Equal Employment Opportunity: SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO  
Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures (16-JUL-03,	 
GAO-03-604).							 
                                                                 
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. 			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-604 					        
    ACCNO:   A07531						        
  TITLE:     Equal Employment Opportunity: SSA Region X's Changes to  
Its EEO Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures	 
     DATE:   07/16/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Comparative analysis				 
	     Employment discrimination				 
	     Employment of minorities				 
	     Fair employment programs				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Surveys						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-604

                                       A

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2003 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

SSA Region X*s Changes to Its EEO Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide
Procedures

GAO- 03- 604

Contents Letter 1 Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 Background 6 Composition of the Region X Workforce 8
Region X Made Temporary Changes to the Informal Stage of the EEO

Process 17 GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO 20

Region X*s Temporary Changes Were Counter to the Spirit of EEOC*s
Regulations and SSA*s Guidance 22 Conclusions 25 Recommendations 26 Agency
Comments 27

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29 Objective 1 29 Objective
2 31 Objective 3 31 Objective 4 32

Appendix II: EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees

34 Laws Prohibiting Discrimination 34 EEOC Regulations Governing the
Processing of Employment

Discrimination Complaints 34

Appendix III: Region X Workforce by Grade Level 39 Region X Employees in
Grades GS- 13 through GS- 15 39 Region X Employees in Grades GS- 9 through
GS- 12 40 Region X Employees in Grades GS- 5 through GS- 8 41 Region X
Employees in Grades GS- 1 through GS- 4 43

Appendix IV: Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards 46 Experience:
Temporary Promotions 46 Training 48 Awards 49

Appendix V: Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances 53

Adverse Actions 53 Adverse Actions Appealed to MSPB 54 Region X EEO
Precomplaint Counseling and Formal EEO

Complaints Filed 56 Grievances 63 Settlements 64

Appendix VI: Selected Results of GAO*s Survey of Region X Employees on
Equal Employment Opportunity 66 Operations of Region X*s CREO 66
Experiences with Situations Involving EEO in Region X 68 Narrative
Comments 69

Appendix VII: GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO 70

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Secuity Administration 78

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 84 GAO Contact 84
Acknowledgments 84

Tables Table 1: Composition of Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and
2001 by EEO Group Compared With CLF and CWF 10

Table 2: Comparison of 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 14 Table 3: Comparison of the
Percentage of Separations to the

Average Percentage Representation of Each EEO Group in the Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2001 in Region X 16 Table 4: Final Disposition
of Questionnaire 32 Table 5: Percentage Distribution across Grade Levels
by Race/

Ethnicity and Gender for Fiscal Year 1997 45 Table 6: Percentage
Distribution across Grade Levels by Race/

Ethnicity and Gender for Fiscal Year 2001 45 Table 7: Comparison of the
Percentage of JEPs to the Average

Percentage Representation in the Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 Through
2001 in Region X by EEO Group 47 Table 8: Comparison of the Percentage of
Temporary Promotions

to the Average Percentage Representation in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group 48

Table 9: Comparison of the Percentage of GETA Training to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 49 Table 10: Comparison of the Percentage
of Monetary Awards to the

Average Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce
for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 50 Table 11: Comparison of the
Percentage of Quality Step Increases to

the Average Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X
Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 51 Table 12: Comparison of
the Percentage of Honor Awards to the

Average Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce
for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 52 Table 13: Types of Adverse Actions
in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group 54

Table 14: Adverse Actions in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001
That Were Appealed to MSPB and Their Disposition by EEO Group 55 Table 15:
Requests for Counseling in Region X and Their Disposition

in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 56 Table 16: Bases Cited in EEO Counseling
for Region X in Fiscal Years

2000 and 2001 57 Table 17: Issues Cited by Individuals Requesting
Counseling in Region X in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 58

Table 18: Formal EEO Complaints Filed by Region X Employees for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 and Their Disposition 59 Table 19: Bases for EEO
Complaints Filed in Region X in Fiscal Years

1997 through 2001 60 Table 20: Issues Cited in Complaints Filed for Fiscal
Years 1997

through 2001 61 Table 21: Reasonable Accommodations Requested by Region X

Employees for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group 63 Table 22:
Section 9 Grievances Filed in Region X by EEO Group for

Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 64 Table 23: Number of Settlement
Agreements and Amounts Awarded on Settlements for MSPB Appeals, EEO
Complaints, and a

Mixed Case Filed in Region X in Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 65 Table
24: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were

Unwilling or Uncertain to Participate in Counseling Because They Feared
Retaliation 67

Table 25: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were Unwilling or
Uncertain to File a Formal Complaint Because They Feared Retaliation 67
Table 26: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Whether Decisions

Were Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism 68 Table 27:
Percentage of Respondents Indicating Decisions Were

Sometimes or Never Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism 69

Figures Figure 1: Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO
Group 9

Figure 2: Hiring in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group
13 Figure 3: The EEO Complaint Process with Related Time Frames 37 Figure
4: Region X Employees in Grades GS- 13 through GS- 15 in

Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group 40 Figure 5: Region X Employees in
Grades GS- 9 Through GS- 12 in

Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group 41 Figure 6: Region X Employees in
Grades GS- 5 through GS- 8 in Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group 43

Figure 7: Region X Employees in Grades GS- 1 through GS- 4 in Fiscal Years
1997 and 2001 by EEO Group 44

Abbreviations

ADR alternative dispute resolution AFGE American Federation of Government
Employees AIAN American Indian/ Alaska Native AJ administrative judge CLF
Civilian Labor Force CPS Current Population Survey CREO Civil Rights and
Equal Opportunity CWF civilian workforce EEO equal employment opportunity
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission GETA Government Employees
Training Act GS general schedule JEP Job Enhancement Program MD- 110
Management Directive- 110 MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board NAACP
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People OCREO Office of
Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity OGC Office of the General Counsel SES
Senior Executive Service SSA Social Security Administration

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

Letter

July 16, 2003 The Honorable Jim McDermott The Honorable Jennifer Dunn The
Honorable Adam Smith Letter

House of Representatives An October 2000 report by the Seattle branch of
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 1
alleged that the Social Security Administration*s (SSA) Region X* which
covers Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington and has about 1,800
employees* may have violated federal regulations governing equal
employment opportunity (EEO) and the processing of employment
discrimination complaints. The report alleges, among other things, that
the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) in Region X interfered with EEO
precomplaint counseling, the informal stage of the EEO complaint process.
2 In addition, the report alleges that in the informal stage, EEO
counselors were required by Region X management to submit written inquires
to responsible management officials rather than conversing with them to
get information. SSA did not agree with the report*s allegations but
agreed to two of its recommendations: to provide on- site precomplaint
counseling at one of the Region*s largest facilities and to provide
ongoing training to management on provisions concerning employees* rights
in SSA*s labormanagement agreement. As a result of the NAACP report, you
asked us to look at the Region*s EEO program.

Federal employees are protected by various federal laws that prohibit
employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, or disability (see app. II). In addition, federal employees
are protected from retaliation for filing a complaint, participating in an
investigation of a complaint, or opposing any practice made unlawful under
these antidiscrimination laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) has issued regulations that govern how the discrimination claims of
federal employees are to be processed administratively. 3 Federal agencies
covered by these regulations are

1 Seattle Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Racism and Disparate Treatment Issues: Region 10, Social
Security Administration (Seattle: 2000).

