SSA administers three major federal programs that provide benefits to more than 50 million people. The Old Age and Survivors Insurance program provides benefits to retired workers and their dependents and survivors. The Disability Insurance program provides benefits to disabled workers. Supplemental Security Income provides income for aged, blind, and disabled individuals with limited incomes and resources. Heading SSA is a Commissioner who leads a central office in Baltimore and 10 regional offices. The field organization, which is decentralized to provide service at the local level, includes approximately 1,300 field offices. Federal law prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability (see app. II for more details about antidiscrimination laws). Under EEOC regulations, employees or applicants for employment who believe that they have been discriminated against by a federal agency may file a complaint with that agency. Before filing a complaint, the employee must consult an EEO counselor at the agency in order to try to informally resolve the matter. The employee must contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. EEO counselors should determine if the employee believes that his or her problem is the result of one or more of the allowable bases—race, color, sex (including equal pay), religion, national origin, age (40 and over), or disability—or in retaliation for having participated in an activity, such as filing a complaint, that is protected by the various antidiscrimination statutes. Counselors are to advise individuals that, where the agency agrees to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the particular case, they may choose to participate in either counseling or in ADR. After the counselor determines the basis or bases and claims, he or she is to conduct a limited inquiry of the matter, which generally involves speaking or meeting with the two parties. When the counselor has a good grasp of the issues involved, he or she is ready to attempt resolution. Resolution means that the employee and the agency come to terms with the matter and agree on a solution. In seeking resolution, the counselor is to listen to and understand the viewpoint of both parties and act as a neutral and not as an advocate for either the employee or the agency. Counseling is to be completed within 30 days from the date the employee contacted the EEO office for counseling. If the matter is not resolved by the 30th day of counseling or if ADR is unsuccessful, the counselor is required to inform the employee in writing of his or her right to file a formal discrimination complaint with the agency. The written notice must inform the employee of the (1) right to file a discrimination complaint within 15 days of receipt of the notice, (2) appropriate agency official with whom to file a complaint, and (3) duty to ensure that the agency is informed immediately if the complainant retains counsel or a representative. After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint. If the agency dismisses the complaint, the complainant can appeal the dismissal to EEOC. If the agency accepts the complaint, it must investigate the complaint and present the complainant with a report of the investigation results. The complainant may then choose between requesting a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge or a final decision from the agency. Because SSA requires all employees to file formal complaints with its headquarters in Baltimore, the formal process was outside of the scope of our review. Appendix II provides additional information on the processing of employment discrimination complaints. SSA’s national workforce is predominantly women—about 71 percent in fiscal year 2002—and Region X’s workforce mirrors this in all ethnic groups. For each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001, about two-thirds of all Region X employees were women. The majority of Region X employees were age 40 and over, constituting about three-quarters of the workforce in each year. The number of employees with disabilities increased slightly from about 10 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 11 percent in fiscal year 2001. Over the 5-year period, most of the Region X workforce was in the general schedule (GS) grade levels 5 through 12. The distribution across grade levels by EEO group varied somewhat but was generally close to the representation of the various EEO groups in the Region’s workforce. The main differences were higher proportions of men in the GS-13 through 15 grade levels and higher representation of African Americans and Hispanics in the GS-5 through 8 grades. As discussed in the section on hiring, substantial numbers of African Americans and Hispanics have been hired over the last few years, which may explain their higher representation in grades GS-5 through 8. See appendix III for a discussion of grade levels by EEO group. Figure 1 shows the Region X workforce by EEO group for fiscal years 1997 and 2001. From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2001, the EEO group that experienced the largest increase in its percentage of the workforce was Hispanic women, who almost doubled from 57, or 3.3 percent of the workforce, to 120, or 6.5 percent. This increase was followed by that of Asian women, who increased by almost two-thirds from 55, or 3.2 percent of the workforce, in fiscal year 1997 to 93, or 5.0 percent of the workforce, in fiscal year 2001. The percentage of the workforce represented by White men and women and by AIAN women declined over the 5-year period. To judge its diversity, SSA compares its workforce with the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Because the CLF data SSA uses are based on 1990 census data, we also calculated regional civilian workforce (CWF) data of those age 18 and older in the four states covered by Region X for fiscal year 2001, based on 2001 Current Population Survey data. Table 1 shows data on the composition of the Region X workforce in fiscal years 1997 and 2001 and compares those workforces to data on the CLF and CWF. Region X generally had a higher or equal representation of minority employees in its workforce for all EEO groups compared with both the CLF and the CWF, except AIAN men in fiscal years 1997 and 2001 and AIAN women in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the representation of White men in the Region was below the CLF and the CWF for both fiscal years 1997 and 2001. We reviewed the EEO groups of those individuals who in fiscal years 1997 through 2001 were hired, promoted, separated, or received awards or against whom Region X took adverse actions. For most of the personnel actions we reviewed, our analysis showed no statistically significant differences among EEO groups, but it did show statistically significant differences for some types of awards and adverse actions. The analysis showed statistically significant differences among races and between the sexes concerning quality step increases for fiscal year 2001. We also found statistically significant differences by race/ethnicity for nonmonetary, or honor, awards. Our statistical analysis showed no significant differences among EEO groups for written reprimands; however, it showed statistically significant differences among races for suspensions and statistically significant differences between the sexes concerning involuntary separations. Human capital management principles include certain internal safeguards to help achieve consistency, equity, nondiscrimination, and nonpoliticization in the performance management process. One of these safeguards can be reviewing the results of personnel actions for statistically significant differences across groups. According to a Region X official, the Region has not reviewed such differences to uncover their causes or to determine their appropriateness. From fiscal 1997 through fiscal year 2001, hiring among all minority groups except AIAN men and women increased as a percentage of those hired. The largest increase occurred among Hispanics. Hiring of Hispanic women increased from 9, or 5.1 percent of all hiring, in fiscal year 1997 to 21, or 9.8 percent in fiscal year 2001. Hiring of Hispanic men increased from 4, or 2.3 percent of all hiring, in fiscal year 1997 to 14, or 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2001. According to SSA officials, one of the reasons for the increase in Hispanic hires was that in fiscal year 1998 the Region hired 57 Spanish language bilingual telephone service representatives when Spanish language calls began being routed to the Auburn Teleservice Center as part of the national phase-in of the “direct-in” option of service for the Spanish- speaking public. African American women had the largest decrease in the percentage of hires they represent, and the percentage of AIAN men and women declined slightly. Figure 2 shows hiring in Region X by EEO group for fiscal years 1997 and 2001. All EEO groups were hired at rates that were above their representation in the workforce, except White men and women. Promotions involve either the selection of a current or former federal employee for a higher grade position, using procedures that compare the candidates on merit (i.e., competitive promotions), or promotion of an employee without competition when the employee had earlier been competitively selected and had demonstrated readiness for the next grade (i.e., career ladder promotions). Because career ladder promotions do not involve current competition, we focused on competitive promotions. We calculated the percentage of promotions received by members of each EEO group over the 5-year period and compared it with the group’s average percentage of the workforce overall. This comparison showed that most EEO groups were promoted at a rate that was generally about the same as or somewhat higher than each group’s average percentage of representation in the workforce for the period. African American men and White women had the largest positive percentage difference (1.1 percent) between their percentage of competitive promotions and representation in the workforce. Only White men and African American women were promoted at rates lower than their average percentage of representation in the workforce, with a 2.2 and 1.0 percentage difference, respectively. Table 2 compares the percentage of competitive promotions to the average percentage representation of each EEO group in the workforce for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in Region X. Experience, training, and awards are among the elements considered in the merit promotion process. Appendix IV describes by EEO group, those employees in Region X who participated in selected training opportunities and received temporary promotions and awards during fiscal years 1997 through 2001. Concerning awards, our statistical analysis showed that for the 5-year period, Whites were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than African Americans, Hispanics, and AIANs; Asians were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than Hispanics and AIANs; and African Americans were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than Hispanics. There were no statistically significant differences between men and women. Because the Region acknowledged a disparity among racial/ethnic groups concerning quality step increases and began trying to address this disparity in fiscal year 1997, we also did a statistical analysis of quality step increases for fiscal year 2001 alone. By fiscal year 2001, only two statistically significant differences remained—women were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than men and Hispanics were significantly less likely to receive quality step increases than African Americans or Whites—which shows substantial progress. Our analysis also showed that for the 5-year period, Asians were significantly more likely to receive nonmonetary, or honor, awards than Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. Also, AIANs were significantly more likely to receive honor awards than Hispanics. Our statistical significance analysis was not designed to determine whether or not discrimination occurred. However, the analysis could indicate areas warranting further study. Separations include voluntary transfer to another SSA regional office, resignation, retirement, and involuntary removal or termination. Involuntary separations are discussed under adverse actions. Although there were definite increases in the percentage of separations among specific EEO groups for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, all EEO groups experienced fluctuations in separations over the 5 years we reviewed. In addition, the percentage of separations accounted for by retirements increased from about a third in fiscal year 1997, to about 40 percent in fiscal year 1998, peaked at about 55 percent in fiscal year 1999, declined to almost 40 percent in fiscal year 2000, and returned to about a third in fiscal year 2001. We calculated the percentage of separations each EEO group represented over the 5-year period and compared it with the average percentage of the workforce by EEO. This comparison shows that all minority EEO groups separated at a rate that was slightly higher than the average percentage each group represented in the workforce for the period. African American women had the largest percentage difference between their percentage of separations and representation in the workforce (1.3 percentage points), followed by AIAN women (1.1 percentage points). Only Whites separated at rates lower than their average percentage representation in the workforce. Table 3 compares the percentage of separations to the average percentage of each EEO group in the workforce for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in Region X. Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5-year period. These actions included written reprimands, short-term suspensions (i.e., 14 days or less), long-term suspensions (i.e., 15 days or more), demotions, and terminations or removals. Of the 142 actions, 65, or about 46 percent, were for individuals who entered computer databases without authorization. Our statistical analysis showed no significant differences among EEO groups for written reprimands. However, for short-term suspensions, AIANs and African Americans were significantly more likely to receive suspensions of 14 days or less than Whites. Also, men were significantly more likely to experience a removal or termination than women. As mentioned earlier, our statistical analysis was not designed to determine whether or not discrimination existed but can identify areas worthy of further study by management. Appendix V contains detailed information on adverse actions, appeals of such actions, formal EEO complaints filed, and grievances filed under the union grievance procedure for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in Region X. Region X made changes to its informal EEO process in fiscal years 1999 and 2001. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO counselors described an informal process that mirrored the federal sector complaint process outlined in EEOC’s guidance. In fiscal year 1999, Region X made changes to this process, under which EEO counselors were no longer allowed to talk with managers but were required to submit questions in writing to managers about what had transpired between employees and managers. In addition, managers were encouraged to routinely have an attorney from OGC review their written responses before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors. In fiscal year 2001, after discussions with SSA headquarters officials had occurred, additional training was provided (for EEO counselors, OGC, and executive staff), and the then Regional Commissioner made conference calls to every manager about this issue, EEO counselors were again allowed to talk with managers. Counselors said revoking the changes brought the process back to what it was previously. Because the Region could not provide us with documentation on how it carried out its EEO complaint process or how it changed, we contacted former and current EEO counselors and discussed this area with regional officials. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Region X EEO counselors described an informal process similar to the informal stage of the federal sector complaint process outlined in EEOC guidance Management Directive 110 (MD-110). First an employee would approach an EEO counselor, who would take notes about the person’s complaint, including the claim being made and the basis or bases for the complaint. The EEO counselor would then advise the employee of his or her rights. The counselor would call the manager identified by the employee, identify for the manager the issues and bases of the complaint, and get the manager’s input on what had transpired. Several counselors said that after meeting or talking with the employees and managers, they would typically read back managers’ statements to them to make sure that they had captured what the managers said. One counselor mentioned letting managers read the statement. According to SSA headquarters and Region X officials, in fiscal year 1999, Region X made changes to the procedures in the informal stage of its EEO complaint process. These changes (1) required Region X EEO counselors to put in writing questions to managers and (2) commonly involved the Region’s OGC in the informal stage of the process. The then Regional Commissioner referred to these changes collectively as the “written approach.” After these changes took place, EEO counselors were no longer allowed to talk with managers. In addition, according to the then Regional Commissioner, as part of the written approach, managers were encouraged to routinely have an attorney from OGC review their written responses before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors. SSA’s then Associate Commissioner of the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO) said that he thought the written queries came out of Region X managers’ distrust of what the EEO counselors attributed to managers in their reports. The then Regional Commissioner said that regional managers had reported that EEO counselors were not accurately reflecting managers’ views in the counselors’ reports, including a manager who in January 1998 said at a hearing on a formal EEO complaint that he had not said things attributed to him. In addition, according to the then Regional Commissioner, EEO counselor training was inadequate before 1999, and the change to written queries was put in place about the same time that the Region put in place a formal training process for EEO counselors. The then Regional Commissioner said that she wanted to use the written approach to give managers the opportunity to give their views until training was completed. Also, in 1999, the Region began relying more on OGC in matters concerning employee relations. In a memo dated February 4, 1999, the Region announced that a new partnership had been put in place and that OGC would be providing advice and counsel on all employee relations issues and cases. According to the memo, these issues and cases were to include misconduct, performance and attendance problems, reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities, and standards of conduct. The memo does not refer to OGC involvement in EEO complaints and cases. However, according to the then Regional Commissioner and others, in fiscal year 1999, OGC began reviewing managers’ written responses to counselors’ inquiries during the informal stage of the EEO process. The then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that after the February 1999 memo, he believes that it became normal in Region X for managers to consult with OGC. He said that he thought that the OGC involvement was gradual in the beginning. The Regional Chief Counsel said that not every manager availed himself or herself of OGC’s services. The then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that he started in his position in March 2000 and that he thought he first became aware that Region X was involving OGC in a routine way in the EEO process in summer 2000. The then Associate Commissioner said that he and the then SSA Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources agreed that there was a perception that Region X’s reliance on OGC went beyond the informal process. The then Associate Commissioner said that during the informal process, there should be a limited inquiry and that it should not prevent EEO counselors from talking with managers or involve OGC. The then Associate Commissioner said that SSA headquarters officials held discussions with Region X officials to explain that having OGC involved in the informal EEO process gave the appearance that the “deck is stacked against employees.” In discussions between SSA headquarters and Region X officials, the then Associate Commissioner said that both headquarters and regional officials agreed that it would be good to have training to get the process back to what was outlined in EEOC’s guidance. As a result, the then Associate Commissioner said that SSA headquarters sent OCREO staff to the Region to provide training in October 2000 on basic counseling, limited inquiries, and report writing. According to the then Associate Commissioner, the training was provided to the Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) staff, including EEO counselors and the CREO manager, OGC, and executive staff. In addition, the then Regional Commissioner said that she spoke with the Area Director for Alaska and Washington, the Area Director for Idaho and Oregon, and the Director of the Auburn Teleservice Center and told them that OGC was not to be used during the informal stage of inquiry. After the training took place, the then Regional Commissioner said that she also had conference calls with every manager about this issue. According to a Region X official, these conference calls took place on October 8, 2000. Notes from a Region X official concerning these conference calls indicate the following topics on the informal stage of the EEO process were discussed: The role of the counselor is to conduct a neutral and limited inquiry, not an investigation. Counselors will no longer submit questions in writing; they will engage in a verbal dialogue with managers and supervisors, with emphasis on informality. It is important to remember that a counselor is not trying to prove right or wrong. He or she is working toward a solution. Resolution during informal counseling varies with the nature of complaint. Because the Region did not provide documentation that the written approach was no longer a part of its informal EEO process, we contacted Region X officials and former and current EEO counselors to confirm that such a change took place. According to two Region X EEO counselors who were in those positions at the time, beginning in early fiscal year 2001, they no longer had to put their queries in writing and were again allowed to talk with managers. To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region’s employees are with the EEO process, their willingness to participate in it, and their views on the work environment, we surveyed all of the Region’s employees on the EEO process and EEO environment in the Region and achieved a 75 percent response rate. According to the results of our survey, most Region X employees are familiar with the EEO process, with almost two- thirds of Region X employees reporting having received or having seen within the last 2 years written materials about the federal government’s EEO regulations and written materials describing how to contact regional EEO counselors. Most respondents indicated that they believed decisions concerning job or project assignments, training, formal ratings, and monetary awards were always or mostly based on merit and free of bias and favoritism. However, 23 percent of respondents reported that they felt they had been discriminated against. For example, when asked if they felt they were denied a job, promotion, or other job benefit because of unlawful discrimination, 10 percent of respondents cited race, 8 percent cited age, and 8 percent cited sex. In addition, when asked if they chose not to apply for a promotion or developmental opportunity because they felt they had little or no chance of being selected, 11 percent of respondents indicated that age was the reason for not applying, 10 percent indicated race was the reason, and 6 percent indicated sex was the reason. When asked about their willingness, if they believed that they had been discriminated against, to either contact Region X’s CREO to participate in counseling or to contact OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal EEO complaint, almost half of respondents indicated that they would be generally or very willing to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint. About 40 percent of respondents indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated against. When asked to describe their reason for this unwillingness or uncertainty, about 55 percent indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling, and 51 percent, to file a formal EEO complaint because they feared retaliation. Also, 45 percent of respondents indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling because of a concern that their contact with the EEO counselor would not be kept confidential. Our prior work has shown that leading organizations work to ensure that they create a workplace that is free of discrimination and in which employees do not fear or experience retaliation for engaging in activities protected by antidiscrimination laws. Our survey results indicate that if Region X does not work to improve the perceptions of employees, it may not achieve a trusting workplace. Appendix VI discusses more of the results of our survey, and appendix VII contains a copy of our questionnaire and the responses to the questions. The changes Region X made to the informal stage of its EEO process are not specifically addressed in federal sector EEO regulations. Neither EEOC’s regulations nor the related guidance—MD-110—directly addresses the appropriateness of written counselors’ queries, written managers’ responses, or OGC involvement in the informal process. However, these changes were counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling. In addition, these changes were counter to SSA’s EEO handbook for managers and supervisors, which discusses meetings and conversations between counselors and managers but not written inquiries. One of the stated purposes of precomplaint counseling is for employees who believe they have been discriminated against to attempt to informally resolve the matter. MD-110 states that in almost all instances, informal resolution, freely arrived at by all parties involved in the dispute, is the best outcome of a counseling action. Appendix A to MD-110, which contains methods for seeking resolution, suggests that during precomplaint counseling, the counselor talk or meet with agency officials to explain the employee’s allegations, afford the agency an opportunity to present its position concerning the allegations, and suggest how the problem might be resolved. SSA’s then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that the changes made by Region X in the informal EEO process, although not illegal, were counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related guidance, MD-110. The then Associate Commissioner said that by having written EEO counselor queries and managers’ responses and involving OGC, the informal stage of the EEO process in Region X was more like an investigation in the formal stage of the EEO process. In addition, in a June 2001 letter to a Region X employee, SSA’s then Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources wrote that, “Except in rare instances, OGC should not be involved in the precomplaint process.” When asked whether OGC was involved in the informal stage of the EEO complaint process in other SSA regions, the then Associate Commissioner for OCREO said that he has never had any complaints or allegations that OGC was involved in the informal part of the process in other regions. In addition, the EEOC regulations require that all agencies ensure that all agency employees provide full cooperation to EEO personnel in the processing and resolution of precomplaint matters. According to a recent EEOC report, the involvement of OGC during the informal stage of the EEO process may thwart attempts during counseling to resolve matters before the filing of a formal complaint. An EEOC official responsible for overseeing agencies’ EEO programs said that involving OGC in the informal stage of the process causes EEOC concern because complaints should be resolved informally and OGC involvement can hinder the counselor’s ability to facilitate resolution. This official added that having managers put responses to counselors’ queries in writing and involving OGC at the informal stage of the process could drag out the process and that the longer the process takes, the less likely it is to result in an informal settlement. In addition, the EEOC official said that EEOC encourages alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and requiring managers to put responses in writing is counter to ADR. Finally, the EEOC official said that written EEO counselor queries and managers’ responses and the involvement of OGC in the informal process were counter to the spirit of the regulations. Written counselors’ queries and written managers’ responses were counter to SSA’s EEO handbook for managers, which discusses meetings and conversations between counselors and managers. The handbook also discusses EEO counselors contacting responsible management officials to discuss the issues causing concern, the basis or bases for the complaint, and the remedy sought by the employee. The handbook for managers also states that the manager’s cooperation with the counselor is required by regulation and that the manager may have a representative present when meeting with an EEO counselor. Thus, the language in the handbook for managers is similar to appendix A of MD-110, which suggests that the counselor talk or meet with agency officials and points out the requirement of EEOC’s regulations that all agencies ensure that all agency employees provide full cooperation to EEO personnel in the processing and resolution of precomplaint matters. In doing our work on Region X, we asked SSA headquarters and Region X for documents pertaining to the processing of EEO complaints. Among other things, SSA provided its EEO handbook for managers and supervisors as well as its employees’ edition, which inform managers and employees what they can expect when faced with the EEO process. However, the handbooks, which were issued in November 1995, do not contain agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process such complaints. Under EEOC’s regulations, agencies have certain responsibilities for maintaining a continuing affirmative program to promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and policies. In order to implement their programs, the regulations require agencies to (1) make written materials available to all employees and applicants informing them of the variety of EEO programs and administrative and judicial remedial procedures available to them and (2) prominently post such materials in all personnel and EEO offices and throughout the workplace. In addition, the regulations require agencies to adopt procedures for processing—both at the informal and formal stage—individual and class complaints of discrimination that are consistent with all other applicable provisions of the regulations and the instructions for complaint processing contained in MD-110. SSA has addressed two of these regulatory requirements. It has communicated in memorandums to all employees its policy prohibiting discrimination against employees and applicants for employment, most recently in a February 10, 2003, memorandum. SSA headquarters and Region X officials provided us with copies of the written materials containing information on the administrative and judicial remedial procedures available. On a visit to Region X, we saw such written materials posted on a wall in the Auburn Teleservice Center. We also used SSA’s Intranet to reach the Seattle Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity Web site and confirm that the information is available electronically to Region X employees as is current information about whom to contact. SSA’s EEO handbooks for managers and employees discussed earlier also provide much information to their target groups. However, SSA has not fully implemented the third regulatory requirement to adopt agency-specific procedures for processing EEO complaints. When asked if SSA had adopted procedures for processing EEO complaints, the then Associate Commissioner for OCREO and Region X’s manager for CREO said that SSA follows the processes and procedures outlined in the guidance on the EEOC regulations—MD-110. An EEOC official responsible for overseeing agencies’ EEO programs said that EEOC anticipated that an agency would have step-by-step, agency-specific procedures on how the agency would implement the broader requirements covered by EEOC’s regulations and related guidance. The EEOC official said that EEOC anticipated that when agencies adopted such procedures, they would be in writing, so others could review them, if necessary. According to the EEOC official, having agency-specific guidance is important so that people processing complaints know exactly how to implement the regulations. The official said he thinks it is appropriate for agencies to have standard operating procedures, especially when they have more than one installation or operations spread across installations or regions, to help ensure consistent compliance with the regulations. The EEOC official said that it was an issue of fairness to both the employees in the EEO offices because they need to know what to do and what is expected of them and to those who may file a complaint because they are entitled to similar treatment across geographic areas for fairness. Our analysis showed no statistically significant differences for most of the personnel actions we reviewed. However, we found statistically significant differences among groups for certain awards and adverse actions in Region X. This analysis was not designed to determine whether or not discrimination existed. However, the analysis can identify areas worthy of further study by management. Human capital management principles include reviewing personnel actions to identify and address statistically significant differences across groups in order to help ensure EEO in the workplace. Region X has not reviewed such differences to uncover their causes or to determine their appropriateness. Concerning whether the Region’s EEO complaint process is consistent with federal regulations, Region X’s changes to written queries and OGC involvement in its informal EEO complaint process are not specifically addressed in federal sector EEO regulations. However, these changes were counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling and informal resolution. In addition, these changes were counter to SSA’s EEO handbook for managers and supervisors, which discusses meetings and conversations between counselors and managers. In doing our work at Region X, we found that although SSA had issued EEO handbooks in November 1995 for managers and supervisors as well as employees, the handbooks do not contain agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process complaints of discrimination. Agency- specific procedures on how to process EEO complaints—both at the informal and formal stage—are required by EEOC’s regulations and are especially important if employees are geographically dispersed, as in SSA, to ensure that all employees have the same process available to them. Without agency-specific procedures for EEO counselors to process complaints of discrimination, counselors in different components could use different procedures, with the result that employees are not treated consistently. Also, agency-specific procedures could alert managers to possible problem areas when they consider changing processes and could help prevent changes like the temporary ones in Region X that ran counter to the spirit of EEOC’s regulations. In addition, a sizeable portion of respondents to our survey—about 40 percent—indicated they were unwilling to become or uncertain about becoming involved with the processes established for handling EEO complaints. Frequently cited reasons for concern about becoming involved with the EEO process were a fear of retaliation and that contact with the EEO counselor would not be kept confidential. These concerns could deter individuals in Region X from exercising their rights concerning EEO. We recommend that the Commissioner of SSA: Direct the Regional Commissioner of Region X to review the statistically significant differences