Equal Employment Opportunity: NIH's Handling of Alleged Sexual Harassment
and Sex Discrimination Matters (Letter Report, 09/29/95, GAO/GGD-95-192).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the extent and nature
of sexual harassment and sex discrimination at the National Institutes
of Health (NIH).
GAO found that: (1) 32 percent of NIH employees surveyed reported
experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the past year, but 96
percent of these employees opted not to file an equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint or take other personnel action; (2) NIH
employees filed 32 informal and 20 formal sexual harassment complaints
between October 1990 and May 1994, however no determinations of sexual
harassment were made in response to these complaints; (3) about 13
percent of NIH employees believed they had experienced sex
discrimination over the last 2 years, but 90 percent of these employees
chose not to file grievances or EEO complaints; (4) NIH employees filed
209 informal and 111 formal sex discrimination complaints between
October 1990 and May 1994, however no determinations of sex
discriminations were made in response to the formal complaints; and (5)
although NIH has recently acted to improve its EEO climate, more could
be done in the areas of timeliness, information, and training.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-95-192
TITLE: Equal Employment Opportunity: NIH's Handling of Alleged
Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination Matters
DATE: 09/29/95
SUBJECT: Federal employees
Sex discrimination
Sexual harassment
Fair employment programs
Civil rights law enforcement
Investigations by federal agencies
Personnel management
Agency proceedings
Surveys
Human resources training
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Honorable
William L. Clay, House of Representatives
September 1995
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY -
NIH'S HANDLING OF ALLEGED SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND SEX DISCRIMINATION
MATTERS
GAO/GGD-95-192
Equal Employment Opportunity
(966595)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
EEO - equal employment opportunity
EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
ICD - institute, center, or division
NIH - National Institutes of Health
OEO - Office of Equal Opportunity
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-260247
September 29, 1995
The Honorable William L. Clay
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Clay:
This report responds to your request that we examine the extent and
nature of sexual harassment and sex discrimination matters at the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). Your request was based on media
reports that large numbers of sexual harassment complaints were filed
by female employees at NIH over the last several years.
Sexual harassment involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for
sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature when they are committed as a condition of employment or basis
for employment action. In addition to creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive working environment, such actions may
negatively affect an employee's career. Sex discrimination is any
practice or procedure that denies employment opportunities because of
one's sex. This includes matters related to hiring, development,
advancement, and overall treatment. Sex discrimination can also
cover situations in which employees' talents are not fully utilized
because of their sex. Although treated separately in this report,
sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
In response to a random survey of 4,110 NIH employees that we
conducted, approximately 32 percent of NIH employees reported
experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the past year. Of
these employees, over 96 percent opted not to file an equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint or take some other personnel
action, generally because they did not consider the incident to be
serious enough, chose to deal with it themselves, or decided to
ignore the incident. However, others said they did not file
complaints because they believed the situation would not be kept
confidential, the harasser would not be punished, filing a complaint
would not be worth the time or cost, and/or they feared retaliation.
Altogether, NIH employees filed 32 informal and 20 formal complaints
alleging sexual harassment with NIH's Office of Equal Opportunity
(OEO) between October 1990 and May 1994.\1 For formal complaints
closed between October 1991 and May 1994, no determinations or
findings of sexual harassment were made.
About 13 percent of NIH employees said they believed they had
experienced sex discrimination over the last 2 years. Almost 90
percent of these employees chose not to file EEO complaints,
grievances, or adverse action appeals. Time and cost considerations
were cited as reasons for not filing by about 42 percent of these
employees. Altogether, NIH employees filed 209 informal and 111
formal complaints alleging sex discrimination between October 1990
and May 1994. No determinations or findings of sex discrimination
were made on formal complaints filed by NIH employees that were
closed between October 1991 and May 1994.
In recent years, NIH management has acted to improve the EEO climate
at NIH. For example, beginning with the fiscal year 1993 rating
period, NIH made EEO a critical element on managerial performance
ratings. NIH has also issued policy statements to employees and
managers expressing its commitment to a discrimination-free
environment. Several task forces have been established to evaluate,
among other things, pay and status differences between male and
female scientists and potential improvements for processing reprisal
complaints.
Although NIH management has made progress towards improving its EEO
climate, more could be done in the areas of timeliness, information,
and training. NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
management have not met federal regulations that generally require a
180-day time frame for processing employee complaints. More than
half of the 119 formal sexual harassment and sex discrimination
complaints filed by NIH employees between October 1, 1990, and March
31, 1994, were still unresolved at the end of April 1995. All
complaints had been open for more than 1 year. Of the cases that
were closed by the end of April 1995, only 34 percent had been closed
within 180 days of being filed. Although NIH management is
responsible for ensuring an appropriate EEO climate throughout NIH,
the agency's decentralized management structure and practices have
not provided systematic information or guidance that would allow the
Director to assess EEO practices or resolve emerging problems
throughout the agency. For example, NIH does not collect the
information needed to assess the overall status of the sexual
harassment and sex discrimination environment. Similarly, NIH
management has not monitored the quality, consistency, or frequency
of the pertinent training and early resolution programs implemented
by its institutes, centers, and divisions (ICD); nor has it provided
agencywide criteria regarding the content of courses or specified
which employees were required to attend.
