Limitations in DOD's Evaluation Plan for EEO Complaint Pilot	 
Program Hinder Determination of Pilot Results (22-FEB-08,	 
GAO-08-387R).							 
                                                                 
In August 2004, pursuant to Section 1111 of the fiscal year 2001 
Department of Defense authorization act, the Secretary of Defense
authorized components of the United States Air Force (USAF), the 
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and the Defense Commissary Agency
(DeCA) to implement an equal employment opportunity (EEO)	 
complaint pilot program to reengineer the EEO complaint process  
to, among other things, reduce complaint processing time and	 
reinforce management accountability. The program was exempt from 
the procedural requirements of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and other	 
regulations, directives, or regulatory restrictions prescribed by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As required  
by the legislation, in May 2006, GAO reported on the		 
implementation of the pilot programs and found that two of the	 
three pilot initiatives operated consistent with existing EEOC	 
requirements, with a specific emphasis on alternative dispute	 
resolution (ADR). USAF's pilot operated outside of EEOC 	 
regulations, as authorized under the legislation. We identified  
limitations in the Department of Defense's (DOD) evaluation plan 
for the pilot program that, if not addressed, would limit the	 
likelihood that the evaluation would yield sound results. For	 
example, the plan did not have well-defined or clear objectives  
or set criteria for determining if the pilots had met objectives.
Accordingly, we made recommendations to DOD on ways to develop a 
sound evaluation plan that would more accurately and reliably	 
assess the pilot programs' results and thereby support effective 
program and policy decisions. DOD made some changes to the	 
evaluation plan based on our recommendations. USAF and DeCA's	 
pilot programs ended on September 30, 2007; DLA ended its pilot  
on September 30, 2006. As required by the legislation, GAO	 
evaluated the pilots at the conclusion of the program. Our	 
objectives were to (1) describe the key aspects of the EEO	 
process that were tested by the pilot program, (2) present data  
DOD reported from the pilot program, (3) evaluate improvements	 
DOD made to its evaluation plan, (4) describe ADR processes used 
in the pilot programs compared to other ADR processes reported by
federal agencies, and (5) provide lessons learned from the pilot 
program that can inform future EEO complaint process reform	 
initiatives.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-387R					        
    ACCNO:   A80971						        
  TITLE:     Limitations in DOD's Evaluation Plan for EEO Complaint   
Pilot Program Hinder Determination of Pilot Results		 
     DATE:   02/22/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Claims processing					 
	     Employment discrimination				 
	     Employment opportunities				 
	     Evaluation criteria				 
	     Fair employment programs				 
	     Grievance procedures				 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Standards evaluation				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint		 
	     Processing System					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-387R

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 22, 2008: 

Congressional Addressees: 

Subject: Limitations in DOD's Evaluation Plan for EEO Complaint Pilot 
Program Hinder Determination of Pilot Results: 

In August 2004, pursuant to Section 1111 of the fiscal year 2001 
Department of Defense authorization act,[Footnote 1] the Secretary of 
Defense authorized components of the United States Air Force (USAF), 
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and the Defense Commissary Agency 
(DeCA) to implement an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint 
pilot program to reengineer the EEO complaint process to, among other 
things, reduce complaint processing time and reinforce management 
accountability. The program was exempt from the procedural requirements 
of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and other regulations, directives, or regulatory 
restrictions prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC). As required by the legislation, in May 2006, GAO reported on 
the implementation of the pilot programs and found that two of the 
three pilot initiatives operated consistent with existing EEOC 
requirements, with a specific emphasis on alternative dispute 
resolution (ADR).[Footnote 2] USAF's pilot operated outside of EEOC 
regulations, as authorized under the legislation. We identified 
limitations in the Department of Defense's (DOD) evaluation plan for 
the pilot program that, if not addressed, would limit the likelihood 
that the evaluation would yield sound results. For example, the plan 
did not have well-defined or clear objectives or set criteria for 
determining if the pilots had met objectives. Accordingly, we made 
recommendations to DOD on ways to develop a sound evaluation plan that 
would more accurately and reliably assess the pilot programs' results 
and thereby support effective program and policy decisions. DOD made 
some changes to the evaluation plan based on our recommendations. 

