[Report on Evaluation of Conduct and Discipline (Report No. E-EV-MOA-0068-2002)]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Title: Report on Evaluation of Conduct and Discipline (Report No.
       E-EV-MOA-0068-2002)  

  Date: June 24, 2004

 
***************************************DISCLAIMER***************************** 
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report. No attempt has been made to display graphic images or illustrations. Some tables may be included, but may not resemble those in the printed version. A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 219-3841. 										June 24, 2004
**********************************************************************
Memorandum	


To:		Secretary

From:		Earl E. Devaney
		Inspector General

Subject:	Report on Evaluation of Conduct and Discipline (Report No. E-EV-MOA-0068-2002) 


	With this memorandum, I am transmitting the report on our Evaluation of Conduct and Discipline at the Department of the Interior (DOI).    

	During the course of other work conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), OIG auditors and investigators uncovered numerous incidents in which misconduct by DOI employees was not addressed appropriately ï¿½ or at all ï¿½ by DOI management.  Upon hearing of these incidents, I became concerned about the entire conduct and discipline process in the Department, and initiated this evaluation.  

	We found a number of shortcomings ï¿½ both real and perceived ï¿½ in the Departmentï¿½s conduct and discipline process. Among our findings is a clear perception by employees that there is a significant amount of misconduct that is not being reported and that discipline is administered inconsistently and unfairly throughout the Department.  Although this situation has evolved over many years, I am hopeful that the results of our evaluation and our recommendations provide you with the information necessary to correct the underlying shortcomings in the conduct and discipline process at the Department.

	Although many, if not most, of our findings in this report pre-dated your tenure as Secretary, I believe our recommendations in this report, coupled with our recent report and recommendations regarding ethics at the Department, present an opportunity for you to create a legacy that will positively and profoundly impact the employees of this Department, improving the efficiency and the morale of the workforce.

	Upon issuing this report, we will also post the results of our survey to our Web site and notify all DOI employees of their availability.  Although a response to this report is not required, we would appreciate being informed of any actions you take in regard to our recommendations.  

Introduction

In any organization, established rules of conduct that provide guidance to individuals as well as the entire organization are integral to the general welfare of its people.  Along with these rules, an organization should have a fair, equitable, and consistent disciplinary process to correct inappropriate conduct at all levels.

Thus, conduct and discipline are the twin pillars of a healthy organization providing a strong foundation for a cohesive and coherent work environment.  Encouraging and supporting the development of a strong work ethic and a sense of fair play in relationships among all employees is vital to the stability of any organization.  An organization that does not make every effort to instill these values will ultimately suffer the consequences.

One of the many responsibilities of the Office of Inspector General is to provide leadership to the Department of the Interior (DOI) in addressing employee misconduct and promoting the consistent and equitable administration of discipline.  We undertook to evaluate conduct and discipline within DOI because we were concerned that (1) employees at all levels did not have adequate knowledge about standards of conduct and the consequences of misconduct and (2) some misconduct was not being addressed consistently, and some not at all.  The ramifications of inconsistent discipline within and among the bureaus are self-perpetuating, and without intervention will become increasingly problematic for DOI.   

Our evaluation was comprehensive.  We undertook a thorough and far-reaching evaluation of conduct and discipline.  To accomplish our evaluation we focused on the depth and breadth of employeesï¿½ perceptions and attitudes about misconduct and the application of discipline (see Figure 1).  Specifically, we:

* conducted an employee survey, reaching out to four position categories;  
* reviewed historical data on disciplinary actions;
* interviewed employees individually and in group meetings; and
* evaluated and benchmarked DOI-issued guidance on conduct and discipline with other agenciesï¿½ guidance. 





Our evaluation revealed that the DOI suffers systemic conduct and discipline problems.  Our recommendations to resolve these problems include:  (1) training managers and employees on expectations of appropriate conduct, (2) holding managers accountable for addressing conduct and discipline appropriately, and (3) developing and imposing instructive and consistent guidance DOI-wide.