2 Although the Region handles the informal stage of the EEO complaint
process, SSA requires formal complaints be filed with SSA headquarters in
Baltimore.

responsible for developing and implementing their own EEO programs and
complaint processing procedures consistent with EEOC*s regulations. As
agreed with your offices, 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
Region*s EEO complaint process and any changes to it during the 5- year
period; (3) assess whether the Region*s EEO complaint process was
consistent with federal regulations and related guidance; and (4) assess
the familiarity of the Region*s employees with the EEO process and their
attitude toward it.

For our discussion of the composition of Region X*s workforce as well as
the breakdown of personnel actions by EEO group, we used SSA data provided
by the Region*s human resources management information system for fiscal
years 1997 through 2001 for African Americans, American Indian/ Alaska
Natives (AIAN), Asian/ Pacific Islanders (Asian), Hispanics,

and Whites. 4 Each racial/ ethnic group was broken down by gender. As part
of our analysis of the composition of SSA staff for selected personnel
actions, we tested to see if statistically significant differences by EEO
group occurred. 5 Our analyses of personnel actions are designed to
provide information at a common and aggregate level about EEO group
differences in personnel actions at Region X and not to determine whether
or not discrimination existed. The presence of a statistically significant
difference does not prove discrimination, nor does the absence of a
statistically significant difference prove that staff have not been
discriminated against.

To describe the EEO process in the Region 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. To determine whether
the Region*s EEO complaint process is consistent with federal

3 29 C. F. R. Part 1614. 4 These data include temporary employees but do
not include SSA components in Region X that are not under the line
authority of the then Regional Commissioner (i. e., the Office of Hearings
and Appeals, OGC, the Office of Inspector General, and the Regional Office
of Quality Assurance). 5 The presence of statistically significant
differences means that we are 95- percent confident

that differences could happen by chance less than 5 percent of the time.

regulations, we reviewed EEOC*s regulations governing how the
discrimination claims of federal employees are to be processed and
compared their requirements with the processes employed by the Region.
Also, to assess the familiarity of the Region*s employees with the EEO
process and their attitude toward it, we surveyed all of the Region*s
employees.

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. Details of our scope and methodology are in appendix
I.

Results in Brief Women made up over 70 percent of SSA*s national workforce
in fiscal year 2002, and Region X*s workforce has mirrored this throughout
all ethnic

groups for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, with about two- thirds of its
employees being women in each of those years. Also in each year, White
employees comprised the majority of the Region X workforce, but their
representation declined from about 81 percent of the workforce in fiscal
year 1997 to about 73 percent in fiscal year 2001. Conversely, minority
employees in Region X increased a corresponding 8 percentage points, from
about 19 percent in fiscal year 1997 to about 27 percent in fiscal year

2001. Increases occurred in all minority EEO groups, except for AIAN
women; the largest percentage increase occurred among Hispanic women. A
comparison of the Region X workforce for fiscal years 1997 and 2001 with
the regional Civilian Labor Force shows that Region X generally had a

higher representation of minority employees in its workforce for all EEO
groups except AIANs.

Concerning selected personnel actions, Hispanic women had the largest
increase in the percentage of hires they represent, and African American
women had the largest decrease. For each EEO group, we looked at the

percentage of promotions and found that most EEO groups were promoted at a
rate that was about the same as or slightly higher than each group*s
average percentage of representation in the workforce. African American
men and White women had the highest positive percentage difference (1.1
percentage points) 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
representation in the workforce, with a 2. 2 and 1.0 percentagepoint
difference, respectively. Also, for each EEO group, we compared the
percentage of separations with the average percentage of the workforce,

and this comparison showed that all minority EEO groups separated at a
rate that was slightly higher than the average percentage of 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 White men and women separated at
rates lower than their average percentage of representation in the
workforce.

Our analysis showed no statistically significant differences among EEO
groups for most of the personnel actions we reviewed. However, it did show
statistically significant differences for some types of awards and adverse
actions. The analysis for the 5- year period showed statistically

significant differences among races concerning quality step increases and
nonmonetary, or honor, awards. In addition, the analysis showed
statistically significant differences among races for short- term
suspensions and between the sexes concerning removals. This analysis was
not designed to determine whether or not discrimination existed but can
indicate areas warranting further study by management. Region X has not

reviewed these differences to uncover their causes or to determine their
appropriateness.

Region X made changes to its EEO process in fiscal years 1999 and 2001.
For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO counselors
described a process that mirrored the informal stage of the complaint
process outlined in EEOC*s guidance to federal agencies. In fiscal year
1999, Region X changed its EEO complaint process, so that EEO counselors
were no longer allowed to talk with managers about what had transpired
between employees alleging possible discrimination and managers but were
required to submit their questions in writing. The then

Regional Commissioner said the changes were instituted because regional
managers said that EEO counselors were not accurately reporting their
views. 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. 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 having the
process arrive at an informal resolution of issues. Beginning early in
fiscal year 2001, EEO counselors were not required to put queries to
managers in writing, and OGC involvement was not required in the informal
process. The changes Region X made to its complaint process in fiscal year
1999 are

not specifically addressed in federal sector EEOC regulations. Neither
EEOC*s regulations nor its related guidance addresses the appropriateness
of written counselors* queries, written managers* responses, or OGC
involvement in the informal process. However, these changes seem to have
been counter to the spirit of the regulations and their related guidance,
which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling. Also, in
doing our work at Region X, we found that SSA had issued EEO

handbooks for managers and employees that discussed EEO in general and the
basic EEO process. However, the handbooks do not contain agencyspecific
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 were with

the EEO process and their willingness to participate in it, we surveyed
all of the Region*s employees on the EEO process and EEO in the Region.
Most Region X employees reported having received or having seen within the
last 2 years written materials about EEO regulations and how to contact
regional EEO counselors. When asked about their willingness, if they
believed that they had been discriminated against, to either participate
in EEO counseling or 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. However, a
sizeable portion of respondents to our survey* about 40 percent*

indicated they were unwilling or uncertain about becoming involved with
the processes established for handling EEO complaints. Our survey results
indicate that if Region X does not work to improve the perceptions of
employees, it may not achieve a trusting workplace.

We recommend that the Commissioner of SSA adopt agency- specific
procedures for counselors to use in processing complaints of
discrimination to ensure that employees face the same process everywhere.
We also recommend that Region X take actions to enhance its EEO
environment to increase trust and, where necessary, address differences in
personnel actions across racial, ethnic, and gender groups. In commenting
on a draft of this report, SSA said it was updating materials dealing with
the EEO process and would include procedural guidelines as called for in
EEOC*s regulations governing federal agencies* EEO procedures. SSA also
said that as part of its normal review process, it will

review the statistically significant differences we found in Region X
personnel actions. However, SSA did not agree with our recommendation that
Region X take actions to enhance its EEO environment to increase trust.
SSA*s written comments are discussed near the end of this letter and
reproduced in appendix VIII.

Background 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, 6 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. 7 If the matter is not resolved
by the 30th day of counseling or if ADR is unsuccessful, 8 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

6 ADR generally refers to any procedure agreed to by the parties in a
dispute that is used to resolve issues in controversy including, but not
limited to, mediation or arbitration. As of January 1, 2000, all federal
agencies covered by 29 C. F. R. Part 1614 were required to establish or
make available an ADR program during the informal (precomplaint
counseling) and formal complaint stages of the EEO process. According to a
Region X official, as of March 7, 2003, participation in the ADR process
is currently limited to mediation and available to Region X employees
within the Seattle commuting area.