USAF and DeCA's pilot programs ended on September 30, 2007; DLA ended 
its pilot on September 30, 2006. As required by the legislation, GAO 
evaluated the pilots at the conclusion of the program. Our objectives 
were to (1) describe the key aspects of the EEO process that were 
tested by the pilot program, (2) present data DOD reported from the 
pilot program, (3) evaluate improvements DOD made to its evaluation 
plan, (4) describe ADR processes used in the pilot programs compared to 
other ADR processes reported by federal agencies, and (5) provide 
lessons learned from the pilot program that can inform future EEO 
complaint process reform initiatives. To accomplish our objectives, we 
used GAO's evaluation guidance and social science evaluation literature 
to assess the changes DOD made to its evaluation plan and we assessed 
the reliability of the pilot program data provided by program 
officials. We also interviewed DOD and pilot program officials to 
obtain their perspectives on the pilot program and lessons learned and 
EEOC officials to get their views on the strengths and limitations of 
the pilot program. We determined that the data provided by DOD were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. We conducted our 
review from July 2007 through December 2007 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We provided detailed briefings on the results of our work to 
congressional committee staff.[Footnote 3] The briefing slides are 
included in the enclosure. This letter also provides clarifying 
information that we obtained about participation rates in the pilot 
program. In addition to the results of our assessments of the pilot 
program, we are including information on EEOC's preliminary efforts 
under an ongoing initiative to reform the federal EEO complaint 
process, which EEOC officials told us after our briefings is focused on 
the investigative phase of the process. 

In summary, DeCA and DLA tested the informal stage of the EEO complaint 
process, primarily by increased use of ADR to informally settle 
disputes before they became formal complaints. DeCA developed a toll-
free call line which they indicated was to enable employees to "vent" 
their grievances and DLA required management and new hires to attend 
training on ADR and offered it to all employees. USAF made substantive 
changes to the formal stage of the complaint process--combining the 
investigative and hearing phases--with a goal of reducing complaint 
processing times to an average of 127 days or less.[Footnote 4] At the 
end of their program, USAF officials reported that the average 
processing time for pilot cases was approximately 108 days. USAF's 
program officers informed us that they plan to seek approval to 
continue their program and have drafted legislation that would 
authorize them to do so. We have not obtained a copy of this draft 
legislation. 

Data reported by DOD showed that rates of participation in the pilot 
programs varied widely. As specified in the legislation, claimants had 
the option of participating in the pilot program or staying with the 
traditional process within their respective organizations. Further, DOD 
afforded those opting to participate in the pilot program the 
opportunity to opt out and go back to the traditional process at any 
time. USAF's participation rate was about 16 percent of those offered 
the pilot, but 76 percent of the pilot cases were resolved and another 
9 percent, which were still pending as of September 30, 2007, will 
remain under the pilot. USAF officials generally attributed the 
relatively low number of complainants who opted to participate in the 
pilot to a lack of familiarity and trust in a new EEO complaint 
procedure. DeCA had 100 percent of those eligible accept the pilot and 
51 percent (44 of 87 complaints) completing it with resolution. Over 95 
percent of those eligible accepted DLA's pilot with 75 percent (12 of 
15 complaints) completing it with resolution. During our briefings, we 
received several questions from congressional committee staff about 
what was meant by "completed the pilot with resolution," especially for 
USAF cases since these could be appealed to EEOC. USAF described as 
"resolved" those cases that received a decision on the merits or were 
settled during the USAF's process. Since DLA's and DeCA's pilot 
programs focused on the informal stage of the process, these agencies 
considered a case "resolved" when it did not proceed to a formal 
complaint under the traditional EEO complaint process. 