Our evaluation provides management with information regarding employeesï¿½ perceptions as well as issues requiring managementï¿½s attention.  Employeesï¿½ perceptions of how misconduct and discipline are handled have a major effect on their view of the workplace.  If those perceptions are negative, the result will be a suspicious and unhealthy work environment.  On the other hand, if employees view their workplace as fair and just, their conduct ï¿½ both public and private ï¿½ is more likely to be influenced in a positive way.  

To develop an effective conduct and discipline program, DOIï¿½s treatment of misconduct issues must be consistent at all levels.  Managers should conduct themselves in a manner consistent with agency policies and by doing so encourage employees to emulate principled behavior.  Ultimately, an organizationï¿½whether it be public or private sectorï¿½is often judged on the behavior of a few individuals.  DOI management should take every opportunity to demonstrate good conduct and promptly correct misconduct ï¿½ imposing discipline when appropriate ï¿½ when it occurs in the workplace.  

The details of our evaluation follow.



Our Approach

To gain a better understanding of DOI employeesï¿½ perceptions of conduct and discipline,                                                                                                                                                                             a significant part of our evaluation focused on personal interviews, group meetings, and an extensive survey.  Overall, employeesï¿½ responses to all three were very positive.  In fact, the response to our survey was unprecedented in our experience, with more than one out of every three persons surveyed responding.  The results, however, were both unsettling and profound.  

According to respondents, DOIï¿½s disciplinary program is ineffective because of employee discontent, employee perceptions, and poorly applied policies and procedures.  Four broad themes emerged: (1) underreporting of misconduct by employees; (2) lack of overall management support for and willingness to resolve conduct and discipline issues; (3) random, selective, and inconsistent enforcement; and (4) ineffective training and guidelines both for managers and employees.  

We conducted this evaluation in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Presidentï¿½s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

Personal Interviews and Group Meetings

We conducted 92 personal interviews and held 22 group meetings at 39 separate locations with headquarters, regional, and field employees from each of the eight bureaus and the Departmental Offices.  

We interviewed managers, human resources personnel, attorneys, union representatives, equal employment opportunity personnel, and high-ranking DOI officials.  In addition, we obtained the observations and opinions of employees who attended voluntary, anonymous meetings at 22 of the 39 locations.  More than 400 employees attended these group meetings, which were held exclusively for the ï¿½rank and file.ï¿½

Participants in our group meetings revealed that they felt trappedï¿½afraid to complain about the workplace environment or expose poor administration and employee misconduct.  According to one participant, ï¿½If you tell management what they donï¿½t want to hear, youï¿½re punished.  Thereï¿½s little or no confidentiality.ï¿½  

Others were so discouraged and bitter that they openly expressed suspicion and skepticism about our intentions for meeting with them and about the evaluation overall.  One meeting participant explained, ï¿½We live in a culture of fear.ï¿½  Many participants stated that they feared retaliation by management and the possibility of working in a hostile environment if they shared their perceptions with us.   Comments such as ï¿½The ï¿½hatchet peopleï¿½ canï¿½t wait to get rid of someoneï¿½ were not atypical.

During our interviews and group meetings, we repeatedly encountered a sense of intimidation and a reluctance to disclose misconduct on the part of DOI employees.  We also identified issues related to employee perceptions, supervisor attitudes, misconduct, and disciplinary practices that call for immediate attention.  

DOI-wide Employee Survey 

We attempted to reach the greatest number of employees possible by creating a first-of-its-kind, comprehensive, and statistically valid survey.  The survey was voluntary, anonymous, and stratified by four position categories (supervisory, non-supervisory, human resources personnel, and Solicitor attorneys) to accurately represent the participants in the disciplinary process throughout DOI.  The survey was sent to over 25,000 employees; 9,340 employees responded, an overall response rate of 37 percent. This high response rate maximized the accuracy of our statistical findings, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 1.1 percent.  