--------------------
\1 An NIH employee who believes he/she has been sexually harassed or
discriminated against can file an informal complaint with OEO. A
counselor attempts to resolve the matter by contacting people
associated with the situation. If it is not resolved, the employee
can file a formal complaint with the Department of Health and Human
Service's Office of Human Relations, which hires an independent
contractor to investigate the allegations.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Federal employees, by law, are entitled to receive fair and equitable
treatment in employment without regard to their sex, among other
things. In addition, any federal employee who has the authority to
take, recommend, or approve any personnel action is prohibited from
discriminating for or against any employees or applicants for
employment on the basis of their sex. These rights are set forth in
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978.
In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued
regulations recognizing sexual harassment as an unlawful employment
practice. Subsequent case law clarified that unlawful sexual
harassment exists when unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature are
committed as a condition of employment or basis for employment action
("quid pro quo"), or when this conduct creates a hostile work
environment.\2 A key word is "unwelcome," because unlawful sexual
harassment may exist when the target perceives that he or she is
being harassed, whether or not the perpetrator intended to create a
hostile environment. EEOC has the authority to enforce federal
sector antidiscrimination laws, issuing rules and regulations as it
deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities. It issued revised
guidelines for processing EEO complaints, including sexual
harassment, that became effective in October 1992.
NIH is one of several Public Health Service agencies within HHS and
is the principal biomedical research agency of the federal
government. It supports biomedical and behavioral research
domestically and abroad, conducts research in its own laboratories
and clinics, trains researchers, and promotes the acquisition and
distribution of medical knowledge. NIH is made up of 26 ICDs, each
of which has its own director and management staff. Its 13,000
employees are primarily located in the Bethesda, Maryland, area.
--------------------
\2 A hostile work environment is one where employees are intimidated
or believe they may be disadvantaged by the sexually oriented
behavior of other employees.
OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Our objective was to obtain information on the extent and nature of
sexual harassment and sex discrimination at NIH, to provide a
systematic overview of an issue that had received media attention
based on individual allegations. To accomplish this, we reviewed
sexual harassment and sex discrimination complaints filed by NIH
employees and conducted a projectable survey of NIH employees. We
also interviewed agency officials at NIH, the Public Health Service,
and HHS involved with handling such situations in order to
familiarize ourselves with EEO-related activities.
We obtained statistics on formal sexual harassment and sex
discrimination complaints that were filed between October 1, 1990,
and May 31, 1994, and reviewed those complaints filed during this
period and subsequently closed. We also reviewed 20 complaints that
were handled as part of NIH's expedited sexual harassment process
between September 1, 1992, and May 31, 1994. Under this accelerated
procedure, officials from the involved ICD were required to
immediately advise OEO officials about any sexual harassment
allegations that came to their attention. OEO was then required to
complete its inquiry within 2 weeks. NIH's EEO complaint process is
outlined in greater detail in appendix I. We did not compare the
number and type of complaints filed by NIH employees with those filed
by employees at other governmental institutions.
To obtain an agencywide perspective on the sexual harassment and sex
discrimination environment at NIH, we sent questionnaires to a
stratified random sample of 4,110 persons who were NIH employees as
of the end of fiscal year 1993. We asked these employees for their
insights, opinions, and observations (anonymously) about sexual
harassment and sex discrimination at NIH as well as their opinions
about NIH's EEO system. The results of our survey, which can be
projected to the universe from which it was selected, are shown in
their entirety in appendix II. The overall usable response rate was
64.3 percent. The percentages presented in this report are based on
the number of NIH employees who responded to the particular question
being discussed. Because the survey results come from a sample of
NIH employees, all results are subject to sampling errors. For
example, the estimate that 32 percent of the employees have
experienced sexual harassment is surrounded by a 95 percent
confidence interval from 30 to 34 percent. All of the survey results
in this report have 95 percent confidence intervals of less than + 5
percent unless otherwise noted. All reported comparisons of female
and male responses are statistically significant unless otherwise
noted. It should be noted that our questionnaire methodology, which
is described in greater detail in appendix III, did not include
comparing NIH with other governmental institutions.\3
We also contacted agency officials at NIH, the Public Health Service,
and HHS to obtain estimated costs associated with processing sexual
harassment and sex discrimination complaints. Information regarding
the limited data that were available is covered in appendix IV.
Our work was done at NIH's Bethesda, Maryland, location from May 1993
to May 1995, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
We requested comments from the Secretary, HHS; the Assistant
Secretary for Health, HHS; and the Director, NIH on a draft of this
report. Their consolidated comments are discussed on p. 16 and
presented in appendix V.
--------------------
\3 The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board recently conducted a
governmentwide assessment of employees' views on sexual harassment as
a follow-up to previous work. It expects to release the results in
early fall of 1995.
ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF NIH
EMPLOYEES ALLEGED SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, BUT FEW FILED
COMPLAINTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Approximately 32 percent of NIH employees reported that they were the
recipients of some type of uninvited, unwanted sexual attention in
the past year, and employees filed 32 informal complaints and 20
formal complaints with NIH's OEO between October 1990 and May 1994.
These complaints were filed primarily by female employees. Closed
formal complaints we reviewed overwhelmingly identified immediate
supervisors and/or management officials as the alleged harassers.