we found in adverse actions and awards to determine why they occurred and what, if any, corrective action is needed. Adopt standard operating procedures for EEO counselors that include step-by-step procedures for processing complaints of discrimination so that counselors and others involved in the process across the country know what to do and employees face the same process everywhere. Direct the Regional Commissioner of Region X to establish a plan to (1) enhance the Region’s EEO environment to increase trust and (2) measure the plan’s effectiveness, such as with a periodic survey of employees. In a letter dated June 26, 2003 (see app. VIII), SSA’s Commissioner said that the agency acknowledged the report’s general findings and said that SSA is committed to ensuring equal treatment for all employees and that its policies and practices are in compliance with EEOC’s procedures for processing complaints of discrimination. Regarding our first recommendation, SSA said that it would continue to monitor statistically significant differences. However, SSA did not address the extent to which it would take action, if needed. We continue to believe that this is an important component of following up and alleviating concerns. Regarding our second recommendation that it adopt standard operating procedures for EEO counselors, SSA stated that it has standard operating procedures in the form of EEO handbooks and an EEO training manual that SSA uses to instruct EEO counselors on how to process EEO complaints. As discussed in the draft report, the handbooks did not provide detailed procedures on how EEO counselors are to process EEO complaints. However, the comments state that SSA is going to update the handbooks and training manual to provide the procedural guidelines called for in EEOC’s regulations governing the EEO process for federal agencies. SSA said that it agrees all regions should foster an environment where employees feel they can raise concerns and take part in a process designed to resolve complaints and acknowledged that the change to the EEO process in Region X may have caused some distrust. However, SSA disagreed with our third recommendation that the Regional Commissioner of Region X establish a plan to enhance the Region’s EEO environment to increase trust and measure the plan’s effectiveness. The comments said that our survey found that 51 percent of the Region’s employees were very or generally willing to participate in EEO counseling, 13 percent were as willing as unwilling, and 10 percent were uncertain. SSA also said that because Region X is no longer following the change to the EEO process that may have caused some distrust, implementing a plan to improve trust will not be necessary. Our survey was conducted in early 2003, or about 2 years after the “written approach” to the informal stage of EEO complaint processing was discontinued. Our survey found that 40 percent of employees were unwilling or uncertain about using the current EEO process, indicating to us a need to focus on enhancing the environment to increase trust. While SSA said it would share best practices from other human resource management audits with Region X, a periodic focus on Region X would, in our view, provide knowledge of issues specific to Region X. We will send copies of this report to the Commissioner of SSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and interested congressional committees. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report is available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-6806 or Kiki Theodoropoulos, Senior Analyst, on (202) 512-4579. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX. As agreed, our objectives were to (1) provide information on the composition of Region X’s workforce by EEO group (race/ethnicity and gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 overall and for personnel actions such as promotions, awards, and adverse actions; (2) describe the EEO complaint process and any changes to it in the Region for the 5-year period; (3) assess whether the Region’s EEO complaint process is consistent with federal regulations and related guidance; and (4) assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region’s employees and their attitude toward it. To identify the composition of Region X’s workforce by EEO group (race/ethnicity and gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in general and for selected personnel actions (i.e., hires, promotions, separations, awards, training, and adverse actions), we used SSA data provided by the Region’s human resources management information system for the 5-year period. These data were limited to those employees of Region X who were under the line authority of the then Regional Commissioner and, therefore, do not include employees of the Office of Inspector General, Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Regional Office of Quality Assurance. We assessed the reliability of data provided by Region X on the workforce, hires, promotions, separations, and awards for fiscal years 1997 and 2001 by comparing them against the number of employees for Region X in the Office of Personnel Management’s Central Personnel Data File and doing electronic data testing for obvious errors in completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness. We found data on the workforce, permanent promotions, separations, and quality step increases to be sufficiently reliable for fiscal years 1997 and 2001 for the purposes of this report. We did not check the reliability of data on temporary promotions because they included details to lateral positions, which are not counted as temporary promotions in the Central Personnel Data File. Data on race/ethnicity for hires reported to us by Region X were significantly different from such data for SSA Region X hires in the Central Personnel Data File. We discussed the differences with SSA headquarters and Region X officials to determine the reason for them. The lead human resources official in Region X said that when a new hire is processed via an accession action, the employee cannot be paid until the personnel action is released and updated through the Federal Personnel and Payroll System, the automated personnel action processing system SSA uses. During fiscal years 1997 through 2001, the official said that often, because of time constraints, the system—which required a code for race/ethnicity—was coded with unverified data (i.e., White) so the action could go through and the employee be paid. The official said that in August 2002 SSA began requiring the human resources staff processing the new hire personnel actions to have the completed form with race/ethnicity submitted electronically or by fax on the day the employee reports for duty, so the data can be coded properly into the initial accession action. An OPM official analyzed Region X data on hires and confirmed that submissions of subsequent personnel actions updated race/ethnicity for some Region X employees. As a result, we decided the data on hires were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We assessed the reliability of data on selections to the Job Enhancement Program, adverse actions and their appeals, EEO counseling requests, EEO complaints, reasonable accommodations, grievances, and settlements, by doing in-depth comparisons of narratives concerning the data with the data provided by Region X. In cases where we found differences, we discussed inconsistencies with regional officials and took steps to correct them. We determined that the data on Job Enhancement Program selections, adverse actions and their appeals, EEO counseling requests, EEO complaints, reasonable accommodations, grievances, and settlements were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To judge its diversity, SSA compares its workforce with the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Because data on the U.S. CLF that SSA uses are based on 1990 census data, we decided to use data from the 2001 Current Population Survey, which is a monthly survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the Bureau of the Census and is the primary source of current information on the labor force characteristics of the U.S. population. To identify the fiscal year 2001 regional civilian workforce, we used the March 2001 Current Population Survey to identify the number of individuals 18 or older working in the private sector and for federal, state, and local governments in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. As part of our analysis, for our discussion of the composition of SSA staff for selected personnel actions, we determined whether statistically significant differences by race/ethnicity or gender occurred. Our analyses of personnel actions are not designed to show that discrimination does or does not exist; instead they are designed to provide information at a common and aggregate level about race/ethnicity and gender differences in personnel actions at Region X. Therefore, our results should not be interpreted to indicate whether discrimination has or has not occurred. The presence of statistically significant difference does not prove discrimination, nor does the absence of statistically significant difference prove that staff have not been discriminated against. The presence of statistically significant differences means that we are 95 percent confident that differences could happen by chance in less than 5 percent of the cases. To describe the EEO process in Region X and any changes made to it for the 5-year period, we reviewed documents provided by SSA headquarters and Region X officials and interviewed those officials. Because the Region was not able to provide us with written documentation on how it carried out the informal stage of the EEO complaint process and when changes to the process occurred, we contacted former and current Region X EEO counselors and headquarters officials and relied on their views concerning when these changes took place. To determine whether the Region’s EEO complaint process was consistent with federal regulations, we reviewed EEOC’s regulations and the related guidance—EEOC’s Management Directive 110 (MD-110)—governing how the discrimination claims of federal employees are to be processed administratively and compared their requirements with the processes described by SSA headquarters and Region X officials. We also reviewed a recent EEOC on-site report on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, part of which concerned the involvement of OGC in the informal part of the EEO process. In addition, we contacted an EEOC official responsible for overseeing agencies’ EEO programs to identify EEOC’s views concerning whether the types of changes Region X made to its EEO process were consistent with federal regulations and the related guidance. To assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region’s employees and their attitude toward it, we designed and sent questionnaires to all SSA Region X employees to get their views on EEO. We pretested the questionnaire instrument to minimize measurement error and assure ourselves that respondents could interpret the questions correctly and could provide the information requested. We modified question wording and questionnaire format on the basis of what we learned from these pretests. SSA provided us with the home addresses for all individuals employed by Region X as of August 27, 2002. On September 18, 2002, we mailed 1,801 questionnaires to these home addresses. One individual returned the questionnaire, indicating that he or she was no longer an employee of Region X. Because this individual did not answer any questions in the survey, we dropped this individual from the universe of employees, resulting in a revised universe of 1,800 Region X employees. After the initial and a follow-up mailing, we received 1,364 questionnaires. However, we received 9 questionnaires in which the tracking number for nonresponse follow-up had been removed (see table 4). Therefore, our analysis is based on 1,355 questionnaires, for a response rate of 75.3 percent. Table 4 summarizes the disposition of the questionnaire returns for the revised universe of 1,800. The questionnaire offered respondents the option of providing additional comments relating to any of the items discussed therein. Of the 1,355 useable returns, 307 respondents, or 22.7 