Based on recommendations we made in our May 2006 report, DOD made 
changes to its evaluation plan, including establishing benchmarks to 
assess pilot "success" and clarifying objectives and how they were to 
be measured. DOD officials, with assistance from USAF pilot officials, 
made the most substantive improvements to the evaluation plan for the 
USAF pilot and, as a result, an evaluation of that pilot initiative 
will likely produce sound results. However, because of continuing 
weaknesses in DOD's evaluation plan, an evaluation of the other two 
pilot initiatives will not likely produce results sufficiently sound to 
be applied governmentwide. 

Pilots' use of ADR procedures had several common features that are 
similar to best practices reported by EEOC for federal ADR 
programs.[Footnote 5] These features included support from senior 
management and training of managers and employees in ADR. Officials 
from both DeCA's and DLA's pilots heavily emphasized the importance of 
using ADR in resolving EEO concerns before they became formal 
complaints, and officials from both agencies have indicated that they 
will continue to emphasize this use of ADR. 

We are not making new recommendations in this correspondence. However, 
based on our evaluations of the pilot program, as discussed in this 
letter and in our prior report, we have identified lessons learned that 
could be applied to future pilots to help inform EEO complaint process 
reform initiatives: 

* Develop sound implementation and evaluation plans, including data 
needs, as part of the design of the pilot itself and before 
implementation to increase confidence in results and facilitate 
decision making about broader application of the pilot. 

* Involve senior management in designing, implementing, and evaluating 
the pilot program to help with buy-in. 

* Emphasize the importance of customer feedback and include mechanisms 
to solicit such feedback. 

* Involve EEOC, potentially in an advisory role, when designing the 
pilot. 

* Leverage strategies that have been tried successfully. 

* Continue to stress the use of ADR to help resolve disputes. 

DOD officials informed us that the department intends to issue a report 
on the results of the pilot program in the Spring 2008 but did not 
indicate how the limitations we identified in the evaluation plan would 
impact how information, especially any results for DLA and DeCA, could 
be used by DOD officials and other policy makers. 

With regard to governmentwide complaint process reform, EEOC has 
convened focus groups of various stakeholders to obtain feedback on how 
to improve the investigative phase of the process. EEOC has identified 
fairness, accountability, efficiency, and oversight as the four goals 
guiding the reform efforts and plans to make recommendations to the 
Commission in these areas. At the time of our review, EEOC staff had 
not established specific timelines for developing recommendations. As 
EEOC moves toward reforming the current federal sector EEO complaint 
process, it will be important to consider the lessons learned from the 
pilot program. This is especially true in regard to developing a sound 
evaluation plan to measure results. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chair of the EEOC. EEOC had no comment. Department of Defense officials 
responded that they had no official comments on the draft report. We 
also received comments from one of the pilot agencies--DeCA--which we 
summarize below along with our response. 

In its comments, DeCA took exception with us limiting our focus to 
DOD's evaluation plan and asserted that DeCA had its own set of 
measurable goals to evaluate its pilot and that our report should 
emphasize how well DeCA's objectives were accomplished. At the onset of 
the pilot program, DOD designated the Civilian Personnel Management 
Service (CPMS) to monitor and provide oversight responsibilities for 
the pilot program, which included DeCA and two other DOD components. 
CPMS developed and provided us with the pilot program's evaluation plan 
and we provided an assessment of that plan in our May 2006 report on 
DOD's EEO complaint pilot program.[Footnote 6] After providing a 
recommendation to DOD to strengthen its evaluation plan in 2006, one of 
the objectives of this follow-on engagement was to evaluate the revised 
plan and we found that it had some improvements but still had key 
limitations. 

While we acknowledge DeCA's assertions of how well it accomplished the 
objectives it established for its segment of the overall pilot program, 
as stated above, the focus of our evaluation was to assess the official 
evaluation plan prepared by CPMS. As we discuss in the draft report, we 
found the revised evaluation plan lacking in several key areas specific 
to the DeCA pilot. We continue to believe that a sound evaluation plan 
is important for producing results that can inform decisions to 
implement such programs elsewhere in DOD and potentially 
governmentwide, one of the fundamental intentions of the pilot program. 
DOD has committed to issuing its own evaluation report with findings 
from the three pilot programs in Spring 2008, which we anticipate may 
incorporate more details on DeCA's accomplishments. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary, Department of 
Defense; the Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and other 
interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others on 
request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web 
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact 
me on (202) 512-9490 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Contact points 
for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report 
were Belva Martin, Assistant Director; Karin F. Fangman; Cindy K. 
Gilbert; and Anthony R. Patterson. 