However, employees in general did not consider these groups to be the
only sources of sexual harassment at NIH. Coworkers and contractors
were also identified as alleged harassers. Actions reportedly taken
most often by sexually harassed employees to deal with their
situations included ignoring the situation or doing nothing, avoiding
the harasser, asking/telling the harasser to stop the offensive
behavior, discussing the situation with a coworker and/or asking the
coworker to help, or making a joke of the situation.
Over 96 percent of NIH employees who said they were sexually harassed
reported that they decided not to file complaints or take some other
personnel action. Some of the more prevalent reasons employees gave
for choosing not to file EEO complaints, grievances, or adverse
action appeals were that (1) they did not consider the incident to be
serious enough, (2) they wanted to deal with it themselves, and/or
(3) they decided to ignore the incident. Also, some of the employees
who chose not to file complaints believed the situation would not be
kept confidential, the harasser would not be punished, filing a
complaint would not be worth the time or cost, and/or that they would
be retaliated against.
Although it remains small as a proportion of the workforce, the
number of EEO complaints filed by NIH employees alleging sexual
harassment has increased in recent years. Of the 20 formal
complaints filed between October 1, 1990, and May 31, 1994, none were
filed in fiscal year 1991; 4 and 7 were filed in fiscal years 1992
and 1993, respectively; and 9 were filed during the first 8 months of
fiscal year 1994.
Although 53 percent of employees reported they thought NIH did a
somewhat good to very good job taking action against employees who
engage in sexual harassment, about 27 percent of employees reported
they thought NIH did a somewhat poor to very poor job. (See app.
II, p. 31.) Our review of sexual harassment complaint files and
statistics showed that no determinations or findings of sexual
harassment had been made on formal EEO complaints filed by NIH
employees that were closed between October 1991 and May 1994. It
should be noted, however, that actions could be and have been taken
against alleged harassers without a formal admission that harassment
actually occurred.
For the most part, employees reported they believed NIH was doing a
good job of informing them about the nature of sexual harassment, the
policies and procedures prohibiting it, and the penalties for those
who engage in sexual harassment. NIH also got good reviews from its
employees for encouraging them to contact ICD EEO officers and/or OEO
regarding any sexual harassment concerns. Only 5.5 percent of
employees viewed sexual harassment to be more of a problem at NIH
than it was a year earlier, and 34.5 percent of the employees did not
perceive sexual harassment to be a problem at all at NIH. However,
many employees perceived NIH as doing a poor job of counseling
victims of sexual harassment (20.8 percent), preventing
reprisal/retaliation for reporting sexual harassment (22.2 percent),
and taking action against those who harassed others (26.9 percent).
With regard to their respective ICDs, 2.3 percent of the employees
believed the problem had become more serious while 52.2 percent of
employees did not consider sexual harassment to be a problem at their
ICDs. (See table 1.) Two-thirds of the employees--67.1
percent--believed enough was being done by NIH to eliminate sexual
harassment. This sentiment was echoed by 72.3 percent of employees
about their respective ICDs and 74.7 percent of employees about their
immediate supervisors. (See app. II, p. 23.)
Table 1
Perceptions of NIH Employees About the
Sexual Harassment Environment, as
Compared to 1 Year Earlier
Much Somewha Somewha Much
less of t less About t more more of Not a
a of a the of a a proble
Location problem problem same problem problem m
----------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
NIH 7.4% 16.2% 36.4% 3.3% 2.2% 34.5%
ICD 8.2% 10.5% 26.7% 1.8% 0.5% 52.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Women reported being harassed more often than men (37.7 percent
compared to 23.8 percent), and women employees at NIH perceived
sexual harassment to be a more serious problem than did men (21.3
percent compared to 8.2 percent). Male and female employees who said
they experienced sexual harassment indicated that most of the
uninvited, unwanted sexual attention consisted of gossip regarding
people's sexual behavior; sexual jokes, remarks, and teasing; and
negative sexual remarks about a group (e.g., women, men,
homosexuals). For the most part, employees reported that it was
instigated by coworkers, supervisors, and/or contractors who worked
on the NIH campus. Very few employees said that the sexual
harassment they experienced included receiving or being shown nude or
sexy pictures (4.8 percent); being pressured for a date (4 percent);
receiving requests or being pressured for sexual favors (1.5
percent); receiving letters, phone calls, or other material of a
sexual nature (1.4 percent); and threatened, attempted, or actual
rape or sexual assault (0.4 percent). The employees who made these
claims also said these situations had not occurred repeatedly--once
or twice during the last year. (See app. II, p. 25.)
WHILE FEWER EMPLOYEES ALLEGED
SEX DISCRIMINATION,
NONREPORTING WAS STILL A
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Thirteen percent of NIH employees indicated to us that they believed
they had experienced sex discrimination over the last 2 years. Of
the 13 percent, approximately half chose to take some type of action
regarding their situation. Many of these employees said they came
forward and discussed their experiences with an EEO official, their
immediate supervisor, and/or some other non-EEO official. However,
about 10 percent of employees who alleged discrimination reported
that they took the next step and filed an EEO complaint, grievance,
or adverse action appeal with the appropriate NIH office. Some of
the more prevalent reasons why employees chose not to file actions
were concerns that they would not be treated fairly, that filing a
complaint would not be worth the time or cost, that they would be
retaliated against, that the situation was not serious enough, and/or
that the situation would not be kept confidential. Many employees
also decided to ignore the situation or to try to deal with their
situations themselves.