percent, provided narrative comments. The questionnaire results express the viewpoints and attitudes of SSA Region X employees. All responses were anonymous; if respondents included references to names, these references were marked out before questionnaires were submitted to data entry. All data were double-keyed and verified as part of the data entry process. Computer analyses were performed to identify inconsistencies (e.g., inappropriate skip patterns) or other indications of errors. All computer analyses were verified by a second independent analyst. Although it was not possible to test the validity of the respondents’ answers or the comments they made, we took several steps to check the quality of our questionnaire data. We reviewed and edited completed questionnaires, made internal consistency checks on several items, and rechecked the accuracy of data entry on a random sample of questionnaires. The practical difficulties of administering any questionnaire may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted by respondents could introduce unwanted variability in the questionnaire’s results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. These steps, which we discussed earlier, included pretesting and revising the questionnaires accordingly. The percentage of respondents by race/ethnicity closely mirrored the percentage of each race/ethnicity in the population of Region X employees. The percentage of men and women responding to the survey also matched their respective percentages in the Region X workforce. The 95-percent confidence intervals for the percentage of respondents who were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal discrimination complaint were +1.4 percentage points. The 95-percent confidence intervals for the reasons why respondents were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal discrimination complaint were + 2.3 percentage points. We did our work in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Seattle from January 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, makes it illegal for employers, including federal agencies, to discriminate against their employees or job applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex- based wage discrimination. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, prohibits employment discrimination against individuals who are 40 years of age or older. Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work or apply to work in the federal government. Federal agencies are required to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants for employment with disabilities, except when such accommodation would cause an undue hardship. In addition, a person who files a complaint or participates in an investigation of an EEO complaint or who opposes an employment practice made illegal under any of the antidiscrimination statutes is protected from retaliation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing all of these laws. Federal employees or applicants for employment who believe that they have been discriminated against by a federal agency may file a complaint with that agency. EEOC has established regulations providing for the processing of federal sector employment discrimination complaints. This complaint process consists of two stages, informal, or precomplaint counseling, and formal. Before filing a complaint, the employee must consult an EEO counselor at the agency in order to try to informally resolve the matter. The employee must contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. EEO counselors should determine if the employee believes that his or her problem is the result of discrimination on one or more of the bases—race, color, sex (including equal pay), religion, national origin, age (40 and over), disability—or in retaliation for having participated in activity protected by the various antidiscrimination statutes. Counselors are to advise individuals that, when the agency agrees to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the particular case, they may choose to participate in either counseling or in ADR. After the counselor determines the basis or bases and claims, he or she is to conduct a limited inquiry of the matter, which generally involves speaking or meeting with the two parties. When the counselor has a good grasp of the issues involved, he or she is ready to attempt resolution. Resolution means that the employee and the agency come to terms with the matter and agree on a solution. In seeking resolution, the counselor is to listen to and understand the viewpoint of both parties and act as a neutral and not as an advocate for either the employee or the agency. Counseling is to be completed within 30 days from the date the employee contacted the EEO office for counseling. If the matter is not resolved by the 30th day of counseling or if ADR is unsuccessful, the counselor is required to inform the employee in writing of his or her right to file a formal discrimination complaint with the agency. The written notice must inform the employee of the (1) right to file a discrimination complaint within 15 days of receipt of the notice, (2) appropriate agency official with whom to file a complaint, and (3) duty to ensure that the agency is informed immediately if the complainant retains counsel or a representative. After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint. If the agency dismisses the complaint, the complainant has 30 days to appeal the dismissal to EEOC. If the agency accepts the complaint, it has 180 days to investigate the accepted complaint and present the complainant with a record of investigation. Once the agency finishes its investigation and the complainant receives the investigation results, the complainant has 30 days to choose between requesting (1) a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge (AJ) or (2) a final decision from the agency. When a hearing is not requested, the agency must issue a final decision within 60 days. In cases where a hearing is requested, the AJ has 180 days to issue a decision and send the decision to the complainant and the agency. If the AJ issues a finding of discrimination, he or she is to order appropriate relief. After the AJ decision is issued, the agency has 40 days to issue a final order notifying the complainant whether or not the agency will fully implement the decision of the AJ, and the employee has 30 days to file an appeal with EEOC. If the agency issues an order notifying the complainant that the agency will not fully implement the decision of the AJ, the agency also must file an appeal with EEOC at the same time. Figure 3 illustrates the EEO complaint process. If a complaint is one that can be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) such as a removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension for more than 14 days, the complaint is a “mixed case.” With a mixed-case complaint, the complainant has no right to a hearing before an EEOC AJ. However, a complainant may appeal a final agency decision to the MSPB within 30 days of receiving the agency’s decision. EEOC regulations provide that an individual may raise claims of discrimination in a mixed case, either as a mixed-case EEO complaint with the agency or a direct appeal to MSPB, but not both. Under EEOC regulations, whatever action the individual files first is considered an election to proceed in that forum. Filing a formal EEO complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the EEO forum; contacting an EEO counselor or receiving EEO counseling does not constitute such an election. Over the 5-year period from fiscal years 1997 through 2001, with the exception of managers in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and eight wage grade employees, the Region X workforce was in the general schedule (GS) pay plan. The GS pay plan consists of 15 grades. The following sections contain a discussion of Region X employees by EEO group in grade levels GS-13 through 15, GS-9 through 12, GS-5 through 8, and GS-1 through 4. A total of 75 employees were in grades GS-13 through GS-15 in fiscal year 1997, and 134 in fiscal year 2001. The largest proportional gain in these grades was among White women, who increased from 19, or about 25 percent of these grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 44, or about 33 percent, in fiscal year 2001. This was followed by a proportional increase in these grades among Asian women, who increased in number from 2, or almost 3 percent of the grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 10, or 7.5 percent, in fiscal year 2001. Proportional increases also occurred among African American women, AIAN men, and Hispanic men. Hispanic women increased from 0 in fiscal year 1997 to 4, or 3 percent of these grades in fiscal year 2001. Figure 4 shows the change in Region X employees in grades GS-13 through GS-15 by EEO group between fiscal years 1997 and 2001. A total of 791 employees were in grades GS-9 through GS-12 in fiscal year 1997, and 837 in fiscal year 2001. The largest proportional gain in these grades from fiscal year 1997 to 2001 was among Hispanic women, who increased from 26, or 3.3 percent of the grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 46, or 5.5 percent, in fiscal year 2001. This was followed by a proportional increase among Asian women, whose presence in the grades went from 28, or 3.5 percent in fiscal year 1997, to 41, or 4.9 percent, in fiscal year 2001. Proportional increases also occurred among African American men and women, Asian men, and Hispanic men. Figure 5 shows the distribution of Region X employees in grades GS-9 through GS-12 by EEO group from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2001. A total of 818 employees were in grades GS-5 through GS-8 in fiscal year 1997, and 844 in fiscal year 2001. The largest proportional gain in these grades was among Hispanic women, who increased from 28, or 3.4 percent of these grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 66, or 7.8 percent, in fiscal year 2001. This increase was followed by a proportional increase among Hispanic men, whose presence in these grades doubled from 20, or 2.4 percent in fiscal year 1997, to 40, or 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2001 and Asian women, who increased from 22, or 2.7 percent, to 36, or 4.3 percent. The largest proportional loss occurred among White women, who decreased from 439, or 53.7 percent of the grades in fiscal year 1997, to 387, or 45.9 in fiscal year 2001; this was followed by a loss among White men, who decreased from 213, or 26 percent of the grades in fiscal year 1997, to 205, or 24.3 percent in fiscal year 2001. No change occurred in the number of African American or AIAN men in these grades in fiscal years 1997 and 2001. Figure 6 shows Region X employees in grades GS-5 through GS-8 in fiscal years 1997 and 2001 by EEO group. A total of 35 employees were in grades GS-1 through GS-4 in fiscal year 1997, and 30 in fiscal year 2001. Numbers for both years included students. There were no African American, Asian, or Hispanic men in these grades in fiscal years 1997 and 2001. The largest proportional increase occurred among AIAN women, who increased from 1, or 2.9 percent of these grades in fiscal year 1997, to 5, or 16.7 percent in fiscal year 2001. This increase was followed by a proportional increase in Asian women, who doubled from 3, or 8.6 percent of these grades in fiscal year 1997 to 6, or 20.0 percent in fiscal year 2001. The largest proportional loss was experienced among White women, who decreased from 21, or 60 percent of these grades in fiscal year 1997 to 10, or 33.3 percent in fiscal year 2001. Figure 7 shows Region X employees in grades GS-1 through GS-4 from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2001 by EEO group. Tables 5 and 6 show the distribution across grade levels by race/ethnicity and gender compared with their representation in the Region’s workforce for fiscal years 1997 and 2001, respectively. As shown in the tables, the distribution across grade levels by race/ethnicity or gender varied somewhat but was generally close to the representation of the various racial/ethnic groups or gender makeup of the Region’s workforce. The main differences were higher proportions of men in the GS-13 through GS-15 grade levels and higher representation of African Americans and Hispanics in