Signed by: 

George H. Stalcup:
Director, Strategic Issues: 

Enclosure: 

List of Congressional Addressees: 

The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
United States Senate:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
United States House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Danny K. Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kenny Marchant:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of 
Columbia:
United States House of Representatives:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
United States House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure: 

Department of Defenseï¿½s EEO Complaint Pilot Programs: 

Briefing for Congressional Clients: 

December 2007: 

Contents: 

Background: 

GAOï¿½s Objectives: 

Results in Brief: 

Scope: 

Methodology: 

Current EEO Administrative Complaint Process (29 C.F.R. Part 1614): 

Key Aspects of the EEO Complaint Process Tested: 

Department of Defense (DOD) Reported Pilot Program Data (FY05ï¿½FY07): 

Status of Evaluation Plan: 
- Improvements; 
- Limitations: 

ADR Processes Used in Pilot Programs Compared to ADR Best Practices 
Used in Other Federal Agencies: 

Observations & Lessons Learned from DODï¿½s EEO Pilot Program: 

Moving Forward. 

[End of contents] 

Background: 

Mounting backlog of equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints in 
various stages of the EEO redress system precipitated calls for 
streamlining. 

Section 1111 of the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act 
[Footnote 7] authorized DOD to carry out pilot programs for up to 3 
years as alternatives to the current EEO complaint process for DOD 
civilian employees: 

* waived procedural requirements of EEOC, including those in 29 C.F.R. 
Part 1614 (dealing with EEO complaints);ï¿½required that participation in 
pilot programs be voluntary; 

* preserved complainant's right to appeal final agency decision to EEOC 
and file suit in district court; and; 

* required that we evaluate and submit reports on the pilot programs 
after the first and last full or partial fiscal years of the pilots. 

Our first report on the pilot program recommended that DOD (1) 
establish intra-agency meetings among the pilot sites, and (2) develop 
a sound evaluation plan to accurately and reliably assess pilot program 
results. DOD generally agreed with our recommendations in that report. 
[Footnote 8] 

DODï¿½s EEO Pilot Programs: 

Pilot sites: 

* U.S. Air Force (All continental U.S. bases); 

* Defense Logistics Agency (Headquarters); 

* Defense Commissary Agency (23 sites). 

Pilots varied but had several common features, including: 

* began operating between October 2004 and February 2005; 

* authorized by DOD initially for 2 years with option to continue for 1 
additional year; 

* allowed individuals to opt out at any time and return to the 
traditional EEO complaints process, and; 

* increased emphasis on ADR. 

GAOï¿½s Objectives: 

Our objectives were to: 

* describe aspects of the EEO complaint process tested by the pilot 
programs; 

* present data DOD reported from the pilot program; 

* evaluate improvements DOD made to its evaluation plan; 

* describe how the ADR processes used in the pilot programs compare to 
other ADR processes reported by federal agencies, and; 

* identify lessons learned from the pilot programs that can inform 
future EEO complaint process reform efforts. 

Results in Brief: 

* DeCA and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) tested the informal 
stages of the EEO complaints process primarily using alternative 
dispute resolution (ADR) to informally settle disputes. USAF made 
substantive changes to the formal stage of the complaints 
processï¿½combining the investigative and hearing phasesï¿½with a goal of 
reducing complaint processing time. 

* Data reported by DOD showed that participation in the pilot varied 
widely. USAFï¿½s participation rate was less than 20 percent of those 
offered the pilot but of those, 76 percent were resolved. DeCA had 100 
percent of those eligible accept the pilot and 51 percent complete it 
with resolution. Over 95 percent of those eligible accepted DLAï¿½s pilot 
with 75 percent completing it with resolution. 