Between October 1990 and May 1994, 209 informal and 111 formal sex
discrimination complaints were filed by female and male employees at
NIH. Formal complaints that were closed during this time period were
filed for multiple reasons, the most common being nonselection for
promotion, lack of promotion opportunity, and objection to job
evaluation ratings. The alleged discriminators were people with
authority over the complainants and could therefore alter the
conditions under which the complainants worked.
Within NIH, more than half of the women employees (58.4 percent) said
they believed the current sex discrimination situation to be as much
of a problem as it was 1 year earlier, and 37 percent of the men said
the same. Although the percentages were small, a larger percentage
of men (7.2 percent) than women (6.1 percent) considered the problem
to be at least somewhat worse. Also, 30.6 percent of male employees
did not perceive sex discrimination to be a problem at NIH, a belief
echoed by only 17.6 percent of female employees. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Employee Assessment
of the Sex Discrimination
Situation at NIH, as Compared
With 1 Year Earlier, by Gender
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: Percentages are based on those employees who chose a
response other than "No basis to judge" (61 percent).
Note 2: Only the differences between males and females on "Much less
of a problem," "About the same," and "It has not been a problem" are
statistically significant.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Men and women were divided, even within their own gender groups, in
their belief as to whether NIH was doing enough to eliminate sex
discrimination in the workplace. While the majority of men believed
NIH was doing enough (71 percent), a number of men disagreed (17
percent). Women's views were also divided--about 48 percent of the
women expressed the view that NIH was doing enough to eliminate sex
discrimination, but 33 percent disagreed.
Many NIH employees reported they believed women and men were not
given comparable opportunities and rewards at their ICDs.
Approximately one out of five employees (20.2 percent) did not
believe that women and men at NIH were paid the same for similar work
or that men and women were formally recognized for similar
performance at the same rate (19.7 percent). Nearly one out of three
employees (30.1 percent) reported they did not believe men and women
were promoted at the same rate when they had similar qualifications.
A number of employees also reported they observed that women and men
at NIH did not have similar opportunities for visibility (15.5
percent) or similar success finding mentors (22.8 percent), nor did
they get equally desirable assignments (19.0 percent). About 44
percent of the employees reported they believed family
responsibilities kept women at NIH from being considered for
advancement more than they did for men and about 50 percent expressed
the view that an "old boy network" prevented women at NIH from
advancing in their careers. For each of these topics, female
employees responded more strongly than their male counterparts, and
the differences in their responses are statistically significant at
the 95 percent confidence level.
About 35 percent of employees reported they thought NIH did a
somewhat poor to very poor job taking action against employees who
engaged in sex discrimination. Our review of sex discrimination
complaint files and statistics showed that no determinations or
findings of sex discrimination had been made on formal EEO complaints
filed by NIH employees that were closed between October 1991 and May
1994. It should be noted, however, that actions could be and have
been taken against alleged discriminators without a formal admission
that discrimination actually occurred.
NIH HAS TAKEN STEPS TO IMPROVE
ITS EEO CLIMATE, BUT MORE COULD
BE DONE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Although the management of NIH is highly decentralized, with each ICD
largely responsible for its own management, the controversies that
emerged in 1991 and 1992 over sex discrimination, sexual harassment,
and racial discrimination\4 were directed at the NIH Director, who
was expected to address them on an agencywide basis. Partly in
response to these controversies, NIH management has, in recent years,
taken actions aimed at improving the agency's EEO climate. Beginning
with the fiscal year 1993 rating period, EEO became a critical
element on managerial performance ratings and can have an impact on
overall ratings and determinations of pay increases. NIH management
also issued policy statements to employees and managers expressing
its commitment to a discrimination-free environment.
Several employee task forces were also established at NIH, such as
the Task Force on Intramural Women Scientists and the Task Force on
Fair Employment Practices. These groups, respectively, addressed
issues such as differences in pay and status between male and female
scientists with comparable backgrounds and experiences and
improvements for processing reprisal complaints (the latter has been
incorporated into NIH EEO policy). NIH officials recently conceded
that pay discrepancies exist between male and female scientists, and
they are acting to bring female scientists' salaries in line with
those of their male peers within their respective ICDs.
An EEO hotline was operational from June 1993 through April 1994 to
permit employees to call in and informally report EEO situations they
were uncomfortable about. ICD officials were responsible for
preparing reports about these inquiries.
NIH management's actions to better its EEO climate appear to have
been positive ones. However, in light of the history of controversy
surrounding EEO issues at NIH and the public focus of those issues on
the office of the NIH Director, our review suggested additional steps
that could be taken to further improve the environment and to provide
information to the NIH Director to assist him in ensuring that the
EEO climate continues to improve and problems are addressed as they
emerge.
--------------------
\4 By agreement with our requester, we did not address racial
discrimination in this review. However, during the same period that
the sex discrimination and sexual harassment controversies were being
publicly debated, similar controversies were reported about
allegations of racial discrimination.