the GS-5 through GS-8 grades. Experience, training, and awards are among the elements considered under SSA’s merit promotion process. Experience includes such developmental assignments as temporary promotions and outside activities. Training includes both external coursework (e.g., college courses) and internal courses (provided by the agency). Awards include monetary and nonmonetary, or honor, awards. The analysis for the 5-year period showed statistically significant differences among races concerning quality step increases and honor awards. These analyses were not designed to determine whether or not discrimination occurred but could indicate areas warranting further study by management. The following sections describe by EEO group those who participated in temporary promotion and selected training opportunities or received awards for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. For an employee to receive a temporary promotion to an existing position for which he or she is qualified, the employee must meet (1) established position qualification standards for the position and (2) time-in-grade requirements for promotion. Region X employees can gain experience through two kinds of temporary promotions or lateral assignments. The Job Enhancement Program (JEP) is a regional noncompetitive program that allows employees to voluntarily apply for temporary assignments (both promotions and details to existing positions) as a method of enhancing career development. According to a 2002 SSA report on Region X, JEPs enable regional employees from grades GS-3 up to GS-14 to take a detail for up to 120 days in different positions. Table 7 shows the distribution of those employees selected for JEPs by EEO group over the 5 years. According to a Region X official, temporary promotions other than those under a JEP can be made noncompetitively for up to 120 days. For promotions greater than 120 days, a vacancy announcement is required for all positions. Some vacancies are announced as not-to-exceed promotions for periods ranging from 1 to 2 years, with a 5-year maximum allowable. Such announcements may state, “this position may be extended or become permanent without further competition.” Table 8 compares the percentage of temporary promotions to the average percentage representation of each EEO Group in the workforce for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in Region X. When asked for data on training opportunities in Region X for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, the Region provided data on employees who participated in the Government Employees Training Act (GETA) program (for fiscal years 1998 through 2001). Under the GETA program, SSA pays for tuition and book expenses for an employee who enrolls in an approved course taken at a university, college, or other recognized educational institution. Courses covered included American Sign Language; various languages (e.g., Spanish, French, and Russian); writing; and Windows- based computing (e.g., Excel, PowerPoint). Table 9 compares the percentage of individuals receiving GETA training to the average percentage representation by EEO group in the Region X workforce for fiscal years 1998 through 2001. SSA’s awards are divided into monetary and honor awards. According to Region X, monetary awards consist of Recognition of Contribution awards, which recognize employees who have maintained high-quality performance and may be either a one-time performance award paid as a lump sum or a quality step increase, which permanently increases pay; Commendable Act or Service awards, which are granted to an employee— as an individual or as a member of a group—to recognize major accomplishments or contributions that have promoted the mission of the organization; and On-the-Spot awards, which are special act or service awards that recognize employees for noteworthy accomplishments or contributions on individual tasks or assignments. We found for the 5-year period statistically significant differences among races concerning quality step increases and honor awards. Table 10 compares the percentage of monetary awards to the average percentage representation by EEO group in the workforce for the 5-year period. According to the Region X Affirmative Employment Plan for fiscal year 1997, the region conducted an analysis of award types and recipient EEO profiles in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. According to this report, in fiscal year 1996, only Whites received quality step increases; the Region began addressing this disparity in fiscal year 1997. Our statistical analysis for the 5-year period showed that Whites were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than African Americans, Hispanics, and AIANs; Asians were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than Hispanics and AIANs; and African Americans were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than Hispanics. There were no statistically significant differences between men and women. Because the Region acknowledged a disparity among racial/ethnic groups concerning quality step increases and began trying to address this disparity in fiscal year 1997, we also did a statistical analysis of quality step increases for fiscal year 2001 alone. By fiscal year 2001, only two statistically significant differences remained—women were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than men and Hispanics were significantly less likely to receive quality step increases than African Americans or Whites—which shows substantial progress. Table 11 compares the percentage of quality step increases to the average percentage representation by EEO group in the workforce for the 5-year period. According to Region X, honor awards consist of the Commissioner’s Citation, which is SSA’s highest honorary award that is granted to individuals who have made a superior contribution to SSA; the Commissioner’s Team Award, which recognizes groups of employees for their team approach in carrying out or supporting SSA’s mission of providing quality service in administering national Social Security programs; and the Deputy Commissioner’s Citation and the Regional Commissioner’s Citation, both of which recognize SSA employees for outstanding achievements to SSA. Our analysis showed that for the 5-year period, Asians were significantly more likely to receive honor awards than Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. Also, Native Americans were significantly more likely to receive honor awards than Hispanics. Table 12 compares the percentage of honor awards to the average percentage representation by EEO group in the workforce for the 5-year period. The following sections discuss the adverse actions taken by Region X, appeals of such actions filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), precomplaint EEO counseling sought, formal EEO complaints filed, and grievances filed by Region X employees in fiscal years 1997 through 2001. Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5-year period. For nonprobationary employees, the common pattern of progressive discipline is reprimand, short-term suspension (a suspension of 14 days or less), long- term suspension (a suspension of 15 days or more), and removal. Probationary employees face terminations. Of the 142 actions, 65, or about 46 percent, were for individuals who entered computer databases without authorization. Our statistical analysis showed no significant differences among EEO groups for written reprimands. However, we found statistically significant differences among races for short-term suspensions and between the sexes concerning removals. For short-term suspensions, AIANs and African Americans were significantly more likely to receive suspensions of 14 days or less than Whites. Men were significantly more likely to experience a removal or termination than women. About 14 percent of those who had adverse actions taken against them had disabilities compared with the representation in the Region’s workforce of about 11 percent. Table 13 shows the types of adverse actions by EEO group. Employees can appeal adverse actions to MSPB. Appealable actions include removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension of 15 days or more. Under the negotiated national agreement between SSA and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), employees may elect to appeal such actions to MSPB or through the negotiated grievance procedure but not both. Of the 142 adverse actions Region X took from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2001, 15 employee appeals were filed with MSPB. Of these 15 appeals, SSA settled 9; MSPB found that SSA’s action was appropriate in 3 cases; MSPB dismissed 2 appeals; and 1 is still pending. Table 14 shows the number of Region X employee appeals to MSPB by EEO group and their disposition for the 5-year period. When a federal employee alleges that a removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension of 15 or more days is discriminatory, the employee may file a formal EEO complaint, and because the complaint can be appealed either to MSPB or EEOC, the complaint is a “mixed case.” Under EEOC regulations, whatever action an employee files first is considered an election to proceed in that forum. For example, filing a formal EEO complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the EEO forum, although contacting an EEO counselor or receiving EEO counseling does not constitute such an election. For Region X employees, who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits claims of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, they similarly may elect to file an EEO complaint or a grievance. Before filing a grievance that alleges discrimination, the employee may first discuss the allegation with an EEO counselor. SSA is required to prepare and submit an annual report to EEOC that includes the number of individuals counseled, monetary and nonmonetary settlements made during the precomplaint counseling phase, the number of complaints filed during a reporting period, the bases and issues alleged in all complaints filed during a reporting period, and the number and amounts of monetary and nonmonetary settlements of closed complaints. We requested data for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 on the number of individuals who approached the Region’s Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity office to ask for counseling because they felt that they had experienced discrimination. The Region provided data for only the last 2 years because, according to a Region X official, verifiable data were only available for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Table 15 shows the incidents of counseling requests for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Under EEOC regulations, before filing an EEO complaint, in order to try to informally resolve the matter, individuals who believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including equal pay), national origin, age (i.e., 40 or over), or handicapping condition or who have suffered retaliation or reprisal must consult an EEO counselor. Table 16 provides the bases cited in fiscal years 2000 and 2001— the 2 years for which Region X provided data on incidents of EEO counseling. Table 17 shows the issues cited by individuals who requested EEO counseling in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Employees requesting counseling and Region X entered into three informal settlement agreements during counseling requested in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The informal settlements agreed to included a lump sum payment of $5,000, a letter of recommendation, and a temporary promotion under a JEP. If employees cannot resolve to their satisfaction the matters for which they sought counseling, they file formal complaints with the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity in SSA headquarters in Baltimore. Table 18 shows the number of formal complaints filed by Region X employees for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 and the disposition of those complaints. Table 19 shows by fiscal year the bases for the 89 EEO complaints filed by Region X employees in fiscal years 1997 through 2001. Table 20 shows the number of issues cited in the 89 EEO complaints filed by Region X employees during fiscal years 1997 through 2001. As shown