* Based on our recommendations, DOD made some improvements to its 
evaluation plan to clarify objectives and how they will be measured and 
established benchmarks to assess pilot ï¿½success.ï¿½ Based on these 
improvements, an evaluation of the USAFï¿½s pilot program will likely 
produce sound results. However, an evaluation of the other two pilot 
programs will not likely produce valid results. 

* Pilotsï¿½ ADR programs had several common features that are similar to 
best practices reported by EEOC for federal ADR programs, including 
support from senior management and training of managers and employees 
in ADR. 

* Among the lessons learned are the importance of developing sound 
implementation and evaluation plans and involving EEOC, at least in an 
advisor role in future pilots. 

Scope: 

To accomplish our objectives, we focused on: 

* EEO complaint procedures in the pilot program; 

* Pilot data as reported by DOD from January 2005ï¿½September 30, 2007; 

* Reported results of other federal agency ADR efforts, and; 

* DODï¿½s Pilot Program Evaluation Plan. 

We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from July 2007 through 
December 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Methodology: 

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed: 

* Pilot program data reported by DOD, including the number and types of 
cases processed or in process through September 30, 2007; 

* Pilot program information from pilot program officials, agenciesï¿½ Web 
sites, and the Civilian Personnel Management Service (CPMS); 

* Prior GAO reports; 

* DODï¿½s Pilot Program Evaluation Plan; and; 

* GAOï¿½s evaluation guidance and social science evaluation literature. 

We also interviewed EEOC and DOD pilot program officials. 

Current EEO Administrative Complaint Process(29 C.F.R. Part 1614): 

Two stages: informal and formal [Footnote 9]: 

* Informal stage: 
- Individual contacts agency EEO counselor; 
- Individual offered counseling or ADR in an attempt to resolve 
complaints. 

* Formal stage: 
- Individual files a complaint with agency; 
- Agency investigates and provides the complainant with a copy of the 
investigative file; 
- Complainant chooses either (1) a decision based upon the agency 
investigation, or (2) a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge who 
renders a decision; 
- If a hearing is requested, the agency issues its own final order to 
the complainant as to whether it will fully implement the decision; 
- The complainant may appeal a final agency decision (FAD) or agency 
order to the EEOC; 
- The agency may appeal the administrative judgeï¿½s decision to the 
EEOC; 
- Either the agency or complainant may request reconsideration of an 
EEOC decision. 

Key Aspects Tested: U.S. Air Forceï¿½s Compressed Orderly Rapid Equitable 
(CORE) Pilot: 

CORE sites: All Continental USAF Bases. 

COREï¿½s key objectives: (1) increase emphasis on ADR; (2) create three-
step process (ADR, fact-finding, and FAD), to be completed in 127 or 
less days; and (3) increase local management accountability for timely 
complaint resolution. 

Primary Aspects of EEO Process Tested(Formal Stage): 

* Offered ADR. 

* Combined the Investigation and Hearing processes. [Footnote 10] 

* Received and reviewed recommended FAD and transcripts upon completion 
of CORE fact-finding conference. 

* Issued FAD. 

* Replaced hearing before EEOC administrative judge. 

Key Aspects Tested: Defense Logistic Agencyï¿½s Pilot for Expedited 
Complaint Processing (PECP): 

PECP sites: Headquarters only ï¿½Fort Belvoir, Va. 

PECPï¿½s key objectives:(1) reduce processing time by streamlining 
voluntary early resolution during the informal stage, (2) utilize ADR 
during the informal stage to resolve EEO disputes instead of 
counseling, and (3) offer expedited processing for aggrieved 
individuals who elect PECP (60 days vs.90 days) during the informal 
stage. 

Primary Aspects of EEO Process Tested(Informal Stage): 

* Strongly encouraged ADR during precomplaint stage. 

* Streamlined counseling process for PECP participants who did not 
chose ADR. 

Key Aspects Tested: Defense Commissary Agencyï¿½s Early Resolution 
Opportunity (ERO) Pilot: 

ERO sites: 23 test stores. 