TIME FRAMES FOR PROCESSING
COMPLAINTS ARE NOT BEING MET
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
NIH and HHS have been unsuccessful at meeting time frame requirements
for processing sexual harassment and sex discrimination complaints
filed by NIH employees. Federal regulations generally require that
an agency provide the complainant with a completed investigative
report within 180 days of accepting a formal complaint. Of the 119
formal sexual harassment and sex discrimination complaints filed
between October 1, 1990, and March 31, 1994, 63 were still open as of
April 30, 1995. All of these cases had been open for more than 1
year. Of the 56 cases that were closed by the end of April 1995,
only 19 were closed within 180 days of the date the complaint was
filed. Twenty-five of them were open for more than 1 year before
being closed. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Processing Time for
Sexual Harassment and Sex
Discrimination Cases Filed
Between October 1, 1990, and
March 31, 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of NIH EEO complaint files.
NIH DOES NOT ASSESS ITS
OVERALL SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND SEX DISCRIMINATION
CLIMATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
Responses to our questionnaire indicated that although about 32
percent of NIH employees said they experienced sexual harassment and
approximately 13 percent said they believed they were discriminated
against because of their sex, substantially fewer employees reported
to NIH that they had experienced such situations. The limited
reliability of complaint data in assessing the overall climate of an
agency,\5 along with the independent nature of the ICDs, makes it
difficult for NIH management to assess the sexual harassment and sex
discrimination environment. Agencywide information on how employees
view these issues would aid management in making such an assessment;
however, such information currently is not being collected.
--------------------
\5 The use of complaint data as an indicator of the extent of sexual
harassment has also been the subject of prior GAO work. See Federal
Employment: Inquiry Into Sexual Harassment Issues at Selected VA
Medical Centers (GAO/GGD-93-119, June 30, 1993).
NIH HAS LIMITED INFORMATION
ABOUT ICD EDUCATIONAL
OFFERINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3
Through EEO training, attempts were made by NIH to educate employees
about what actions or behaviors constitute sexual harassment and sex
discrimination, how to prevent such situations, and what recourse
employees have to deal with them. Many of the issues surrounding
sexual harassment involve dealing with people, such as being
sensitive to others in the workplace, being able to confront someone
tactfully, treating people fairly, and maintaining a professional
atmosphere. Some employees may actually be unaware that their
actions are perceived by others as sexual harassment. Some employees
may not realize that the actions of others are in fact sexual
harassment and/or sex discrimination and that they do not have to
tolerate these actions.
Within NIH, the ICDs have been delegated the authority to develop and
provide their own EEO training programs relating to preventing sexual
harassment and sex discrimination. OEO has not monitored the
quality, consistency, or frequency of the training provided to
individual employees, nor has it provided agencywide criteria
regarding the content of the courses provided or which employees
should be required to attend.
We contacted 10 of NIH's 26 ICDs about their EEO training efforts.
These ICDs employed over 9,200 people, or about 71 percent of NIH's
full-time permanent staff, and varied in size from 150 to over 2,000
employees. All 10 ICDs offered some form of sexual harassment
prevention training. Six ICDs required all of their employees to
receive such training, three ICDs required this training only for
managers and supervisors, and one ICD had no attendance requirements.
Most of the ICDs chose either to conduct their own training sessions
or to have OEO conduct the training. In a few cases, the training
was developed and/or presented by contractors. Five of the ICDs
offered sexual harassment prevention training as recently as fiscal
year 1994. However, one ICD last offered training in fiscal year
1991. The training sessions generally ranged from 2 to 4 hours.
None of the ICDs reported offering training that specifically dealt
with preventing sex discrimination. Any such training was to have
been included with other training. As with the sexual harassment
prevention training, the EEO training varied in length, recency (from
fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1994), source of design, and target
audience. Three of the 10 ICDs we contacted required their managers
and supervisors to attend.
Even though OEO did not provide standardized, scheduled training for
NIH employees or maintain any data on the training provided to them
by their respective ICDs, many employees considered themselves to be
well informed about sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Most
employees reported they believed that NIH did a somewhat good to very
good job informing them about current policies and procedures
prohibiting sexual harassment (85.9 percent) and behaviors or actions
that constitute sexual harassment (80.0 percent). Similarly, a
majority of employees also reported they believed that NIH did a
somewhat good to very good job informing them about the penalties for
those who engage in sexual harassment (63.1 percent).
A large majority of employees reported they believed that NIH did a
somewhat good to very good job informing them about current policies
and procedures prohibiting sex discrimination (72.7 percent) and
behaviors or actions that constitute sex discrimination (67.3
percent). However, about one out of four employees (24.9 percent)
stated that NIH did a somewhat poor to very poor job of informing
them about the penalties for those who engage in sex discrimination.
Overall, 65.2 percent of NIH employees reported they believed NIH did
a somewhat good to very good job informing them about their rights
and responsibilities under federal government EEO regulations. They
were less positive in their beliefs about how well NIH informed them
about the roles of EEO officials, counselors, and investigators (51.9
percent good, 26.7 percent poor) and about the various complaint
channels open to them (53.6 percent good, 26.2 percent poor).
Employees also believed NIH did a somewhat better job of helping
managers/supervisors develop an awareness of and skills in handling
EEO problems (63.0 percent good, 20.9 percent poor) than it did for
employees (53.2 percent good, 25.2 percent poor).