7 Before the end of the 30- day period, the employee may agree in writing
with the agency to postpone the final interview and extend the counseling
period for up to an additional 60 days.

8 ADR is to be completed within 90 days.

our review. Appendix II provides additional information on the processing
of employment discrimination complaints.

Composition of the SSA*s national workforce is predominantly women* about
71 percent in

Region X Workforce 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.

Figure 1: Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group
AIAN

Men 0.4

0.5 Women

1.2 1.0

Asian

Men 1.6

2.2 Women

3.2 5.0

Hispanic

Men 2.1

3.5 Women

3.3 6.5

African American

2.3 Men

2.6 Women

5.0 5.5

White

Men 25.7

24.2 Women

55.3 48.9

010 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage of employees

1997 (N= 1,726) 2001 (N= 1,847) Source: Region X data.

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. 9 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. Tabl e 1:
Composition of Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO
Group Compared With CLF and CWF Region X workforce Regional

CLF CWF As of September 30, 1997 As of September 30, 2001 (FY 1990) (FY
2001)

EEO group Number Percent Number Percent Percent Percent

African American men 39 2.3 48 2.6 1.1 1.1 African American women 87 5.0
101 5.5 0.9 1.1 AIAN men 7 0.4 9 0.5 0.9 1.0 AIAN women 21 1.2 19 1.0 0.8
1.5 Asian men 27 1.6 41 2.2 1.6 1.8 Asian women 55 3.2 93 5.0 1.6 2.2
Hispanic men 36 2.1 65 3.5 2.3 2.2 Hispanic women 57 3.3 120 6.5 1.5 2.6
White men 443 25.7 447 24.2 49. 1 43.2 White women 954 55.3 904 48.9 40. 0
43.3

Tot al 1,726 100.1 1,847 99.9 99. 8 100.0

Source: Region X data and GAO analysis of Current Population Survey. Note:
Totals do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

9 The Current Population Survey 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.

Composition of Selected We reviewed the EEO groups of those individuals
who in fiscal years 1997 Personnel Actions by EEO

through 2001 were hired, promoted, separated, or received awards or Group

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. 10 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.

Hiring 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 11 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
Spanishspeaking

10 We were unable to determine whether minorities and women were
significantly less likely to be hired or promoted because we had no data
on applicants by race/ ethnicity and gender. 11 Telephone service
representatives provide information to inquirers about eligibility and
benefits paid under SSA programs.

public. 12 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.

12 *Direct- in* refers to when a caller is first connected to the 1- 800-
number, hears an option that allows the bypass of English prompts, and
allows the caller to go directly to Spanish prompts. According to a Region
X official, in fiscal year 2002, the number of Spanish calls handled by
Spanish bilingual employees in the teleservice center in Auburn, Wash.,
reached a high of 362,200.

Figure 2: Hiring in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group
AIAN

Men 1.7

0.9 Women

2.9 1.9

Asian

Men 2.3

3.3 Women

5.1 5.6

African American

4.0 Men

5.1 Women

9.1 7.4

Hispanic

2.3 Men

6.5 5.1 Women

9.8

White

24.0 Men

22.8 Women

43.4 36.7

010 20 30 40 50 Percentage of hires

1997 (N= 175) 2001 (N= 215) Source: Region X data.

Promotions 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. 13
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.

Table 2: Comparison of 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

Total competitive Percentage of Average percentage promotions for

competitive representation in the EEO group

5 years promotions

workforce (5 years)

African American men 25 3.6 2.5 African American women 30 4.3 5.3 AIAN men
4 0.6 0.4 AIAN women 12 1.7 1.0 Asian men 13 1.9 1.9 Asian women 31 4.5
4.0 Hispanic men 20 2.9 3.0 Hispanic women 35 5.1 5.4 White men 156 22.6
24.8 White women 364 52.8 51.7

Total 690 100.0 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.

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 13
Hispanics were promoted at slightly lower rates than their representation
in the

workforce. Hispanic men represented 2.9 percent of competitive promotions
and 3.0 percent in the Region*s workforce for the 5- year period. Hispanic
women represented 5.1 percent of competitive promotions and 5.4 percent of
the Region*s workforce.

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 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.

Table 3: Comparison of the Percentage of Separations to the Average
Percentage Representation of Each EEO Group in the Workforce for Fiscal
Years 1997 Through 2001 in Region X

Total Average percentage separations for

Percentage of representation in the EEO group

5 years separations workforce (5 years)

African American 20 2.6 2.5 men African American 50 6.6 5.3

women AIAN men 4 0.5 0.4 AIAN women 16 2.1 1.0 Asian men 19 2.5 1.9 Asian
women 37 4.9 4.0 Hispanic men 27 3.6 3.0 Hispanic women 48 6.3 5.4 White
men 174 22.9 24.8 White women 365 48.0 51.7

Total 760 100.0 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.

Adverse Actions Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5- year period.
14 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

14 Of the 142 actions, 8 were for performance, not conduct.

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 Region X made changes to its informal EEO process in fiscal
years 1999

Temporary Changes to and 2001. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and
former Region X EEO

counselors described an informal process that mirrored the federal sector
the Informal Stage of

complaint process outlined in EEOC*s guidance. In fiscal year 1999, Region
the EEO Process

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). 15 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
15 EEOC uses MD- 110 to supplement its EEO regulations (29 C. F. R. Part
1614) with

additional guidance relating to the processing of complaints.

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. 16 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.

16 A Region X official said that in 1999 Region X management instituted an
intensive training plan to address subject matter needs of EEO specialists
and established the practice of reinforcing each EEO counselor*s role as a
neutral third party. This new training in the Region was put into place
about the same time that EEOC began requiring specific training for EEO
counselors. According to EEOC*s Director of Federal Sector Programs, EEOC
guidance did not have a specific training requirement for EEO counselors
until November 9, 1999, when the regulations and guidance were revised.
Under the revised guidance, EEOC requires new EEO counselors to receive a
minimum of 32 hours of EEO counselor training before assuming counseling
duties.

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 17 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. GAO Survey of To gain an understanding of how familiar the
Region*s employees are with Region X Employees

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
about EEO

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 twothirds of
Region X employees reporting having received or having seen

17 The Auburn Teleservice Center is one of SSA*s four largest such centers
with telephone service representatives.

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. 18 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.

18 U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: The Role of Ombudsmen
in Dispute Resolution GAO/ GGD- 01- 466 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 13, 2001)
and A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management GAO- 02- 373SP
(Washington, D. C.: Mar. 15, 2002).

Region X*s Temporary The changes Region X made to the informal stage of
its EEO process are

Changes Were Counter not specifically addressed in federal sector EEO
regulations. Neither

EEOC*s regulations nor the related guidance* MD- 110* directly addresses
to the Spirit of EEOC*s

the appropriateness of written counselors* queries, written managers*
Regulations and SSA*s

responses, or OGC involvement in the informal process. However, these
Guidance

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. 19

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. 20 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. 21 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

19 Social Security Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity Handbook
for Managers and Supervisors of the Social Security Administration
(Baltimore: Nov. 1995). 20 29 C. F. R. sec. 1614.105( a).

