STEM education (see sidebar). According to NASA officials, attendees included university presidents, deans, and provosts, as well as NASA leaders. The agency is planning another conference in 2020, according to NASA officials.

NSF presented information on Title IX and their policies and procedures at numerous conferences and meetings in 2018 and 2019, according to officials.

USDA-NIFA served on the planning committee and participated in a conference with public land grant universities to discuss diversity and inclusion in 2018. According to officials, USDA is considering participation in future events.

Such efforts to go beyond compliance reviews and to address the larger culture and climate of STEM research are consistent with the 2018 NASEM report, which states that “adherence to legal requirements is necessary but not sufficient to drive the change needed to address sexual harassment.” increase participation in NASA business and grant opportunities, and education programs. address important issues related to America’s research environment. The joint committee also established the Safe and Inclusive Research Environments Subcommittee, in which DOE, HHS (including NIH), NASA, and NSF participate, along with other federal agencies and offices. USDA-NIFA is a member of the joint committee but does not participate in the Safe and Inclusive Research Environments Subcommittee; instead, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service participates in the subcommittee. The goals and planned actions of the joint committee and subcommittee have not been determined yet, according to Office of Science and Technology Policy officials. Office of Science and Technology Policy officials told us in December 2019 that its work plan is complete, but there are no plans to release it publicly since it is a deliberative document. The subcommittee is broadly focused on preventing harassment in research environments.

Conclusions

Sexual harassment in higher education is degrading and illegal. In 2017 alone, the media covered over 97 allegations of sexual harassment at institutions of higher education with some of the most high-profile cases occurring in the fields of science, engineering and medicine, according to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Federal agencies, in connection with the billions of dollars in research funding they provide to universities and other institutions each year, are required to enforce Title IX—prohibiting sex discrimination, including sexual harassment—at these universities. As part of their enforcement responsibilities, all five agencies have conducted the required Title IX compliance reviews, but three agencies—DOE, HHS-OCR, and USDA— are missing an opportunity to share promising practices from their Title IX compliance reviews with the broader grantee community. Given that these agencies conduct compliance reviews at only a handful of the hundreds of grantees they fund in any given year, the vast majority of grantees receive little to no information on Title IX compliance reviews from these agencies.

Another tool federal agencies can use to address sexual harassment is the prompt processing and disposition of Title IX complaints from students and employees. Although all five selected agencies received Title IX complaints, DOE and USDA have not finalized and published complaint procedures, as required by DOJ’s regulations. Furthermore, USDA does not provide clear information about the complaint process on its website—its primary means of communicating information to individuals and grantees. As a result, the agency may be missing the opportunity to better serve individuals seeking relief from sexual harassment at universities.

Federal agencies can also review information from individuals seeking to notify the agency of a concern related to sex discrimination—including sexual harassment—in an informal manner outside of the Title IX complaint process. However, only HHS-NIH and NSF communicate the option to submit concerns, and only HHS-NIH has a written process for reviewing such concerns. In a single year, these concerns outnumbered formal Title IX complaints received by all the agencies over 5 years. The 2018 NASEM report, agency officials, and stakeholders we interviewed noted the importance of informal ways for individuals to report concerns outside of formal complaint processes, which can protect an individual from retaliation, alert agencies to possible Title IX violations, and help agencies select sites for Title IX compliance reviews.

Two HHS components—NIH and OCR—do not share sexual harassment complaint information with each other. This poses the risk that HHS-NIH will be unaware of situations in which HHS-OCR finds non-compliance with Title IX and may approve a STEM research grant for that university. It also raises the possibility that NIH will receive concerns about a university that may warrant a Title IX compliance review, but the Office for Civil Rights may be unaware of these concerns.

Establishing clear goals and an overall plan can help agencies assess progress and manage change, including, in this case, the creation of new sexual harassment prevention efforts for grantees. Although all five agencies have established a variety of prevention efforts, they have done so without a plan, and without methods to evaluate their policies and how they communicate them. As a result, agencies do not have a way to measure progress toward preventing sexual harassment at their university grantees, including how or whether these efforts are helping university grantees and individuals who have been subject to harassment.

Finally, interagency coordination can help improve the results of agency activities. DOJ has not fully adopted two key interagency collaboration leading practices for its interagency working group. Without doing so, the agency is missing an opportunity to enhance and sustain collaboration among agencies as they continue to address the problem of sexual harassment at universities.