OEO DOES NOT TRACK ICDS'
RESOLUTION OF EEO SITUATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.4
At NIH, we found no agencywide record maintenance or tracking of
problem areas or trends for situations handled at the ICD level. NIH
management empowered the ICDs with responsibility for resolving
situations in the hopes that their early resolution would prevent
barriers from being created that would hinder productivity and/or
cause employees to remain in hostile work environments for
unnecessarily long periods of time. Regarding alleged sex
discrimination, employees had the option of contacting the EEO
officer in their respective ICDs to try to resolve their situations
before filing a complaint with OEO.\6 We found that ICD officials
were not required to notify OEO officials of any recurring problems,
behavioral patterns, or trends they identified when dealing with
employees' concerns about sex discrimination, thus depriving OEO
officials and NIH employees of an overview of NIH's EEO environment.
--------------------
\6 As part of NIH's expedited sexual harassment process, ICD
officials must advise OEO officials immediately about any sexual
harassment allegations that come to their attention. (See app. I.)
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
While most NIH employees do not perceive sexual harassment and sex
discrimination to be serious problems at NIH, and the number of those
who believe progress has been made outweighs those who do not, a
significant minority of NIH employees are still clearly concerned
about the continuing existence of sexual harassment and sex
discrimination at their agency. In order for NIH efforts against
sexual harassment and sex discrimination to be successful, employees
need to trust that the processes established for dealing with their
concerns about sexual harassment and sex discrimination will produce
results in a timely manner. To date, NIH and HHS have not met time
frames established by federal regulations in handling many of the
formal complaints filed by NIH employees.
Because of the number of independent organizations operating under
the NIH structure and the absence of reliable indicators on the
extent to which sexual harassment and sex discrimination are
occurring, we believe that looking at the agency "as a whole" could
enable NIH to better determine the overall state of its sexual
harassment and sex discrimination situations. Such an overall
assessment would also provide agencywide information for the NIH
Director to permit him to identify the existence of emerging EEO
problems and to resolve them more expeditiously. For example,
periodically using an NIH employee attitude questionnaire, such as
the one we developed, would assist NIH in identifying problems that
have occurred or acknowledging any progress that has been made in
dealing with such situations.
NIH has attempted to deal with employee concerns about sexual
harassment and sex discrimination by increasing awareness about
workplace relationships and improving agencywide communication
through training. However, we noted that NIH lacks minimum standards
with regard to course content and has not communicated its
expectations on which employees should receive such training and on
how frequently it should be provided. Moreover, NIH has not
monitored training to ensure that its expectations regarding such
training are being fulfilled.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
We recommend that the Secretary of HHS and the Director of NIH take
steps to decrease the time it takes to process and resolve sexual
harassment and sex discrimination complaints at NIH. In addition,
because the Director is responsible for ensuring an appropriate EEO
climate throughout NIH despite the decentralized management structure
and practices of the agency, we also recommend that he take further
steps to provide guidance for and monitoring of the agency's EEO
program. In doing so, we recommend he consider such steps as
periodically conducting an employee attitude survey, such as the
one we developed, so that the existence of sexual harassment and
sex discrimination trends and problems can be more easily
identified and dealt with; and
establishing minimum standards for sexual harassment and sex
discrimination-related training offered to NIH employees as well
as procedures for monitoring the implementation of the training
to ensure that employees participate as intended.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We requested comments from the Secretary, HHS; the Assistant
Secretary for Health, HHS; and the Director, NIH on a draft of this
report. The Department responded with consolidated comments, which
are presented in appendix V. The Department concurred with each of
our recommendations and indicated that steps are under way to
implement them. We believe that the steps outlined in the
Department's letter, if successfully implemented, will achieve the
objective of our recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
As agreed with you, unless you publicly release its contents earlier,
we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its
issue date. At that time, we will provide copies to the Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, National
Institutes of Health; and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Subcommittee on Civil Service, House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight. Copies will also be made available to others
upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If
you have any questions about the report, please call me on (202)
512-8676.
Sincerely yours,
L. Nye Stevens
Director, Federal Management
and Workforce Issues
NIH'S EEO COMPLAINT PROCESS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Federal regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 1614) state that agencies should
provide prompt, fair, and impartial processing of EEO complaints,
including those related to sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
The federal EEO complaint filing process consists of two phases,
informal and formal. Figure I.1 details the process and the time
frames stated in the regulations. Once an employee has exhausted all
options available through this process, he/she can appeal to the EEOC
and/or through the court system.
An NIH employee who believes he/she has been sexually harassed or
discriminated against because of his/her sex can seek advice or
assistance from various sources before filing an informal complaint.
A supervisor or other management official can initially become
involved to assist in resolving the situation at an early stage, or
the employee can go directly to the EEO officer at the ICD where
he/she works. If the situation cannot be resolved, or if the
employee chooses not to have ICD officials address the situation, an
informal complaint can be filed with NIH's OEO. An employee who
believes he/she has been sexually harassed or discriminated against
because of his/her sex has 45 days from the alleged event to file an
informal complaint with the OEO. An OEO-appointed counselor is
allotted 30 days to attempt to resolve the matter by contacting
employees associated with the situation.\1
If the situation is not resolved within 30 days from the start of
counseling (and the involved parties have not agreed to an
extension), the complainant is to be given a counselor's inquiry
report and notified of the right to file a formal complaint within 15
days with HHS's Office of Human Relations. HHS has responsibility
for deciding whether to accept a complaint, hiring investigators,
determining whether sexual harassment or sex discrimination has
occurred, and arranging settlements. An accepted formal complaint is
investigated by an independent contractor. The agency has 180 days
to complete the investigation and provide the complainant with a
report. If the complainant is not satisfied with the results of the
investigative report, he/she is given appeal rights and has 30 days
(from receipt) to request a hearing from the EEOC or an agency
decision from HHS.