in table 19, the top four bases for which Region X employees filed EEO complaints were sex, race, retaliation (i.e., for filing a complaint or participating in an investigation of a complaint), and handicapping condition. Of those bases that involved handicapping condition, six also claimed that they were denied reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation includes any modification or adjustment to a job application process, the work environment, or the way a job is customarily performed that enables a qualified applicant with a disability to compete equally or a qualified person with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment. As shown in table 20, the top four issues cited in the filed complaints were harassment (nonsexual), nonselection for promotion, working conditions, and reasonable accommodation. The reasonable accommodation process begins when an individual makes a request for the accommodation, followed by a request in writing (completion of a form) or in electronic format. Among the items that can be approved of as an accommodation at the regional level are requests of office equipment costing less than $100, a change in schedule, and requests for reassignment. For office equipment or assistive technologies (e.g., computer hardware or software that enable people with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their job) costing $100 or more, assistive technologies training, and sign language interpreter services, a request must be forwarded to the Disability Services Team in the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity in SSA headquarters in Baltimore. Table 21 shows the number of accommodations requested by Region X employees for fiscal year 1997 through 2001 and their disposition. Under the negotiated national agreement between SSA and the AFGE, individual employees or their union representatives may file Section 9 grievances on such matters as adverse actions or EEO issues. At any time after the Section 9 grievance is filed, up to the time the grievance decision is issued, the grievance may be withdrawn. If a management official finds that the grievance has merit, or can agree with the employee/representative on some or all of the points at issue, he or she may grant full or partial relief, giving the employee all or a portion of what was requested. If the management official does not find a violation of the negotiated agreement or workplace policy or practice, or cannot agree to the requested relief, the grievance is denied. Unresolved Section 9 grievances may be advanced to arbitration by the union. Multiple categories may be recorded for a single grievance. For example, in one case, a grievance may be denied, and the grievant takes no additional action. In another case, a grievance may be denied, and the grievant/representative invokes arbitration, and then does or does not pursue the case. We counted each category of relief or arbitration for each grievance. Table 22 shows the Section 9 grievances filed in Region X for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. Twenty-one settlement agreements were signed by SSA and the individuals who appealed an adverse action, filed an EEO complaint, or filed a grievance. These agreements could consist of monetary or nonmonetary terms or both, and five consisted entirely of nonmonetary terms. A global settlement addressed more than one filed EEO discrimination complaint, MSPB appeal, or union grievance; therefore, the number of complaints settled is higher than the number of settlement agreements. Table 23 contains information on settlement agreements for appealed adverse actions, filed EEO complaints, and a mixed case that includes a union grievance for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. In our survey of Region X employees about EEO, we asked all Region X employees for their views (1) on the operations of Region X’s Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) office and (2) about their experiences with situations involving EEO in Region X within the past 2 years. Because we received more than a 70 percent response rate (75 percent), our results are representative of the views and attitudes of Region X employees. Almost 60 percent of respondents were either generally or very familiar with the responsibilities of the CREO office before reading our description of those responsibilities. In addition, most Region X employees are familiar with the EEO process. About two-thirds of respondents reported having received or having seen within the last 2 years written materials about the federal government’s EEO regulations and written materials describing how to contact regional EEO counselors. When asked about their willingness, if they believed that they had been discriminated against, to either contact Region X’s CREO to participate in counseling or to contact the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO) in Baltimore to file a formal EEO complaint, almost half of respondents indicated that they would be generally or very willing to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint. Also, 3 percent of respondents indicated that they had contacted CREO to participate in counseling in the last 2 years, and 2 percent of respondents indicated that they had contacted OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal complaint during that time. About 40 percent of respondents indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated against; we did an analysis of their responses to identify the reason for this unwillingness or uncertainty. About 55 percent of the respondents indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling and 51 percent to file a formal EEO complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated against because they feared retaliation. We did a further analysis of those respondents who indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling if they believed that they had been discriminated against because they feared retaliation. Table 24 shows the breakdown of respondents by race/ethnicity and sex of those who indicated an unwillingness or uncertainty to participate in counseling. Table 25 shows the breakdown of respondents by race/ethnicity and sex of those who indicated an unwillingness or uncertainty to file a formal complaint. Other reasons respondents indicated for being unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling if they believed that they had been discriminated against included the concern that their contact with the EEO counselor would not be kept confidential (about 45 percent) and the concern that the matter, if resolved informally, would not result in a mutually satisfactory solution for all parties concerned (about 34 percent). Other reasons respondents indicated for being unwilling or uncertain to file a formal complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated against included the concern that their complaint would not be handled in a fair manner (about 33 percent). As shown in table 26, most Region X employees responding to our survey indicated that they believed decisions concerning job or project assignments, training, formal ratings, and monetary awards were always or mostly based on merit and free of bias and favoritism. About half of the respondents indicated that they believed that decisions concerning nonmonetary awards and recognition were always or mostly based on merit and free of bias and favoritism. Less than half of the respondents indicated that they believed decisions concerning promotion and career advancement were always or mostly based on merit and free of bias and favoritism. Table 27 shows, by sex and minority status, those respondents who indicated that they believed such personnel or pay decisions were sometimes or never or almost never based on merit and free of bias and favoritism. The questionnaire offered respondents the option of providing additional comments relating to any of the items discussed therein. Of the 1,355 useable returned questionnaires (see app. I), 307 respondents, or 22.7 percent, provided narrative comments. In descending order, these comments most frequently concerned perceived inequities in merit hiring, promotions, and awards (30.3 complaints of perceived discrimination or other negative personal experiences (21.5 percent); or disgruntlement over affirmative action and workforce diversity (9.4 percent). The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), an independent agency of Congress, is reviewing equal employment opportunity (EEO) issues and the EEO complaint process at SSA Region X at the request of Representatives Jim McDermott, Jennifer Dunn, and Adam Smith. As part of this review, we are surveying all SSA Region X employees to get their views on the operations of SSA Region X’s Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) Office and their experiences concerning EEO. Your responses will help GAO understand how SSA Region X employees view the Region’s EEO operations and their work environment. Responses will be discussed in summary form in a report to congressional requesters and will not include any information that could be used to identify individual respondents. The survey is numbered only to allow us to send follow-up surveys to people who do not respond the first time and will not be used to identify you with your response. The link between you and your response will be destroyed before the report is issued, and your individual responses will not be shared with SSA. The survey should take about 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Space has been provided at the end of the survey for any comments you may want to make. Additional pages may be added if Please complete and return the survey in the pre-addressed envelope within 5 working days to avoid costly follow-up efforts. Because of delays in mail delivery in the Washington, D.C. area, please send the survey to our Norfolk Office in the event the envelope is misplaced. Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Attention: Ms. Kiki Theodoropoulos If you have any questions, please contact Kiki Theodoropoulos on (202) 512-4579 or at theodoropoulosv@gao.gov. Thank you for your time and cooperation. SECTION I—Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) Office The CREO office manages the Region’s equal employment opportunity (EEO), affirmative action, and complaint programs. Among other things, it is responsible for disseminating information on the agency’s EEO program and complaint process, developing EEO and affirmative action plans, and processing and resolving discrimination The following questions ask for your views on the operations of SSA Region X’s CREO. Please mark your answers 1. Before reading the description of the responsibilities of SSA Region X’s CREO at the beginning of this section, how familiar or unfamiliar were you with these responsibilities? (Mark only one response) 1. Very familiar 2. Generally familiar 3. As familiar as unfamiliar 4. Generally unfamiliar 5. Very unfamiliar 15% (196) 44% (751) 15% (944) 15% (1130) 11% (1,269) 2. At any time within the past 2 years, do you recall receiving the following materials or seeing them posted at SSA Region X? (Mark all that apply) I don’t remember a. Written materials about the federal ← 65% (852) 8% (105) 27% (354) government’s EEO regulations. b. Written materials that describe SSA 59% (768) 10% (134) 31% (405) c. Written materials describing how to 63% (823) 12% (157) 25% (330) counselors, such as their names, locations, and telephone numbers. d. Notices, memoranda, or newsletters 51% (668) 15% (194) 34% (440) e. Notices, memoranda, or newsletters 79% (1040) 6% (77) 15% (199) sexual harassment policy. f. Notices, memoranda, or newsletters 48% (627) 17% (223) 35% (456) reasonable accommodation policy. g. Other materials (Please specify): 27% (46) 12% (21) 61% (104) to contact SSA OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal discrimination complaint? (Mark only one) 24% (317) 27% (352) 3. As willing as unwilling 4. Generally unwilling 5. Very unwilling 13% (178) 1. Very willing→ Skip to question 8 20% (263) 2. Generally willing→ Skip to ques 8 26% (345) 18% (234) 12% (163) 9% (115) 19% (249) --------------------------------------- 3. As willing as unwilling 4. Generally unwilling 5. Very unwilling 12% (154) 10% (127) --------------------------------------- 11% (145) discrimination complaint, which of the following describes your reason(s)? (Mark all that apply) 1. I would be concerned that my complaint would not be investigated would not be kept confidential. in a competent manner. 