21 SSA*s then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that he prefaced all of
his remarks about the EEO process in Region X with the fact that his
office did not find or see anything illegal or that any person had been
discriminated against.

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. 22 According to a
recent EEOC report, 23 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, 24 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

22 29 C. F. R. sec. 1614.102( b)( 6). 23 U. S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Onsite Report: U. S. Department of Agriculture
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 26, 2003). 24 According to SSA officials, SSA is
currently revising its EEO handbook for managers and supervisors as well
as its employees* edition.

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.

SSA Has Not Adopted In doing our work on Region X, we asked SSA
headquarters and Region X

Procedures for Counselors for documents pertaining to the processing of
EEO complaints. Among

Processing EEO Complaints other things, SSA provided its EEO handbook for
managers and

as Required by EEOC supervisors as well as its employees* edition, which
inform managers and

employees what they can expect when faced with the EEO process.
Regulations 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. 25 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. 26 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. 27 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 25 29 C. F. R. sec. 1614.102 (a).

26 29 C. F. R. sec. 1614.102 (b) (5). 27 29 C. F. R. sec. 1614.104 (a).

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.

Conclusions 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. Agencyspecific

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.

Recommendations 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.

Agency Comments 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.

Victor S. Rezendes Managing Director, Strategic Issues

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 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.

Objective 1 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. 1 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.

1 Region X provided data on the following EEO groups: African American men
and women, American Indian/ Alaska Native (AIAN) men and women, Asian/
Pacific Islander (Asian) men and women, Hispanic men and women, and White
men and women.

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. 2 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
2 According to the Region X official, such coding was done with the
knowledge and

confidence that the code would be corrected when the new employee
paperwork was received, usually within the following week, providing
accurate race/ ethnicity data based on the new employee*s self-
identification for the system.

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.

Objective 2 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.

Objective 3 To determine whether the Region*s EEO complaint process was
consistent with federal regulations, we reviewed EEOC*s regulations 3 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

3 29 C. F. R. Part 1614.

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.

Objective 4 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.

Tabl e 4: Final Disposition of Questionnaire Disposition Number Percent

Useable returns 1,355 75.3 Delivered but not returned 436 24.2 Returned
but not useable a 9 0.5

Tot al 1,800 100.0

Source: GAO analysis. a We received nine questionnaires in which the
tracking number for nonresponse follow- up had been

removed. Because anyone who did not respond to the initial mailing was
sent two questionnaires, these nine questionnaires were not included in
our analysis because they may have been duplicates.

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.

EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to

Appendi x II

Federal Employees Laws Prohibiting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, makes it illegal for Discrimination

employers, including federal agencies, to discriminate against their
employees or job applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. 1 The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who
perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sexbased
wage discrimination. 2 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
as amended, prohibits employment discrimination against individuals who
are 40 years of age or older. 3 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. 4 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.

EEOC Regulations Federal employees or applicants for employment who
believe that they

have been discriminated against by a federal agency may file a complaint
Governing the

with that agency. 5 EEOC has established regulations providing for the
Processing of Employment Discrimination Complaints

1 42 U. S. C. secs. 2000e et seq. 2 29 U. S. C. sec. 206( b). 3 29 U. S.
C. secs. 621 et seq. 4 29 U. S. C. secs. 791 and 794a. 5 For allegations
of discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, filing an
administrative complaint is a prerequisite to filing a civil action in
court. See 42 U. S. C. sec. 2000e- 16( c) and 29 U. S. C. sec. 794a( a)(
1).

processing of federal sector employment discrimination complaints. 6 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, 7 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. 8 If the matter is not resolved
by the 30th day of counseling or if ADR is unsuccessful, 9 the counselor
is

6 29 C. F. R. Part 1614. EEOC has supplemented these regulations with
additional guidance relating to the processing of complaints with
Management Directive- 110 (MD- 110), issued November 9, 1999. 7 ADR
generally refers to any procedure agreed to by the parties in a dispute
that is used to resolve issues in controversy including, but not limited
to, conciliation, facilitation, or mediation. As of January 1, 2000, all
federal agencies covered by 29 C. F. R. Part 1614 were required to
establish or make available an ADR program during the informal
(precomplaint counseling) and formal complaint stages of the EEO
processes. According to an SSA Region X official, as of March 7, 2003,
participation in the ADR process is currently limited to mediation and is
available to Region X employees within the Seattle commuting area.

8 Before the end of the 30- day period, the employee may agree in writing
with the agency to extend the counseling period for up to an additional 60
days. 9 ADR is to be completed within 90 days.

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. 10 If the agency accepts the complaint, it has 180 days
to investigate the accepted complaint and present the complainant with a
record of investigation. 11 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) 12 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. 13 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.

10 An agency may dismiss an individual*s complaint for a number of
reasons, including failure to contact an EEO counselor in a timely manner,
failure to file a complaint in a timely manner, or failure to state a
claim based on covered discrimination. 11 This period can be extended an
additional 90 days when both parties agree. 12 A complainant may request a
hearing at any time after 180 days have elapsed from the

filing of the complaint, regardless of whether the agency has completed
its investigation. 13 If the agency does not issue a final order within 40
days, the decision of the AJ becomes the final action of the agency.

Figure 3: The EEO Complaint Process with Related Time Frames

Alleged discriminatory action occurs

45 days Informal

stage

Complainant and EEO counseling a

agency agreement to extend counseling

30 days Additional

Notice of right

60 days

to file a formal complaint

90 days 15 days Formal stage

Formal complaint Dismissed

30 days

filed with agency complaint

Hearing not

60 days

Final agency

30 days 180 days

requested decision Accepted complaint

Appeal to investigated and

30 days

report of investigation Hearing requested

EEOC issued to complainant

by complainant

Complainant

before EEOC

180 days

Administrative

30 days Additional

administrative judge*s decision

Agency 90 days

judge

40 days

Complainant and agency agreement to extend investigation

Source: GAO, based on EEOC regulations. a Where the agency agrees to offer
ADR in the particular case, employees may choose between participation in
ADR and counseling activities. ADR generally refers to any procedure
agreed to by the parties in a dispute that is used to resolve issues in
controversy including, but not limited to, mediation.

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, 14 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. 15

14 MSPB is an independent quasi- judicial agency in the executive branch
that serves as the guardian of federal merit systems. 15 For employees of
agencies subject to 5 U. S. C. sec. 7121( d) and covered by a collective

bargaining agreement that permits claims of discrimination to be raised in
a negotiated grievance procedure, the employees similarly must elect to
file an EEO complaint or a grievance.

Appendi x III

Region X Workforce by Grade Level 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. 1 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.

Region X Employees in A total of 75 employees were in grades GS- 13
through GS- 15 in fiscal year

Grades GS- 13 through 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 GS- 15

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.

1 The then Regional Commissioner, a White man, was the only SES manager in
Region X in fiscal year 1997 and most of fiscal year 1998. In fiscal years
1999 through 2001, there were two SES managers in the Region, the then
Regional Commissioner, an Hispanic woman, and the then Deputy
Commissioner, an African American man.

Figure 4: Region X Employees in Grades GS- 13 through GS- 15 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group AIAN

1 Men

3 Women

1 0

Hispanic

Men 3

4 0 Women

4

African American

3 Men

2 Women

3 7

Asian

Men 4

3 Women

2 10

White

Men 39

57 Women

19 44

010 20 30 40 50 60 Number of employees

1997 (N= 75) 2001 (N= 134) Source: Region X data.