The survey provided a confidential sounding board for employees to share their personal opinions and perceptions without fear of reprisal.  In general, the survey focused on recurring issues we heard about in our personal interviews and group meetings: (1) employeesï¿½ misconduct is underreported, (2) disciplinary actions are administered inconsistently, (3) there are internal hurdles to imposing discipline, and (4) DOI employees do not have adequate knowledge, experience, or training on conduct and discipline.

Case File Review and Benchmarking  

We reviewed 154 disciplinary action files at 11 locations to determine how the actions were processed and the results of those actions.  In 96 cases, the actions resulted in suspensions or removals.  On average, these disciplinary actions were completed within 116 days from the date of misconduct.  However, 30 cases took over 4 months to complete, and in one regional office, 6 of the 15 actions reviewed had been abandoned because supervisors or human resources personnel failed to follow up. 

We also benchmarked DOIï¿½s guidance on conduct and discipline with the guidance of seven other federal agencies1 to identify best practices and to determine whether DOIï¿½s approach was similar to other federal agencies.




Results in Brief

Our survey and interviews revealed that employees perceived misconduct as occurring far more frequently than reported.  Only 36 percent of respondents stated that they would report misconduct under all circumstances.  The number one reason given for not reporting was, ï¿½Nothing will be done by my supervisor.ï¿½  More than one in four respondents said they feared reprisal or retaliation ï¿½ from peers and supervisors ï¿½ if they were to report misconduct.  

We believe these responses reveal an underlying failure of DOI management to confront issues of conduct and discipline.  For example, some supervisors stated that they did not take disciplinary actions because their own management would not support their actions or would mitigate them unacceptably.  Sixty-four percent of supervisors admitted that they had not taken disciplinary action when warranted.  Unfortunately, this sends a message that DOI is at least indifferent to, and at worst, tolerant of misconduct.

According to respondents, discipline is administered selectively and inconsistently.  Over one-third of the respondents believed that discipline for misconduct depended on who committed the offense, rather than on the offense itself.  Forty-six percent of respondents stated that discipline was administered fairly only ï¿½sometimes,ï¿½ if ever.

Many respondents stated that management and employees lack basic knowledge of conduct requirements and the disciplinary process.  Sixty-nine percent of human resources personnel said managers were not adequately trained in disciplinary actions, and 52ï¿½percent of attorneys who worked with bureau managers on disciplinary actions  were not satisfied with the managersï¿½ knowledge of conduct and discipline issues.  Fifty-one percent of the supervisors actually agreed that they need training on how to discipline employees.   

Many employees also acknowledged their own need for training in conduct and discipline.  In 13 of the 22 group meetings, employees said they received little or no training or orientation on employee conduct requirements and DOIï¿½s disciplinary program.  

Three of the previously mentioned themes converged on a single, overriding effect:  The failure of DOIï¿½s disciplinary program has resulted in the belief by the majority of our respondents that their work environment is unfair.  Participants at 13 of the 22 group meetings went even further, saying that they felt trapped in a hostile work environment (see Figure 2).   





Ultimately, we concluded that discipline ï¿½ when it is administered is, for the most part, administered appropriately.  That being said, however, we agree with employee-respondents that management often fails to administer discipline when warranted.  Given the state of training and guidance, DOI faces a likelihood that even if discipline were administered more frequently, it would be done inconsistently, putting DOI at risk. 

Clearly, employees perceive the disciplinary process as biased and unfair.  DOI has an opportunity to correct a very fundamental weakness in the fabric of its structure by implementing the recommendations that emanate from this review.  

Conduct

Conduct: What is it?  For the purpose of our discussion, conduct is a standard of personal behavior based on moral principles.  Simply put, it is knowing ï¿½rightï¿½ from ï¿½wrongï¿½ ï¿½ and doing what is right.