2. I would be concerned that I would 2. I would be concerned that my be assigned to an EEO counselor complaint would not be thoroughly who was not competent or investigated. 3. I would be concerned that my 3. I would be concerned that the complaint would not be handled in matter would not be resolved in a a fair manner. 4. I would be concerned that my 4. I would be concerned that too complaint would not be handled much of my time would be in a timely manner. consumer in the complaint process. 5. I would be concerned that too 5. I would be concerned that the much of my time would be matter, if resolved informally, consumed in the complaint process. would not result in a mutually 6. I would be concerned that I would satisfactory solution for all parties be alienated from my coworkers. 6. I would be concerned that I would 7. I would fear retaliation. 8. I would not be willing to file a be alienated from my coworkers. formal complaint for personal reasons. 7. I would fear retaliation. 8. I would not be willing to 9. Other – Please specify: participate for personal reasons. 9. Other – Please specify: 8. Within the past 2 years, have you contacted SSA OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal discrimination complaint? 5. Within the past 2 years, have you contacted SSA Region X’s CREO to participate in counseling? 1. Yes 2. No 2% (21) 98% (1,304) 3% (41) 97% (1,283) The following questions ask for your views about your experiences about situations involving EEO in SSA Region 9. Within the past 2 years, how much of the time, if any, have decisions about you in each of the following areas been based on merit and free of bias and favoritism. (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 44% (581) 17% (224) 6% (83) 9% (114) 10% (131) 14% (191) 51% (665) 17% (222) 6% (85) 6% (80) 6% (83) 14% (180) 56% (732) 18% (243) 6% (76) 5% (62) 6% (77) 10% (127) 45% (588) 16% (218) 7% (90) 11% (151) 10% (128) 11% (145) 34% (443) 10% (129) 7% (93) 8% (107) 13% (177) 28% (365) 37% (487) 13% (172) 8% (101) 9% (123) 13% (172) 20% (257) 15% (14) 6% (6) 3% (3) 3% (3) 23% (22) 50% (48) 10. Within the past 2 years, do you feel you have been denied a job, promotion, or other job benefit because of unlawful discrimination based on any of the following characteristics? (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3) 8% (111) 76% (1,009) 16% (209) 8% (100) 77% (1,018) 15% (197) 4% (48) 80% (1,050) 16% (209) 2% (21) 86% (1,125) 13% (166) 5% (66) 82% (1,075) 13% (172) 1% (19) 85% (1,108) 15% (182) 10% (137) 75% (988) 15% (200) 2% (21) 84% (1,099) 14% (183) 50% (84) 33% (55) 17% (29) _____________________ 11. Within the past 2 years, do you feel you have experienced any of the following? (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3) 9% (115) 80% (1077) 11% (149) compete for a job or promotion b. Influenced by an agency official to withdraw from competition 2% (29) 89% (1186) 9% (123) for a federal job or promotion to help another person’s chances for getting that job or promotion c. Denied a job or promotion because one of the selecting or 10% (139) 73% (976) 17% (228) recommending officials gave an unlawful advantage to another d. Denied a job or promotion that went instead to a relative of one 2% (27) 83% (1,099) 15% (205) 12. Within the past 2 years, did you choose not to apply for any promotion or developmental opportunity because you felt you had little or no chance of being selected? (Mark only one box in each row) (1) (2) (3) 11% (145) 81% (1,078) 8% (106) b. Because of your sex 6% (85) 86% (1,128) 8% (104) c. Because of your handicapping condition 4% (51) 86% (1,128) 10% (136) d. Because of your marital status 2% (24) 91% (1,193) 8% (99) e. Because of your national origin 4% (59) 88% (1,155) 8% (99) f. Because of your political affiliation 1% (16) 91% (1,191) 8% (107) g. Because of your race 10% (134) 82% (1,084) 8% (106) h. Because of your religion 1% (11) 91% (1,183) 9% (111) i. Other (Please specify) 58% (108) 31% (58) 10% (19) 13. Within the past 2 years, do you feel that you have been retaliated against or threatened with retaliation by management for doing any of the following? (Mark only one box in each row) If no to all, go to question 18. (1) (2) (3) 5% (67) 88% (1,149) 7% (96) unlawful behavior; and/or fraud, waste, and abuse b. Exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right 8% (110) 84% (1,100) 8% (105) c. Testifying for or otherwise assisting any individual in the 4% (51) 87% (1,146) 9% (115) exercise of whistleblowing, equal employment opportunity, or d. Refusing to obey an unlawful order 2% (29) 90% (1,168) 8% (107) e. Reporting unwanted sexual attention or sexual harassment 1% (13) 91% (1,191) 8% (101) (1) (2) (3) b. Denial of promotion c. Denial of opportunity for training e. Assignment to less desirable or less important f. Transfer or assignment to a job with less desirable duties or working conditions g. Assignment to a different geographical location h. Suspension from my job i. Fired from my job k. Shunned by coworkers or managers l. Verbal harassment or intimidation m. Required to take a fitness-for-duty exam n. Other (Please specify) 15. In response to retaliation or threat of retaliation, did you take any of the following actions? (Mark all that apply) 1. I took no action (Go to question 17) 2. Complained to a higher level of agency management 3. Complained to the Office of Inspector General within my agency 4. Complained to some other office within my agency (e.g., the personnel office or CREO office) 5. Filed a complaint through my union representative 6. Filed a formal grievance within my agency 7. Filed an EEO (discrimination) complaint 8. Filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel 9. Filed an action with the Merit Systems Protection Board 10. I took an action that has not been specified (Please specify) __________________________________________________________________________________________ 16. What happened to you as a result of your reporting retaliation or threat of retaliation? (Mark all that apply) 1. It got me into more trouble 2. It made no difference 3. The action of retaliation was withdrawn 4. The threat of retaliation was withdrawn 5. Actions were taken to compensate me for the action of retaliation . Decision concerning the action of retaliation is still pending 7. Other (Please specify): __________________________________________________________________________________________ 17. If you took no action in response to retaliation or threat of retaliation, why did you choose not to take any formal action? (Mark all that apply) 1. Not applicable, I took action 2. Still might take some action 3. Not serious enough 4. Didn’t know I could 5. Process wouldn’t solve the problem 6. Fear of management retaliation 7. Problem was solved informally 8. Waited too long/missed deadline 9. Too complicated 10. Too expensive 11. Process isn’t fair 12. I left the work unit 13. Don’t know/can’t judge 14. Other (Please specify) Please answer the following questions to help us analyze the results of the survey. 18. How many years have you been in your current 21. How many years have you been employed with position at SSA Region X? SSA Region X? 11% (153) . Less than 1 year 6% (80) 2. 1 to less than 3 years 3. 3 to less than 10 years 4. 10 or more years 29% (390) 26% (352) 30% (406) 18% (240) 29% (396) 2. 1 to less than 5 years 3. 5 to less than 10 years 4. 10 or more years 50% (671) 19. Are you currently a supervisor or non-supervisor? 22. Please identify your office: 9% (123) 91% (1,212) 20. Please indicate your current grade. 23. Please indicate your sex. 1% (7) 4% (55) 33% (444) 4% (55) 1. Male 2. Female 67% (889) 5% (72) 29% (391) 24. Are you of Hispanic origin? 6% (76) 11% (140) <1% (2) 1. Yes 2. No 89% (1,188) 29% (392) 12% (164) 25. Please indicate your race. (Mark only one) 6% (86) 2% (28) 1% (14) 1% (9) 8% (103) <1% (2) <1% (6) 1. American Indian/Alaska Native 2. African American/Black 3. Asian/Pacific Islander 4. White 5. Other (Please specify) 8% (105) 74% (950) 8% (104) If you have any comments relating to any of the items discussed in this questionnaire, please write them here. 23% (307) In addition to the individual named above, Thomas G. Dowdal, Karin K. Fangman, Nathan Morris, Terry Richardson, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Michael R. Volpe, and Gregory H. Wilmoth made key contributions to this report. The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Summary: Employees at the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Region X--which covers Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington--expressed concern about the Region's equal employment opportunity (EEO) process for employment discrimination complaints. GAO was asked to (1) provide information for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 on the composition of the Region X workforce and for personnel actions such as promotions, awards, and adverse actions by EEO group; (2) describe the EEO complaint process in Region X and any changes to it; (3) assess whether the Region's process is consistent with federal regulations and related guidance; and (4) assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region's employees and their attitude toward it. In a geographic area where minorities represent a small portion of the civilian workforce (about 13.5 percent), Region X generally had a higher percentage of each minority group, except for American Indian and Alaska Natives. Moreover, the percentage of minority employees in Region X had increased from about 19 percent in fiscal year 1997 to about 27 percent in fiscal year 2001. Women represented a much higher proportion of SSA's workforce than of the civilian workforce. Differences among racial/ethnic and gender groups for most of the personnel actions reviewed were not statistically significant. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO counselors described a process that mirrored the informal stage of the required federal sector complaint process. In fiscal year 1999, Region X changed its EEO process, so that EEO counselors were no longer allowed to talk with managers but were required to submit their questions in writing. In addition, managers were encouraged to routinely have an attorney from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) review their written responses before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors. After the changes were in place for about a year, SSA headquarters officials held discussions with Region X officials to explain that having written inquiries and OGC involved in the informal EEO process was not consistent with the intent of resolving issues informally. Beginning early in fiscal year 2001, neither written EEO counselor queries to managers nor OGC involvement was required in the informal process. Region X's former use of written queries and OGC involvement were counter to the spirit of EEO regulations and their related guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling. In doing its work at Region X, GAO found that SSA had issued EEO handbooks for managers and employees, but the handbooks do not contain agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process complaints of discrimination. Agency-specific procedures are required by EEO regulations. Absent such procedures, components of an agency can use different procedures, as illustrated by Region X, resulting in employees across the country being treated differently. To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region's employees are with the EEO process and their willingness to participate in it, GAO surveyed all of the Region's employees. Most Region X employees reported having received or seen within the last 2 years written materials about EEO regulations and how to contact regional EEO counselors. Also, almost half the employees reported a willingness to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint if they believed they had been discriminated against. However, a sizeable portion of employees--about 40 percent--reported being unwilling or uncertain about becoming involved with the processes established for handling EEO complaints.