Region X Employees in A total of 791 employees were in grades GS- 9
through GS- 12 in fiscal year

Grades GS- 9 through 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 GS- 12

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.

Figure 5: Region X Employees in Grades GS- 9 Through GS- 12 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group AIAN

Men 4

3 Women

10 8

African American

Men 8

17 Women

31 35

Asian

Men 9

20 Women

28 41

Hispanic

Men 13

21 Women

26 46

White

Men 187

183 475 Women

463

0 100 200 300 400 500 Number of employees

1997 (N= 791) 2001 (N= 837) Source: Region X data.

Region X Employees in A total of 818 employees were in grades GS- 5
through GS- 8 in fiscal year

Grades GS- 5 through 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 GS-
8 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.

Figure 6: Region X Employees in Grades GS- 5 through GS- 8 in Fiscal Years
1997 and 2001 by EEO Group AIAN

Men 2

2 Women

3 6

Asian

Men 14

18 22 Women

36

African American

Men 28

28 49 Women

56

Hispanic

20 Men

40 Women

28 66

White

Men 213

205 Women

439 387

0 100 200 300 400 500 Number of employees

1997 (N= 818) 2001 (N= 844) Source: Region X data.

Region X Employees in A total of 35 employees were in grades GS- 1 through
GS- 4 in fiscal year

Grades GS- 1 through 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
GS- 4

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.

Figure 7: Region X Employees in Grades GS- 1 through GS- 4 in Fiscal Years
1997 and 2001 by EEO Group

Hispanic

Men 0

0 Women

3 3

African American

0 Men

0 4 Women

3

AIAN

0 Men

1 Women

1 5

Asian

0 Men

0 Women

3 6

White

Men 3

2 Women

21 10

0 510 15 20 25 Number of employees 1997 (N= 35)

2001 (N= 30) Source: Region X data.

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. Tabl e 5: Percentage
Distribution across Grade Levels by Race/ Ethnicity and Gender

for Fiscal Year 1997 GS- 5 through

GS- 9 through GS- 13 through

Workforce as of Group GS- 8 GS- 12 GS- 15 September 30, 1997

African 9.4 4.9 8.0 7.3 Americans AIANs 0.6 1.8 2.7 1.6

Asians 4.4 4.7 8.0 4.8 Hispanics 5.9 4.9 4.0 5.4 Whites 79. 7 83.7 77. 3
81.0 Men 33. 9 27.9 66. 7 32.0 Women 66. 1 72.1 33. 3 68.0 Source: GAO
analysis of Region X data. Note: Because the numbers were so small, we did
not include data for grades GS- 1 through 4.

Tabl e 6: Percentage Distribution across Grade Levels by Race/ Ethnicity
and Gender for Fiscal Year 2001

GS- 5 through GS- 9 through

GS- 13 through Workforce as of Group GS- 8 GS- 12 GS- 15 September 30,
2001

African 10.0 6.2 6.7 8.1 Americans AIANs 0.9 1.3 2.2 1.5

Asians 6.4 7.3 9.7 7.3 Hispanics 12.6 8.0 6.0 10.0 Whites 70.1 77.2 75. 4
73.1 Men 34.7 29.2 51. 5 33.0 Women 65.3 70.8 48. 5 67.0 Source: GAO
analysis of Region X data. Note: Because the numbers were so small, we did
not include data for grades GS- 1 through 4.

Appendi x IV

Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards 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. Experience:

For an employee to receive a temporary promotion to an existing position
Temporary Promotions

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, 1 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.

1 Social Security Administration, Human Resources Management Assessment
Report for Review Conducted April 29- May 3, 2002 in Region X, Office of
Human Resources (Baltimore: 2002).

Table 7: Comparison of the Percentage of JEPs to the Average Percentage
Representation in the Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2001 in
Region X by EEO Group Average percentage Total JEPs Percentage of
representation in the EEO group across 5 years JEPs

workforce

African American men 21 4.0 2.5 African American

34 6.5 5.3 women AIAN men 0 0 0.4

AIAN women 4 0.8 1.0 Asian men 4 0.8 1.9 Asian women 14 2.7 4.0 Hispanic
men 9 1.7 3.0 Hispanic women 14 2.7 5.4 White men 125 24.0 24.8 White
women 295 56.7 51.7

Total 520 99. 9 a 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: JEPs include both temporary
promotions and details to lateral positions. a Total does not sum to 100
percent due to rounding.

According to a Region X official, temporary promotions other than those
under a JEP can be made noncompetitively for up to 120 days. 2 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. 2 If a temporary promotion that was not expected
to exceed 120 days was originally made on a noncompetitive basis, any
extension beyond 120 days must be made under a competitive procedure.
Temporary promotions can be made for either bargaining or nonbargaining
unit positions.

Table 8: Comparison of the Percentage of Temporary Promotions to the
Average Percentage Representation in the Region X Workforce for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group

Total temporary Percentage of

Average percentage promotions temporary

representation in the EEO group

across 5 years promotions

workforce

African American men 4 4.3 2.5 African American

9 9.7 5.3 women AIAN men 0 0.0 0.4

AIAN women 0 0.0 1.0 Asian men 2 2.2 1.9 Asian women 3 3.2 4.0 Hispanic
men 4 4.3 3.0 Hispanic women 1 1.1 5.4 White men 19 20. 4 24.8 White women
51 54. 8 51.7

Total 93 100.0 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.

Training 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 Windowsbased
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.

Table 9: Comparison of the Percentage of GETA Training to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Average percentage Total GETA training Percentage of

representation in the EEO group across 4 years GETA training

workforce

African American men 8 1.8 2.5 African American

35 7.9 5.3 women AIAN men 0 0.0 0.4

AIAN women 4 1.0 1.0 Asian men 8 1.8 1.9 Asian women 11 2.5 4.0 Hispanic
men 12 2.7 3.0 Hispanic women 30 6.8 5.4 White men 69 15. 6 24.8 White
women 265 60. 0 51.7

Total 442 100.1 a 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. a Total does not sum to 100 percent
due to rounding.

Awards 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. 3 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

3 For the 5- year period on which we focused, Region X gave group special
act awards only in fiscal year 2001.

monetary awards to the average percentage representation by EEO group in
the workforce for the 5- year period. 4

Table 10: Comparison of the Percentage of Monetary Awards to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001

Percentage of Average percentage Total monetary monetary representation in
the EEO group awards for 5 years

awards workforce

African American men 173 2.0 2.5 African American 443 5.0 5.3 women AIAN
men 27 0.3 0.4

AIAN women 96 1.1 1.0 Asian men 174 2.0 1.9 Asian women 296 3.3 4.0
Hispanic men 229 2.6 3.0 Hispanic women 436 4.9 5.4 White men 2,159 24. 4
24.8 White women 4,823 54. 5 51.7

Total 8,856 100.1 a 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. a Total does not sum to 100 percent
due to rounding.

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

4 Because more monetary awards are given than there are people in an EEO
group in the Region (i. e., some individuals get more than one monetary
award), we could not test for statistical significance of monetary awards.

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.