Recommendations

We are making 17 recommendations, including four to DOE, one to DOJ, four to HHS, two to NASA, one to NSF, and five to USDA. Specifically:

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to publicize promising practices for Title IX compliance on its websites for their university grantees. (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity to publicize promising practices for Title IX compliance on its websites for their university grantees. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Director for the Office for Civil Rights to publicize a stand-alone list of promising practices for Title IX compliance on its websites for their university grantees. (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity to finalize and publish Title IX complaint procedures, consistent with DOJ’s regulations. (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to finalize and publish revised Title IX complaint procedures. (Recommendation 5)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to clarify on its website that individuals on USDA-funded grants can file Title IX complaints through the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights—including clarifying who is considered “customers.” (Recommendation 6)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Director for the Office for Civil Rights to assess the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination— including sexual harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency-funded grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns, outside of the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 7)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity to assess the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency-funded grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns, outside of the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 8)

The Administrator of NASA should assess the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency-funded grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns, outside of the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 9)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to assess the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency- funded grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns, outside of the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 10)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Director for the Office for Civil Rights and the Director of NIH to develop and implement formal procedures for sharing relevant information about Title IX (compliance reviews, violations, and complaints) and sex discrimination concerns, including sexual harassment. For example, HHS components should internally share information regarding findings of Title IX violations, concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and Title IX compliance review reports. (Recommendation 11)

The Secretary of Energy should establish goals and an overall plan to assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination websites). (Recommendation 12)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should establish goals and an overall plan to assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination websites). (Recommendation 13)

The Administrator of NASA should establish goals and an overall plan to assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination websites). (Recommendation 14)

The Director of NSF should establish goals and an overall plan to assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination websites). (Recommendation 15)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should establish goals and an overall plan to assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination websites). (Recommendation 16)

In consultation with DOE, HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice should direct the responsible Civil Rights Division sections to fully adopt two federal interagency leading practices—agree on agency’s roles and responsibilities and develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report results of collaborative efforts, for its Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group. (Recommendation 17)

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft this report to DOE, DOJ, Education, HHS, NASA, NSF, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and USDA for review and comment. We received written comments from the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, as well as NASA and NSF that are reprinted in appendixes IV through IX, and summarized below. Education did not have comments on the draft report, but it provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Office of Science and Technology Policy stated that it did not have comments on the draft report.

All six of the agencies and departments to which we made recommendations stated that they agreed with the recommendations and most provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The agencies’ comments are summarized below: In the Department of Agriculture's written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, the department agreed with all five recommendations. USDA outlined actions for improving the complaint process and communication with university grantees. For example, the department stated that its regulation for processing complaints is currently in the clearance process for publication. In addition, USDA will reach out to other agencies within the quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group to assess best practices for monitoring and evaluating sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms.

In DOE's written comments, reproduced in appendix V, the department agreed with all four recommendations. DOE plans to publicize a promising practice guide on its website, publish complaint procedures, and evaluate the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment. The department estimates completion by the end of calendar year 2020. DOE will establish goals for prevention efforts and an overall plan by the end of January 2021 and August 2021, respectively.

In HHS's comments, reproduced in appendix VI, the department agreed with all four recommendations. In response to one recommendation, HHS stated that HHS-OCR and HHS-NIH would review the current procedure, and develop and implement, as necessary, formal procedures for sharing relevant information about Title IX and sexual harassment concerns. However, the department also noted that it did not "share GAO's supposition that coordination of Title IX enforcement between HHS-OCR and HHS-NIH raises privacy concerns." Therefore, we removed this portion of our recommendation. As stated in the report, it was HHS-NIH officials who asserted that a formal agreement is needed to ensure privacy when sharing information, in particular sexual harassment concerns. For another recommendation, the department stated that HHS-NIH has established goals and will develop a plan to assess progress towards achieving these goals, and that HHS-OCR will also develop a plan for its Title IX enforcement and outreach efforts.

In DOJ's written comments, reproduced in appendix VII, the department generally agreed with our recommendation. DOJ stated that the department is prepared to delineate the agencies' roles and responsibilities within the interagency group (quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group), as recommended. DOJ also plans to develop an enhanced process for evaluating, monitoring, and reporting on the group's collaborations in enforcing Title IX that is achievable within its current resource allocation, or if more resources become available.

In NASA's comments, reproduced in appendix VIII, the agency concurred with our two recommendations. NASA stated that the agency plans to assess the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination and harassment and estimates completion by September 20, 2020. Through the interagency process, NASA will also adopt the policies and procedures developed by the National Science and Technology Council, overseen by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

In NSF's written comments, reproduced in appendix IX, the agency agreed with our recommendation for goals and an overall plan to assess sexual harassment prevention efforts. NSF is embarking on an assessment process to improve its policies and practices continually in order to achieve the goal of safe and inclusive research environments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Energy, and Health and Human Services; the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science and Technology Policy; the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Attorney General for the Department of Justice; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix X.