Figure I.1: General Overview
of Federal Sector Complaint
Process Under 29 C.F.R. Part
1614
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO, based on NIH data.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
--------------------
\1 NIH initiated an "expedited sexual harassment process" in 1992 to
facilitate the review and resolution of allegations in the
precomplaint phase. Under this procedure, ICD officials must advise
OEO officials immediately about any sexual harassment allegations
that have come to their attention. OEO assigns an independent
contractor to conduct and complete an inquiry within 2 weeks. The
inquiry summary is then reviewed by OEO and NIH officials to
determine the appropriate action. The employee may also file an
informal complaint concerning the same allegation. In addition, NIH
now has independent contractors investigating sexual harassment
complaints at the informal stage in an effort to expedite their
resolution.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
EMPLOYEE SURVEY
=========================================================== Appendix I
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
SURVEY NOTES
Note 1: All "Ns" (number in the population) are estimates based on
appropriately weighting the sample results.
Note 2: For questions in the matrix format, all percentages are
based on those who chose a response other than "No basis to judge."
Note 3: For questions in the matrix format, the "Ns" to the left of
the first percentage represent the estimated size of the population
who responded with a basis to judge. The "Ns" to the right of the
last percentage represent the estimated size of the population who
responded with "No basis to judge."
QUESTIONNAIRE OBJECTIVE, SCOPE,
AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================= Appendix III
The objective of our questionnaire survey was to obtain information
on the extent and type of sexual harassment and sex discrimination
that may be happening at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Using mail questionnaires, we asked about the general climate at NIH
regarding sexual harassment and sex discrimination and specifically
about the occurrence of behaviors at NIH that respondents considered
to be instances of sexual harassment and about the occurrence of
situations at NIH that respondents considered to be instances of sex
discrimination. For those who indicated that they believed sexual
harassment was directed toward them, we inquired about what the
respondent did to deal with the situation. We asked a set of similar
questions to see how individuals dealt with sex discrimination when
it affected them. We also asked for respondents' views on NIH's
equal employment opportunity (EEO) system and asked some general
questions about the respondents' work setting and background. Due to
the sensitive nature of the information we required, the
questionnaire was anonymous. It did not contain any information that
could identify an individual respondent. A postcard containing an
identification number was included in the package sent to NIH
employees. The postcard was to be mailed back to GAO separately from
the questionnaire. Receipt of the postcard allowed us to remove
names from our mailing list. The questionnaire was first mailed in
early January 1994. In late February, we sent out a follow-up
mailing, which contained another questionnaire to those in our sample
who did not respond to our first mailing. In mid-April, we sent a
letter to those who still had not yet responded, urging them to take
part in the survey.
The questionnaire was designed by a social science survey specialist
in conjunction with GAO evaluators who were knowledgeable about the
subject matter. We pretested the questionnaire with 15 NIH employees
from a number of occupational categories before mailing to help
ensure that our questions were interpreted correctly and that the
respondents were willing to provide the information required. After
the questionnaires were received from survey respondents, they were
edited and then sent to be keypunched. All data were double keyed
and verified during data entry. The computer program used in the
analysis also contained consistency checks.
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.1
Our study population represents the approximately 13,000 white-collar
employees at NIH and excludes staff fellows and contract employees.
Since NIH is composed of 26 institutes, centers, and divisions (ICD),
we wanted the results of our survey to provide specific estimates for
the 5 largest ICDs and a general estimate for the remaining 21 ICDs.
In addition, we wanted to look specifically at the experiences of
male and female employees in the five largest ICDs and in the other
ICDs as a whole. We asked NIH to provide us with a computer file
containing the names and home addresses of all NIH employees. From
this list, we deleted staff fellows and "blue collar" employees. We
used standard statistical techniques to select a stratified random
sample from this universe of names. The sample contained 4,110
employees of the universe of 13,473 employees. Table III.1 presents
the universe and sample sizes for each stratum.
Table III.1
Universes and Sample Sizes by Stratum
Stratum Universe Sample
---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
Clinical Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 1,286 530
Males 365 200
National Cancer Institute
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 1,242 520
Males 887 270
National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 522 320
Males 403 200
Office of the NIH Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 629 370
Males 333 200
National Institute of Mental Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 417 300
Males 300 200
Other Institutes, Centers, and Divisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 3,967 500
Males 3,122 500
======================================================================
Total 13,473 4,110
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this survey selected a portion of the universe for review,
the results obtained are subject to some uncertainty or sampling
error. The sampling error consists of two parts: confidence level
and range. The confidence level indicates the degree of confidence
that can be placed in the estimates derived from the sample. The
range is the upper and lower limit between which the actual universe
estimate may be found. For example, if all female employees of the
Clinical Center had been surveyed, the chances are 19 out of 20 that
the results obtained would not differ from our sample estimates by
more than 5 percent.
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.2
Not all NIH employees who were sent questionnaires returned them. Of
the 4,110 NIH employees who were sent questionnaires, 2,642 returned
usable ones to us, an overall usable response rate of 64.3 percent.
Table III.2 summarizes the questionnaire returns for the 4,110
questionnaires mailed.