EROï¿½s key objectives:(1) reduce the number of formal discrimination 
complaints through emphasis on early resolution and (2) foster faster 
resolution of disputes that do occur. 

Primary Aspects of EEO Process Tested (Informal Stage): 

* Established a ï¿½1-800ï¿½ Precomplaint call-line for employees to ï¿½vent.ï¿½ 

* Offered precomplaint counseling/facilitation between complainant and 
management. 

* Offered mediation if facilitation fails. 

* Centralized informal process (e.g., counseling and facilitation) 
within DeCA that had been carried out by Army, Navy, and Air Force 
under interservice support agreements. [Footnote 11] 

DODï¿½s EEO Complaint Pilot Program Reported Participation and Results: 

Table: Data for the pilot programs reported by DOD from January 
2005ï¿½September 30, 2007 [Footnote 12]: 

Agency: CORE; 
Initial contacts: N/A[B]; 
Eligible for pilot: 1,506[C]; 
Opted for pilot: 239; 
Opted out of pilot: 35; 
Completed pilot with resolution: 182; 
Completed pilot without resolution: 0; 
Still under pilot[A]: 22. 

Agency: PEPC; 
Initial contacts: 16[D]; 
Eligible for pilot: 16; 
Opted for pilot: 15; 
Opted out of pilot: 1; 
Completed pilot with resolution: 12; 
Completed pilot without resolution: 2[E]; 
Still under pilot[A]: 0. 

Agency: ERO; 
Initial contacts: 138; 
Eligible for pilot: 87; 
Opted for pilot: 87; 
Opted out of pilot: 0; 
Completed pilot with resolution: 44; 
Completed pilot without resolution: 43; 
Still under pilot[A]: 0. 

Source: DOD data. 

[A] Although pilot has ended, cases in process will be allowed to 
continue under CORE. 

[B] CORE focuses on the formal stage of the complaint process; initial 
contacts occur at the informal stage. 

[C] Represents the number of individuals who filed formal complaints 
and were offered CORE. 

[D] Data are from October 1, 2004ï¿½September 30, 2006. DLAï¿½s pilot 
program lasted 2 rather than 3 years. 

[E] Although complaint not resolved, complainants opted not to file 
formal complaint. 

[End of table] 

Improvements Made to the Pilot Programsï¿½ Evaluation Plan: 

DODï¿½s initial Evaluation Plan had some strengths, but lacked key 
features. 

CPMS, with assistance from USAF officials, revised the evaluation plan 
based on GAOï¿½s prior recommendations. 

Under CORE: 

* Clarified pilot objectives and how they will be measured; 

* Established benchmarks to assess pilot ï¿½successï¿½; 

* Added statistical controls in order to distinguish pilot and nonpilot 
cases; 

* Developed a data reliability and analysis plan. 

Based on these improvements, an evaluation of CORE will likely produce 
sound results. 

Under PECP & ERO: 

* Clarified pilot programsï¿½ objectives; 

* Established benchmarks to assess pilot ï¿½success.ï¿½ 

Key Limitations to the Pilot Programsï¿½ Evaluation Plan Remain: 

While CPMS made some improvements to the Evaluation Plan, key 
limitations remain: 

* Under PECP & ERO: 
- Only one of the pilot programsï¿½ stated objectivesï¿½reducing processing 
timesï¿½will be measured. 
- Interpreting the comparisons with prior year data will continue to be 
problematic. 
- A data reliability plan is lacking. 

* Based on the revised plan, an evaluation of PECP and ERO will not 
likely produce sound results. 

ADR Use in Pilot Programs Compared to ADR Best Practices in Other 
Federal Agencies: 

Pilotsï¿½ ADR programs had several common features that are similar to 
best practices as reported by EEOC.[Footnote 13] Among these: 

* Support from senior management: 
- All three pilots demonstrated senior leadership buy-in, including 
participating in ADR training and developing ADR policies. 

* Marketing of ADR program: 
- All three pilot sites created brochures about their programs. 