Table 11: Comparison of the Percentage of Quality Step Increases to the
Average Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce
for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 Total quality step Percentage of

Average percentage increases for 5 quality step representation in the EEO
group

years increases

workforce

African American men 8 1.6 2.5 African American 22 4.4 5.3 women AIAN men
0 0.0 0.4

AIAN women 2 0.4 1.0 Asian men 11 2.2 1.9 Asian women 22 4.4 4.0 Hispanic
men 3 0.6 3.0 Hispanic women 12 2.4 5.4 White men 130 25. 7 24.8 White
women 295 58. 4 51.7

Total 505 100.1 a 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. a Total does not sum to 100 percent
due to rounding.

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.

Table 12: Comparison of the Percentage of Honor Awards to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 Average percentage Total honor

Percentage of representation in the

EEO group awards for 5 years honor awards workforce

African American men 2 1.3 2.5 African American 5 3.4 5.3 women AIAN men 2
1.3 0.4

AIAN women 2 1.3 1.0 Asian men 4 2.7 1.9 Asian women 11 7.4 4.0 Hispanic
men 4 2.7 3.0 Hispanic women 2 1.3 5.4 White men 31 20. 8 24.8 White women
86 57. 7 51.7

Total 149 99.9 a 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. a Total does not sum to 100 percent
due to rounding.

Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse

Appendi x V

Actions, EEO Complaints, and Grievances The following sections discuss the
adverse actions taken by Region X, 1 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.

Adverse Actions Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5- year period.
2 For nonprobationary employees, the common pattern of progressive
discipline

is reprimand, short- term suspension (a suspension of 14 days or less),
longterm suspension (a suspension of 15 days or more), and removal.
Probationary employees face terminations. 3 Of the 142 actions, 65, or
about 46 percent, were for individuals who entered computer databases
without authorization. 4 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.

1 Eight actions were for performance, not conduct. 2 Because numbers of
adverse actions were small in each of the 5 years, we combined all actions
for the 5- year period. 3 The Region stated that any of these steps may be
bypassed if management determines by the severe nature of the behavior
that a lesser form of discipline would not be appropriate. 4 Other
offenses each accounted for less than 10 percent of all actions and
included failure to

adhere to leave rules or being away without leave and failure to follow
standards of conduct.

Tabl e 13: Types of Adverse Actions in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001 by EEO Group Suspension Involuntary separation a Written

Tot al EEO group reprimand Short- term Long- term Termination Removal

Demotion actions Percent African American 0 5 1 1 3 0 10 7.0% men African
American

4 7 1 1 1 0 14 9.9% women AIAN men 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 2.1%

AIAN women 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 2.8% Asian men 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 2.8% Asian women 0 3
1 0 1 0 5 3.5% Hispanic men 1 4 0 1 1 1 8 5.6% Hispanic women 3 4 0 3 2 0
12 8.5% White men 9 12 2 9 5 0 37 26. 1% White women 10 21 5 5 4 0 45 31.
7%

Tot al 28 62 12 21 18 1 142 100.0

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. a When a probationary employee is
discharged or a temporary employee is separated because of

conduct or performance, the action is characterized as a termination. When
a nonprobationary employee is discharged, the action is characterized as a
removal. Eight other individuals resigned when faced with termination or
removal* one African American woman, one Hispanic man, three White men,
and three White women.

Adverse Actions Employees can appeal adverse actions to MSPB. 5 Appealable
actions

Appealed to MSPB 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 5 MSPB*s mission is to ensure that federal employees are protected
against abuses by executive branch agency management, that agencies make
employment decisions according to merit systems principles, and that
federal merit systems are kept free from prohibited personnel practices.

number of Region X employee appeals to MSPB by EEO group and their
disposition for the 5- year period.

Table 14: Adverse Actions in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001
That Were Appealed to MSPB and Their Disposition by EEO Group

Disposition EEO group Appeals filed

Settled Affirmed a Dismissed Pending

African American men 2 2 African American women 0 AIAN men 1 1 AIAN women
0 Asian men 0 Asian women 2 2 Hispanic men 0 Hispanic women 2 2 White men
3 2 1 White women 5 3 1 1

Total 15 9 3 2 1

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note 1: Settlements include
reduced, rescinded, and mitigated agency actions. Note 2: One employee may
have filed more than one appeal. a Affirmed means that an agency*s action
was found to be appropriate.

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.

Region X EEO SSA is required to prepare and submit an annual report to
EEOC that Precomplaint

includes the number of individuals counseled, monetary and nonmonetary
settlements made during the precomplaint counseling phase, the number
Counseling and Formal

of complaints filed during a reporting period, the bases and issues
alleged EEO Complaints Filed

in all complaints filed during a reporting period, and the number and
amounts of monetary and nonmonetary settlements of closed complaints.

Precomplaint Counseling 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. 6 Table 15 shows the
incidents of

counseling requests for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

Tabl e 15: Requests for Counseling in Region X and Their Disposition in
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 Disposition Requests for Fiscal year counseling
a Withdrawn Settled Not pursued Closed b

2000 38 6 2 2 28 2001 35 0 1 11 23

Tot al 73 6 3 13 51

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. a Does not necessarily equate to
the number of individuals seeking counseling, because one individual

may account for more than one request for counseling in each year. b
Closed includes matters that were resolved with an informal settlement
agreement, resolved without

an informal settlement agreement, and unresolved.

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 6 SSA changed its national reporting mechanism from
manual to electronic reporting, and beginning in fiscal year 2000, SSA
initiated a national database for tracking EEO counseling activity.

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.

Tabl e 16: Bases Cited in EEO Counseling for Region X in Fiscal Years 2000
and 2001 Fiscal years Bases

2000 2001 Tot al Race 14 7 21 Color 0 0 0 Religion 0 0 0 Sex 7 12 19
National origin 1 0 1 Age 13 7 20 Disability 17 16 33 Retaliation/
reprisal 12 5 17 Parental status a 0 1 1 Unstated 1 0 1

Tot al 65 48 113

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: One request for counseling
may contain one or more bases. a This basis is not covered by the EEOC
regulations but is prohibited by Executive Order 13152 (May 2, 2000).

Table 17 shows the issues cited by individuals who requested EEO
counseling in fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

Tabl e 17: Issues Cited by Individuals Requesting Counseling in Region X
in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 Number of requests for Issues counseling
citing issue

Assignment of duties 3 Suspension 3 Termination 4 Disparate treatment 3
Duty hours 3 Evaluation/ appraisal 2 Harassment (nonsexual) 18 Harassment
(sexual) 2 Hostile work environment 2 Promotion/ nonselection 21
Retirement (involuntary) 2 Time and attendance/ leave 5 Training 3
Reasonable accommodation 7 Working conditions 7 Other 10

Tot al 95

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: One request for counseling
may contain one or more issues.

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.

Formal EEO Complaints If employees cannot resolve to their satisfaction
the matters for which they

Filed 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 18: Formal EEO Complaints Filed by Region X Employees for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 and Their Disposition Disposition Finding of
discrimination Fiscal year Filed a

Withdrawn Settled Dismissed No Yes

Total closed Pending 1997 10 1 6 1 1 1 b 10 0 1998 26 4 9 7 3 0 23 3 1999
23 3 10 4 4 0 21 2 2000 16 4 5 4 1 0 14 2 2001 14 0 2 3 0 0 5 9

Total 89 12 32 19 9 1 73 16

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: For settlements, a global
settlement can address more than one filed EEO discrimination complaint,
MSPB appeal, or union grievance and may account for more than one
individual settlement. a Because one individual may have filed more than
one EEO complaint, the number filed is not

necessarily equal to the number of complainants. b The EEOC administrative
judge hearing the case had a finding of discrimination and offered partial

relief, which SSA and the complainant are appealing.