As federal employees, we have a responsibility to the U.S. government and its citizens. We are expected to place our loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles of this country above private gain.  This obligation of public service is reiterated in DOIï¿½s standards of conduct.  Specifically, DOI employees are expected to maintain high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality, and conduct to ensure the proper performance of government business and the continual trust and confidence of citizens in their government.  Therefore, if DOI employees become aware of misconduct, they have an obligation and duty to inform the appropriate authorities, including OIG, which is responsible for investigating allegations made by employees concerning fraud, waste, and abuse.  

Rather than upholding and advancing the standards of conduct DOI-wide and promoting action to correct misconduct, we believe the current DOI conduct and discipline process perpetuates inaction, which, in turn, erodes employee confidence.   

Misconduct

If conduct is defined as knowing and doing what is right, then we can assume that the converse is true:  misconduct is knowing and doing that which is wrong.  

Since there is no incentive for self-disclosure by employees who engage in misconduct, the burden and responsibility of reporting misconduct falls upon those individuals who observe it.  To effectively address incidents of misconduct, DOI must create an environment in which employees feel safe in reporting misconduct to appropriate authorities and without fear of reprisal by superiors.  The failure of DOI to effectively address misconduct ultimately erodes its ability to accomplish its overall mission.

In this section, we present details of employeesï¿½ perceptions regarding the occurrence and reporting of misconduct, in the form of data from our survey, interviews, and group meetings.

Our survey and interviews revealed that employees observe misconduct far more frequently than they reported it.  In fact, if the results of our survey were to translate into actual incidents, over 25,000 of the 60,000 DOI employees observe misconduct.2 

According to our survey, 42 percent of respondents had observed misconduct in their workplace.  Surveyed employees in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) reported an alarming 63-percent observation level of misconduct.  Observed misconduct in all other bureaus ranged from 29 percent to 44 percent.  

An equally alarming percentage of surveyed employees DOI-wide, 28 percent, believed that no disciplinary action occurred for the misconduct they observed, while 37 percent of employees in BIA believed that no discipline is administered for misconduct.

The frequency with which employees observed misconduct combined with the percentage of employees that did not expect misconduct to be disciplined in their workplace indicates that employees do not report misconduct to supervisors, that supervisors take little or no disciplinary action, or both.  Surveyed employees expressed their reluctance to report misconduct with concerns that nothing would be done, fear of reprisal or retaliation, and an unwillingness to get a co-worker in trouble or to get involved.  Some employees simply said it was not their responsibility.

Fortunately, a number of surveyed employees reported that nothing deters them from reporting misconduct, notably the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service (NPS) with 46 percent and 41 percent, respectively.   However, 39 percent of DOI employees overall responded that management action or inaction is conditional upon who commits the misconduct.  One meeting participant stated, ï¿½Discipline depends on who you are and what list you are on.ï¿½  

In BIA, only 38 percent of surveyed employees felt that their supervisors would take the appropriate action to correct misconduct no matter who committed it, while another 30 percent felt supervisors would simply ignore it depending on who committed it.  In the best case, at USGS 64 percent of the surveyed employees felt that supervisors would take appropriate action no matter who committed the misconduct.

We believe employee misconduct will continue, even increase, unless DOI begins to take steps to change employeesï¿½ perceptions on how it handles misconduct.  Our survey results indicate that only 27 percent of employees perceive that discipline in DOI deters other employees from engaging in misconduct.  Less than one in four respondents reported that discipline ï¿½deters me from engaging in misconduct.ï¿½  In addition, 49 percent of respondents to this question said discipline had no impact or unknown impact on misconduct.

We also queried employees about misconduct they believed was ignored by management.  We were not surprised to learn that time and leave abuse and personal use of e-mail, the Internet, government equipment and vehicles were the most often cited misconduct perceived as being ignored.  

We were surprised, however, that some of the more egregious offenses, such as working under the influence of alcohol or drugs, sexual harassment, and workplace violence registered significantly in the responses.  These offenses violate DOIï¿½s ï¿½Drug Free Workplaceï¿½ policy or ï¿½Zero Toleranceï¿½ policy for discrimination and harassment.  For example, at BIA, 18 percent of respondents said working under the influence of alcohol was ignored, while 14 percent of respondents said sexual harassment was ignored.