Table III.2
Questionnaire Returns
Types of returns Number Percent
---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
Usable returns 2,642 64.3
Delivered but not returned 1,368 33.3
Undeliverable 49 1.2
Returned not completed or unusable 51 1.2
======================================================================
Total 4,110 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The usable response rates for the individual stratum range from 49.5
to 77 percent. Table III.3 presents the response rates for each
stratum.
Table III.3
Usable Response Rates by Stratum
Usable Response
Stratum Sample returns rate
---------------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
Clinical Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 530 295 55.7%
Males 200 99 49.5%
National Cancer Institute
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 520 374 71.9%
Males 270 192 71.1%
National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 320 215 67.2%
Males 200 138 69.0%
Office of the NIH Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 370 234 63.2%
Males 200 154 77.0%
National Institute of Mental Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 300 209 69.7%
Males 200 124 62.0%
Other Institutes, Centers, and
Divisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 500 317 63.4%
Males 500 291 58.2%
======================================================================
Total 4,110 2,642 64.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATES FROM THE SAMPLE
RESULTS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.3
Given our overall response rate of 64.3 percent, we wanted to get
some indication that the 35.7 percent of our sample that did not
respond to our survey were generally similar in their experiences
regarding sexual harassment and sex discrimination to those who did
respond to the survey. To find this out, in June 1994 we conducted a
small-scale, nonstatistical telephone survey of 41 NIH employees who
were in our sample but did not respond to the questionnaire. We
asked these individuals two questions that were included in the
questionnaire. The first was the extent to which they believed
sexual harassment was a problem at NIH as a whole and at their ICD.
The second was a similar question regarding sex discrimination.
Although these 41 employees perceived less sexual harassment and sex
discrimination than did the 2,642 employees that responded earlier,
the differences in their perceptions were not statistically
significant. We decided to not modify the main survey results on the
basis of the 41 telephone respondents' views because the telephone
respondents did not form a statistically representative sample and
the observed differences were not statistically significant.
The 2,642 usable returned questionnaires have been weighted to
represent the study population of 13,473 white-collar employees at
NIH (excluding staff fellows and contract employees). The weighted
total population size for the sample was slightly different (13,460)
due to rounding errors introduced in the sample weighting process.
Because we sampled a portion of NIH employees, our survey results are
estimates of all employees' views and are subject to sampling error.
For example, the estimate that 32 percent of the employees have
experienced sexual harassment is surrounded by a 95 percent
confidence interval of + 2 percent. This confidence interval thus
indicates that there is about a 95-percent chance that the actual
percentage falls between 30 and 34 percent. All of the survey
results in this report have 95 percent confidence intervals of less
than + 5 percent unless otherwise noted.
NONSAMPLING ERRORS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.4
In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical
difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other types of
errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in the
sources of information that are available to respondents, or in the
types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability
into the survey results. We included steps in the development of the
questionnaire, the data collection, and data analysis for minimizing
such nonsampling errors. These steps have been mentioned in various
sections of this appendix.
COST OF HANDLING COMPLAINTS
========================================================== Appendix IV
There are many different levels at which an EEO situation can be
handled before and during the actual EEO complaint process.
Employees can involve supervisors and/or other management officials;
institute, center, or division (ICD) EEO officers; and others in the
pursuit of resolution before filing informal complaint paperwork with
NIH's Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO).
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials estimated the
cost of processing an informal complaint in NIH's OEO during fiscal
year 1994 to be about $860. If the complaint is not resolved and the
employee chooses to file a formal complaint with HHS, an additional
$8,700 in costs could be borne by HHS' Office of Human Relations and
NIH's OEO. This includes the cost of an investigation, which HHS
contracts out to an investigative firm.
The procedures for handling sexual harassment complaints differ from
those established for handling other types of EEO complaints. In
order to speed up the process, an investigation is contracted for
when an informal complaint has been filed. This shifts the costs for
the investigation from the formal to the informal stage. An HHS
official said that under this process, total costs (informal and
formal) can range from $10,225 to $11,825. Our work did not include
an analysis of the difference in cost between the two approaches.
It should be noted that these cost estimates cannot be applied to all
cases. Each case is unique--a complaint can be resolved at any step
in the process or it may involve others outside of the normal EEO
process. Also, none of these estimates include costs accrued at the
ICD level, lost work time, settlement costs, complaints pursued
through processes other than EEO (i.e., grievances), and costs that
go beyond the formal complaint stage.
NIH attorneys can become involved if the employee chooses NIH's
alternative dispute resolution process before filing an informal
complaint. However, the employee can later file an informal
complaint if he/she is not satisfied with the outcome. NIH attorneys
are also involved in EEO complaints that are appealed to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Office of Federal
Operations if the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of
the formal complaint stage. HHS attorneys and Justice Department
officials defend NIH if the complainant decides to appeal the case
beyond the EEOC to the court system.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
========================================================== Appendix IV
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Norman A. Stubenhofer, Assistant Director, Federal Management and
Workforce Issues
Jan E. Bogus, Evaluator-in-Charge
Annette A. Hartenstein, Evaluator
Michael H. Little, Communications Analyst
James A. Bell, Assistant Director, Design, Methodology, and
Technical
Assistance Group
James M. Fields, Senior Social Science Analyst
Stuart M. Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst
Gregory H. Wilmoth, Senior Social Science Analyst
George H. Quinn, Jr., Computer Programmer Analyst