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 19: Bases for EEO Complaints Filed in Region X in Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001 Fiscal years Bases

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total Race 7 12 10 8 5 42

African American 5 4 8 4 2 23

Asian 1 0 0 1 0 2

Hispanic 1 1 0 0 2 4

Other 0 1 0 0 0 1

White 0 6 2 3 1 12 Color 0 0 0 0 1 1 Religion 0 3 0 0 1 4 Sex 4 25 14 7 3
53

Women 3 14 5 1 2 25

Men 1 11 9 6 1 28 National origin 2 3 7 1 1 14 Age 0 5 7 7 0 19
Handicapping

2 7 11 9 8 37 condition Mental 1 0 4 3 3 11

Physical 1 7 7 6 5 26 Retaliation/ reprisal 4 11 14 8 2 39 Total 19 66 63
40 21 209

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: Because one individual may
have filed more than one EEO complaint, the number filed is not
necessarily equal to the number of complainants, and one EEO complaint may
contain one or more bases.

Table 20 shows the number of issues cited in the 89 EEO complaints filed
by Region X employees during fiscal years 1997 through 2001.

Tabl e 20: Issues Cited in Complaints Filed for Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001 Issues Number of issues cited in complaints filed

Assignment of duties 5 Awards 8 Reprimand 7 Suspension 8 Ter mi na t i on
4 Duty hours 2 Evaluation/ appraisal 2 Harassment (nonsexual) 30
Harassment (sexual) 2 Hostile work environment 4 Pay including overtime 3
Promotion/ nonselection 29 Reasonable accommodation 16 Retirement
(involuntary) 1 Time & attendance 11 Training 3 Working conditions 19
Other 4

Tot al 158

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: One filed complaint may
contain one or more issues.

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. 7 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.

7 The accommodation must be job related and not items already required for
personal use (e. g., hearing aids, prosthetic devices, wheelchairs, and
transportation to work). Reasonable accommodation is determined on a case-
by- case basis, taking into consideration

the individual*s specific disability and existing limitations to the
performance of a job function, the essential duties of the job, the work
environment, and the feasibility of the proposed accommodation.

Table 21: Reasonable Accommodations Requested by Region X Employees for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group Accommodation Disability
Services Team EEO group Requested

Withdrawn Approved Denied Alternate Forwarded Approved Denied Alternate

African 6 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 American men African

7 0 4 3 0 1 1 0 0 American women

Hispanic 4 1 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 women White men 23 0 9 6 4 4 2 0 1

White women 45 5 18 4 4 19 7 10 0

Total 85 6 32 15 9 30 a 15 11 1

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: Multiple categories may be
recorded for a single request for accommodation. For example, in one case,
an accommodation may be denied. In another case, a request may be
forwarded to the Disability Services Team, which may deny the requested
accommodation and approve an alternative accommodation. We counted each
category of accommodation; therefore, one person may have multiple results
to his or her request.

a For three requested accommodations that were forwarded to the Disability
Services Team, there is no record of the Disability Services Team*s
decision.

Grievances 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. 8 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. 9 If the management official does not find a violation
of the negotiated agreement or workplace policy or practice, or cannot
agree to

8 Such grievances are filed in accordance with Article 24, Section 9 of
the SSA/ AFGE National Agreement. In addition, the union as an institution
may file grievances against a particular level of management in accordance
with Article 24, Section 10 of the SSA/ AFGE National Agreement; such
grievances are not discussed in this report.

9 Occasionally, management may offer something other than what was
requested, which satisfies the employee/ representative, and the grievance
is resolved.

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.

Table 22: Section 9 Grievances Filed in Region X by EEO Group for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 Relief Arbitration Grievances

Not Settlement EEO group filed a Withdrawn b

Granted Partial Denied Invoked pursued Awarded reached

African American 16 2 2 0 13 8 1 3 3 men African American

24 8 7 4 6 2 1 0 0 women AIAN men 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

AIAN women 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Asian men 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Asian women 5 0 1
0 4 0 0 0 0 Hispanic men 6 2 2 0 3 3 1 0 1 Hispanic women 12 3 1 1 7 3 2 0
1 White men 57 17 7 6 28 5 2 1 1 White women 134 20 36 11 66 10 8 0 0

Total 260 53 56 23 131 32 16 4 6

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note 1: One individual may have
filed more than one grievance. Note 2: 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, when appropriate, for each grievance;
therefore, one person may have multiple categories to his or her
grievance. a Two grievances were found not grievable, so they were only
counted as filed.

b Withdrawn includes five grievances that were withdrawn after arbitration
was invoked.

Settlements 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. 10 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. 11 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. Tabl e 23: Number of
Settlement Agreements and Amounts Awarded on Settlements

for MSPB Appeals, EEO Complaints, and a Mixed Case Filed in Region X in
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 Number of settlement Fiscal year settled
agreements a Amount

1999 2 $17,820.00 2000 4 11,163.91 2001 2 8,337.86 2002 11 143,831.66 2003
2 20, 000

Tot al 21 $201,153.43

Source: GAO analysis of Region X data. Note: A global settlement can
address more than one filed EEO discrimination complaint, MSPB appeal, or
union grievance; therefore, the number of complaints settled may be higher
than the number of settlement agreements. a The number of settlement
agreements includes five that had only nonmonetary terms. Settlement

agreements do not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, harassment,
discrimination, and/ or violation of law, statute, or regulation.

10 The terms of the five nonmonetary settlements agreed to for complaints
filed in fiscal years 1997 through 2001 included rescinded terminations,
removals, or suspensions; restoration or credit for sick and annual leave;
lateral reassignment or promotion; and a handwritten apology. 11 For EEO
complaints alone, 32 complaints filed in fiscal years 1997 through 2001
were

settled (as shown in table 18).

Selected Results of GAO*s Survey of Region X Employees on Equal Employment

Appendi x VI

Opportunity 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. 1
Operations of Region

Almost 60 percent of respondents were either generally or very familiar
X*s CREO

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.

1 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.

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.

Tabl e 24: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were Unwilling or
Uncertain to Participate in Counseling Because They Feared Retaliation
Race/ ethnicity Percentage of respondents who feared retaliation

Nonminority 73 Minority 27

Sex

Men 29 Women 71 Source: GAO*s survey of Region X employees about EEO.

Tabl e 25: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were Unwilling or
Uncertain to File a Formal Complaint Because They Feared Retaliation Race/
ethnicity Percentage of respondents who feared retaliation

Nonminority 77 Minority 23

Sex

Men 28 Women 72 Source: GAO*s survey of Region X employees about EEO.

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).

Experiences with As shown in table 26, most Region X employees responding
to our survey

Situations Involving indicated that they believed decisions concerning job
or project

assignments, training, formal ratings, and monetary awards were always EEO
in Region X

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.

Tabl e 26: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Whether Decisions Were
Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism

Percentage of respondents indicating decisions were

Sometimes or never or Always or mostly based on

almost never based on Type of personnel or pay

merit and free of bias and merit and free of bias

decision favoritism

and favoritism

Job or project assignments 61 18 Training 68 12 Formal performance

74 11 appraisals/ ratings Monetary awards and bonuses 61 21

Promotion and career 44 21 advancement Nonmonetary awards and 50 22

recognition Source: GAO*s survey of Region X employees about EEO.