* Training of managers and employees in ADR: 
- All three pilots provided training to managers and employees. 
- CORE officers hired contractors to conduct selected trainings. 

* Collaboration with unions: 
- All three pilots collaborated with union representatives; 
- CORE is marketed by some unions. 

* Appearance of independence and neutrality: 
- All three pilot programs were designed to maintain their appearance 
of independence and neutrality. 
- ERO used external neutrals in its ADR process. 

DeCA and USAF were included in EEOCï¿½s fiscal years 2003-04 ADR best 
practices report. 

GAO Observations and Lessons Learned from DODï¿½s EEO Complaints Pilot 
Program: 

Future initiatives to reform the EEO complaint process should consider 
the following lessons learned based on the pilots: 

* Develop sound implementation and evaluation plans before a pilot is 
implemented, as this is important to increase confidence in results 
which can facilitate decision making about broader application of the 
pilot. 

* Involve senior management in designing, implementing, and evaluating 
the pilot program to facilitate with buy-in. 

* Emphasize the importance of customer feedback and include mechanisms 
to solicit such feedback. 

* Involve EEOC, potentially in an advisory role, when designing the 
pilot. 

* Leverage strategies that have been tried successfully. 

* Continue to stress the use of ADR to help resolve disputes. 

Moving Forward: 

DOD intends to release a report on the pilot program in Spring 2008. 
According to the department, it will send the report to GAO, EEOC, 
Congress, and the President to help inform future complaint process 
reform. 

USAF officials have indicated a desire to continue CORE and have 
drafted legislation to that effect.[Footnote 14] 

EEOC is developing potential recommendations to reform the federal 
agency component of the EEO complaint process and is holding focus 
group meetings with stakeholders to obtain their feedback on suggested 
reforms aimed at enhancing the stated goals of fairness, 
accountability, efficiency, and oversight.[Footnote 15] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 106-398 (Oct. 30, 2000). 

[2] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: DOD's EEO Pilot Program Under 
Way, but Improvements Needed to DOD's Evaluation Plan, GAO-06-538 
(Washington, D.C.: May 2006). 

[3] On December 6, 2007; December 14, 2007; December 17, 2007; and 
January 7, 2008, we briefed congressional staff members. 

[4] According to EEOC's 2006 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, 
federal agencies reduced the average time it takes to process equal 
employment opportunity complaints to 186 days in fiscal 2006, down from 
237 days in 2005. 

[5] See EEOC, ADR Report: Part II--Best Practices in Alternative 
Dispute Resolution FY 2003-FY 2004. 

[6] GAO, GAO-06-538. 

[7] Pub. L. No. 106-398 (Oct. 30, 2000). In the 2004 fiscal year 
authorization, Congress authorized DOD to establish its own human 
capital system, the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), Pub. L. 
No. 108-136 (November 2003). This legislation did not modify the pilot 
program authority, nor did it modify the rights and remedies available 
to individuals with complaints of discrimination. 

[8] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: DODï¿½s EEO Pilot Program Under 
Way, but Improvements Needed to DODï¿½s Evaluation Plan, GAO-06-538 
(Washington, D.C. May 5, 2006). 

[9] See appendix for a detailed description of the EEO complaint 
process. 

[10] CORE fact finders conduct fact-finding conferences, which are an 
investigation technique available under the current EEO process. Under 
CORE, however, fact finders are also required to prepare recommended 
decisions. CORE fact finders do not have the same authority as EEOC 
administrative judges, including the authority to sanction 
uncooperative parties. 

[11] Although not part of the pilot program, ERO also utilized 
electronic transmission of files to DODï¿½s Investigation Resolution 
Division during the formal stage. 

[12] We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of our review. 

[13] EEOC, ADR Report: Part IIï¿½Best Practices in Alternative Dispute 
Resolution FY 2003-FY 2004. In this report, EEOC partnered with 21 
federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of 
Education, and the Social Security Administration. 

[14] We have not seen the legislation. 

[15] EEOC officials met with DOD Pilot program officials several times 
during the pilot period; EEOC officials expressed interest in the CORE 
pilot. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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 GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***