We might explain this disconcerting finding by suggesting that since information concerning disciplinary actions should remain private, employees would not necessarily know when discipline is taken against co-workers.  Unfortunately, the responses of supervisors who said that they wanted to take disciplinary action but chose not to nullify this explanation, as did the responses of human resources personnel who reported on actions taken in lieu of discipline.

Discipline

Equally important to administering timely discipline for misconduct, is that the discipline be appropriate for the committed offense.  Even appropriate discipline is rendered meaningless, unless DOI management encourages and supports supervisors who administer timely and consistent discipline to employees at all levels.  

Employees expressed widespread skepticism about and a lack of confidence in managementï¿½s ability to properly administer discipline.  Less than 30 percent of DOI employees surveyed felt that discipline was consistently fair and less than one in four employees believed that the discipline imposed corrects the offending misconduct.

Supervisors bolstered this perception by expressing their own fears about and frustration with the process of imposing discipline.  Supervisors expressed fear of grievances and lawsuits resulting from disciplinary actions; they even expressed fear of retaliation by their employees.  More importantly, supervisors expressed their belief that their own management would not support the action.  

Strong Sanctions Not Taken 

Supervisors responding to our survey have not instituted strong formal sanctions against employees: 96 percent of supervisors have never demoted, 76 percent have never removed, and 72 percent have never suspended an employee. While almost half reported they have issued a letter of counseling, the most frequently reported action taken by supervisors is verbal counseling, at 80 percent.  

Thirty-nine percent of supervisor survey respondents indicated that either an employee relations specialist or their own supervisor selects the initial penalty in a disciplinary action.   Eighteen percent were not even aware of the types of disciplinary actions they could initiate.  Nearly one of every five supervisors surveyed have never been a proposing or deciding official in disciplinary actions, while 14 percent have never disciplined even one employee for misconduct.  

Actions in Lieu of Discipline

Forty-five percent of supervisors surveyed said they had taken other actions in lieu of discipline.  This is corroborated by the human resources personnel, 54 percent of whom reported incidents of employees who, rather than being disciplined, were allowed to resign with no indication of disciplinary action on their record.  Of the human resources respondents, about 36 percent reported instances of employees being detailed to other components of the organization and about 38 percent reported employees being permanently transferred in lieu of discipline. 



Lack of Support

Furthermore, 21 percent of responding supervisors expressed their belief that their own management would not support the action.  For example, one supervisor reported that employee morale was deflated by her own managerï¿½s practice of giving employees temporary reassignments rather than initiating disciplinary action.  Other survey respondents confirmed this lack of support: 40 percent of human resources personnel and 25 percent of attorneys cited a lack of management support as a factor deterring supervisors from disciplining employees.

Mitigation and Settlements

While only 4 percent of supervisors responded that they did not take action because they thought the case would be settled anyway, one out of every four reported being involved in disciplinary actions that resulted in a settlement in the last 4 years.  Forty-six percent of all respondents said they knew of settlements in discipline matters.  Supervisors verbally reported to us that they believed their efforts were nullified by settlement agreements, and they felt betrayed when they did not find out about the agreements until after the agreements were executed.  As one manager interviewed explained, ï¿½Many managers gave up because they felt they were being ï¿½kicked while they were down.ï¿½ï¿½ 

Another 11 percent of supervisors responding to the survey were discouraged from taking disciplinary actions because they perceived that senior managers would mitigate proposed penalties. 

For example, in one situation we found that a supervisor proposed to suspend an employee for 30 days for using a government computer to access pornographic Internet sites.  The deciding official mitigated the penalty to a 5-day suspension based on the employeeï¿½s promise that it would never happen again.  A year and a half later, the employee again visited pornographic Web sites via a government computer.  He was also delinquent in paying the balance on his government-issued charge card.  In response, his supervisor again proposed a 30-day suspension.  The deciding official then mitigated the penalty to a 14-day suspension because the employee had entered a rehabilitation program.