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.

Tabl e 27: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Decisions Were Sometimes
or Never Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism Type of personnel
or pay decision Men Women Nonminority Minority

Job or project assignments 7 11 13 6 Training 5 8 8 4 Formal performance

4 6 7 3 appraisals/ ratings Monetary awards and bonuses 8 14 15 6

Promotion and career advancement 9 13 16 6 Nonmonetary awards and
recognition 8 15 17 6 Source: GAO*s survey of Region X employees about
EEO.

Narrative Comments 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

percent);  complaints of perceived discrimination or other negative
personal

experiences (21.5 percent); or  disgruntlement over affirmative action
and workforce diversity (9. 4

percent).

GAO Survey of Region X Employees about

Appendi x VII

EEO United States General Accounting Office Survey of SSA Region X
Employees About Equal Employment Opportunity

Introduction

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 necessary.

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.

U. S. General Accounting Office Norfolk Office 5029 Corporate Woods Drive
Suite 300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Attention: Ms. Kiki Theodoropoulos

SSA Region X Survey 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.

complaints. with an X - - - -

3. 4. 5. counseling? ( Mark only one ) 1. 2. 3.

SECTION II Your EEO Experiences The following questions ask for your views
about your experiences about situations involving EEO in SSA Region X
within the past 2 years.

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)

Almost Most of the

As often as Some of the

Never or Does not

always time

not time

almost never apply

( 1) ( 2)

( 3) ( 4)

( 5) ( 6)

a. Job or project 44% ( 581) 17% ( 224) 6% ( 83) 9% ( 114) 10% ( 131) 14%
( 191) assignments b. Training 51% ( 665) 17% ( 222) 6% ( 85) 6% ( 80) 6%
( 83) 14% ( 180) c. Formal performance

56% ( 732) 18% ( 243) 6% ( 76) 5% ( 62) 6% ( 77) 10% ( 127) appraisals/
ratings d. Monetary awards and

45% ( 588) 16% ( 218) 7% ( 90) 11% ( 151) 10% ( 128) 11% ( 145) bonuses e.
Promotion and career

34% ( 443) 10% ( 129) 7% ( 93) 8% ( 107) 13% ( 177) 28% ( 365) advancement
f. Non- monetary awards

37% ( 487) 13% ( 172) 8% ( 101) 9% ( 123) 13% ( 172) 20% ( 257) and
recognition g. Other ( Please specify)

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)

Yes No

Don t know/

( 1) ( 2)

Can t judge

( 3) a. Age 8% ( 111) 76% ( 1, 009) 16% ( 209) b. Sex 8% ( 100) 77% ( 1,
018) 15% ( 197) c. Handicapping condition 4% ( 48) 80% ( 1, 050) 16% (
209) d. Marital status 2% ( 21) 86% ( 1, 125) 13% ( 166) e. National
origin 5% ( 66) 82% ( 1, 075) 13% ( 172) f. Political affiliation 1% ( 19)
85% ( 1, 108) 15% ( 182) g. Race 10% ( 137) 75% ( 988) 15% ( 200) h.
Religion 2% ( 21) 84% ( 1, 099) 14% ( 183) i. Other ( Please specify ) 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)

Yes No

Don t know/

( 1) ( 2)

Can t judge

( 3) a. Deliberately misled by an agency official about your right to

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 applicant d. Denied a job or promotion that went
instead to a relative of one

2% ( 27) 83% ( 1, 099) 15% ( 205) of the selecting officials 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)

Yes No

Don t know/

( 1) ( 2)

Can t judge

( 3) a. Because of your age 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. Yes

No Don t know/

( 1) ( 2)

Can t judge

( 3) a. Making disclosures concerning health and safety dangers; 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 appeal rights 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)

15. 16. f. g. h. i. k. l. m. 1. duties n. Other

17. 18. 19. 20. formal action? 1.

If you have any comments relating to any of the items discussed in this
questionnaire, please write them here. 23% ( 307)

Comments from the Social Secuity

Appendi x VIII Administration

Appendi x IX

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Victor S. Rezendes,
(202) 512- 6806 Acknowledgments 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.

(450090)

GAO*s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of 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 fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

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.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

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. 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.

GAO recommends that SSA adopt agency- specific procedures for counselors
to use in processing discrimination complaints, so

employees have the same process everywhere. GAO also recommends that
Region X take actions to enhance its EEO

environment to increase trust and, where necessary, address differences in
personnel actions across racial, ethnic, and gender groups.

SSA agreed with GAO*s findings and cited actions it was taking on two of
GAO*s three recommendations.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 604. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Victor S. Rezendes on (202) 512- 6806 or at
rezendesv@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 604, a report to

congressional requesters

July 2003

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

SSA Region X*s Changes to Its EEO Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide
Procedures

Page i GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Contents

Page iii GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Contents

Page iv GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Contents

Page v GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 1 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X United States General Accounting
Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

A

Letter

Page 2 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 3 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 4 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 5 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 6 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 7 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 8 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 9 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 10 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 11 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 12 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 13 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 14 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 15 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 16 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 17 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 18 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 19 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 20 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 21 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 22 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 23 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 24 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 25 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 26 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 27 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 28 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 29 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix I

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 31 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 32 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 33 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 34 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix II

Appendix II EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees

Page 35 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix II EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees

Page 36 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix II EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees

Page 37 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix II EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees

Page 38 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 39 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix III

Appendix III Region X Workforce by Grade Level

Page 40 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix III Region X Workforce by Grade Level

Page 41 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix III Region X Workforce by Grade Level

Page 42 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix III Region X Workforce by Grade Level

Page 43 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix III Region X Workforce by Grade Level

Page 44 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix III Region X Workforce by Grade Level

Page 45 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 46 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards

Page 47 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix IV Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards

Page 48 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix IV Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards

Page 49 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix IV Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards

Page 50 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix IV Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards

Page 51 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix IV Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards

Page 52 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 53 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 54 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 55 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 56 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 57 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 58 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 59 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 60 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 61 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 62 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 63 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 64 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix V Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances

Page 65 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 66 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VI

Appendix VI Selected Results of GAO*s Survey of Region X Employees on
Equal Employment Opportunity

Page 67 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VI Selected Results of GAO*s Survey of Region X Employees on
Equal Employment Opportunity

Page 68 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VI Selected Results of GAO*s Survey of Region X Employees on
Equal Employment Opportunity

Page 69 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 70 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VII

Appendix VII GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO

Page 71 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VII GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO

Page 72 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VII GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO

Page 73 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VII GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO

Page 74 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VII GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO

Page 75 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VII GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO

Page 76 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VII GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO

Page 77 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 78 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VIII

Appendix VIII Comments from the Social Secuity Administration Page 79 GAO-
03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VIII Comments from the Social Secuity Administration Page 80 GAO-
03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VIII Comments from the Social Secuity Administration Page 81 GAO-
03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VIII Comments from the Social Secuity Administration Page 82 GAO-
03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix VIII Comments from the Social Secuity Administration Page 83 GAO-
03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Page 84 GAO- 03- 604 EEO at SSA Region X

Appendix IX

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***