Appendix I: General Procedures for Evaluating and Investigating Formal Title IX Complaints at Five Agencies

While Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations require federal agencies to establish and publish complaint procedures, according to the DOJ Title IX Legal Manual, agency regulations with respect to procedures for the investigation of complaints of discriminatory practices are typically brief and lack details as to the manner or timetable for such an inquiry. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have developed complaint manuals in addition to the agencies’ Title IX regulations. According to NSF and NASA officials, both agencies follow the same general processes as those published in DOJ guidance or the Department of Education’s Investigative Manual for the prompt processing and disposition of complaints. Figure 3 is a visualization of the general Title IX complaint process described in NASA’s and NSF’s complaint manuals.

Formal complaints can conclude in one of four ways: 1) dismissed for a variety of reasons—such as untimeliness or lack of information; 2) referred to another agency based on jurisdiction or authority; 3) resolved through a voluntary resolution process; or 4) resolved via an investigation and formal finding—either supporting the allegation or not. While the formal complaint may be alleging a discriminatory act against an individual, agency investigations focus on the university grantee’s compliance or non-compliance with Title IX. According to NASA and NSF officials, if there is a finding of non-compliance with Title IX, the onus is on the university grantee to take actions to come into compliance—which may include disciplinary action against the harasser.

Appendix II: Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health Process for Responding to Concerns

In recent years, the National Institutes of Health within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-NIH) has publicly addressed the agency’s efforts to prevent sexual harassment in science and elevate the seriousness with which the agency takes this issue through action. While already receiving information of sex discrimination concerns, including sexual harassment, from relationships built with institutions—including universities, in March 2019, HHS-NIH launched an email address to receive concerns about sexual harassment directly from individuals involved in HHS-NIH funded projects at universities. Shortly after, in June 2019, HHS-NIH also created an online portal in response to user feedback requesting a method of anonymous reporting. HHS-NIH developed preliminary internal guidance for staff regarding the process for handling concerns (see figure 4).

According to officials, in order to review a concern, HHS-NIH needs basic information about the allegation, including:

First and last name of the person who may have committed Institution that employs that person

Brief description of the incident HHS-NIH notifies universities of the concern and may request details on the allegation and the university’s response to the allegations, according to officials. As part of this process, HHS-NIH assesses the university grantee’s response to ensure it is taking appropriate actions to ensure a safe research environment—altering the grant terms and conditions if needed to remove or replace key grant personnel. For example, in 2018, HHS-NIH followed up on sexual harassment-related concerns at more than 20 universities. According to a 2019 HHS-NIH Director Statement, this follow-up resulted in the replacement of 14 principal investigators named on NIH grant awards, disciplinary actions taken by awardee universities against 21 principal investigators—including termination of employment—and removal of 14 individuals from peer review. According to HHS-NIH officials, in fiscal year 2019 HHS-NIH received 93 concerns regarding sexual harassment. HHS-NIH does not just review allegations against personnel already funded by HHS-NIH, but also assesses if the allegations are against applicants for HHS-NIH funding. If a principal investigator or co-principal investigator listed on an application for an HHS-NIH grant is named in an allegation, HHS-NIH works with the institution to gather more information about the allegation in the context of HHS-NIH funded research. While the institution is conducting an internal investigation into the allegations, they may request to change the principal investigator or remove a co-principal investigator listed on the application. This may be a temporary or permanent action depending on the circumstances and the institution’s findings.

Appendix III: Five Agencies’ Sexual Harassment Prevention Efforts for Grantees

This appendix contains a summary of the five agencies’ sexual harassment prevention efforts for university grantees or individuals at universities receiving federal grants as of December 2019. This summary indicates the implementation status for each agency’s efforts, and whether they were complete, in progress or partially implemented, or not reported. These efforts are grouped in three categories: 1) activities required by Title IX, 2) activities beyond those required by Title IX, and 3) evaluation activities (see figures 5, 6, and 7, respectively).

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix IX: Comments from the National Science Foundation

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments

John Neumann, (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov In addition to the individual named above, Mark Gaffigan (Managing Director), Melissa Emrey-Arras (Director), Robert Marek (Assistant Director), Michelle St. Pierre (Assistant Director), Nkenge Gibson (Analyst-in-Charge), Nora Adkins, Caitlin Cusati, Cindy Gilbert, Kristy Kennedy, Anika McMillon, Kristen Pinnock, Amanda Postiglione, Janay Sam, and Benjamin Shouse made key contributions to this report.