In another case, we learned that an employee who received a settlement called coworkers and boasted that he received money and a new job and explained how he did it.  In other cases, disciplinary actions were ordered to be expunged from the employeeï¿½s personnel records as part of the settlement agreement for potentially unrelated appeals and discrimination complaints.  One supervisor reported he was told there was a financial incentive for DOI to settle because it would cost the bureau more to fight the appeal than to compromise.  Although he agreed that the settlement may have been more cost-efficient, he pointed out that factors other than cost-efficiency should have been considered.  Another supervisor said there was a perception that the bureau ï¿½buys employees off for $10,000 to retire.ï¿½  In another case, we learned that the bureau paid a full yearï¿½s salary at the Senior Executive level in order to secure the employeeï¿½s retirement, citing a cost-benefit analysis.

The reported frustrations of supervisors and the perception that challenges to disciplinary actions will be settled or ï¿½boughtï¿½ are bolstered by the experience of human resources personnel.  Over 60 percent of these respondents have been involved in one or more disciplinary actions that resulted in settlement; of this 60 percent, 33 percent had been involved in three settled cases or more.  

Discipline Administered Unfairly and Inconsistently 

One study suggests that employeesï¿½ perception about the fairness of discipline is an important influence on their behavior.  A large, empirical study published in Business Ethics Quarterly found that ï¿½a broad spectrum of unethical actions was significantly lower if employees believed that their organization generally treated people fairly.ï¿½3 In addition, results of this study indicated that an organization's history of follow-through encourages employees to report ethical problems.   

Participants at most of the employee group meetings overwhelmingly opined that discipline was not administered fairly.  Many written comments generated by the employee survey suggest that employees are generally not confident that supervisors and managers will properly respond to misconduct when they encounter it, or administer discipline fairly when circumstances warrant.

 During most meetings, employees reported that disciplinary action, or the lack thereof, was often based on favoritism.  One former employee stated, ï¿½Their sense of fair play was nonexistent, issuing inconsistent discipline and blatantly refusing to discipline abusers within their clique.ï¿½ 

Lesser treatment of supervisory misconduct is antithetical to the position of responsibility and trust that supervisors hold.  However, at over half of the group meetings, employees reported that supervisors were either not disciplined at all or disciplined more leniently. 

The Departmental Manual assigns supervisors the responsibility of maintaining standards of conduct among the employees they supervise.  Logically, they should be held to a higher standard of conduct.  In fact, several recent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)4 decisions support the notion that it is appropriate for agencies to penalize supervisors more harshly for some misconduct. 

Contrary to the notion that supervisors may warrant harsher penalties when they engage in misconduct, we found instances that verified employeesï¿½ perceptions, instances in which supervisors received a lesser penalty than non-supervisors for the same offenses. For example, a supervisor received a Letter of Reprimand for charge card delinquency, while a non-supervisory employee in the same bureau and region was suspended for 14 days for the same offense.

We also encountered a situation where a manager was found to have: (1) retaliated against employees, (2) created an abusive and disruptive work environment through favoritism and inconsistency in carrying out policies, and (3) based employee awards on personal preference rather than merit.  No formal disciplinary action was ever initiated against the manager.  Instead, the individual was reassigned to a non-supervisory position and then given a directed reassignment to another position a year later.  The individual ultimately declined the reassignment and quickly retired with an unblemished record.

We met with the non-supervisory employees at five locations within the bureau and region where this situation occurred.  Because of similar experiences previously, most of these employees had the same perception of a lack of discipline for managers.  The following comments came from these meeting participants:

* ï¿½Problem supervisors are just moved around.ï¿½
* ï¿½The joke is if you mess up, you get moved ï¿½up and outï¿½ to an easier place.ï¿½
* ï¿½Problem employees are promoted to where theyï¿½re going to retire.ï¿½

Other Issues Identified 

In addition to learning of employeesï¿½ perceptions, we identified four specific areas of concern regarding DOIï¿½s disciplinary process:  guidance, settlement authority, training, and case management.  Ineffective guidance fails to establish settlement authority or provide management with procedural resources necessary to address misconduct effectively; resolution of disciplinary actions through settlement may be thwarting the effectiveness of the program; a lack of training contributes to the overall level of uncertainty about the conduct and discipline process at DOI; and absent a comprehensive case management system, DOI cannot ensure follow-up or restore credibility through accountability.  

To address these shortcomings, DOI needs to make a comprehensive, coordinated effort to revise, communicate, and enforce standards of conduct and the disciplinary process.  

Guidance

We evaluated DOI-issued guidance as well as that of seven other federal agencies.  We found that DOI guidance was confusing, difficult to find, difficult to understand, and in some instances in conflict with itself.   We also found that bureaus have issued supplementary guidance, pursuant to delegation, that conflicts with that of the DOI and other bureaus.  For instance, four bureaus developed their own penalty guidelines for misconduct involving government-issued charge cards.  Even though the DOI guidance recommends from a written reprimand to removal for the first and subsequent offenses of not paying the full balance on charge cards, the guidance for three bureaus (USGS, NPS, and Minerals Management Service) started with counseling or a warning, whereas the Fish and Wildlife Service started with a minimum 3-day suspension.  While bureau policies may benefit the bureaus individually, they collectively undermine the consistent application of discipline and contribute to the perception of unfairness. 

Existing DOI guidance consists of an outdated DM section on discipline, last updated in 1982, and a Handbook on Charges and Penalty Selection for Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, last updated in 2002.  The Handbook is a completely separate document from the DM, which makes it more difficult for the user to locate.  Its format, style, and definitions differ completely from the DM, making the two documents incongruous.  For example the DMï¿½s definition of the term ï¿½adverse actionï¿½ differs from the Handbook, which omits suspensions of 14 days and fewer from its definition.  The Handbook also contains poorly written guidance on consideration and application of the Douglas Factors5, which are critical to thorough and defensible disciplinary actions.

* Organized in a user-friendly formatï¿½We identified three agencies (SBA, AID, and EPA) with excellent user-friendly guidance.  For example, SBAï¿½s guidance is contained in a well-organized handbook, with a table of contents and sections of chapters written in question and answer format. 

* Provided samples of documentsï¿½SBA and EPA provide supervisors with sample documents to assist them in the disciplinary process.  For example, EPA includes a sample letter of reprimand as an attachment to its guidance.

* Alternative disciplineï¿½Four of the benchmarked agencies (AID, SBA, USDA, and EPA) included information on the use of alternatives to formal discipline.  Alternative discipline involves lesser corrective action and is generally intended for a first offense situation that is not an egregious offense.  It is not an alternative in lieu of discipline.

The DM states that progressive discipline should be imposed "when practical."  Of the agencies benchmarked, however, only USDA lacked progressive penalty guidance for subsequent offenses.

Many federal agencies, including DOI, use a Table of Penalties (TOP) to establish penalties for misconduct.   Essentially, a TOP is a chart or guide that establishes a range of recommended penalties for first, second, and subsequent offenses in designated categories of misconduct.  The TOP provides a starting point or reference for supervisors or managers to maintain consistency within the agency when proposing or deciding disciplinary actions.  

According to our survey, 52 percent of DOI supervisors did not believe or did not know whether the TOP provided sufficient guidance on penalty selection.  In addition, 45 percent of DOI supervisors did not believe or did not know whether DOIï¿½s TOP contains adequate guidance on progressive penalties.  Among human resources personnel, 20 percent did not believe or did not know whether the TOP provides a list of charges that is specific enough.  Fifty-four percent of supervisors, 69 percent of Solicitor attorneys, and 20 percent of human resources personnel did not believe or did not know whether the TOP provides sufficient guidance on charge selection.



Unfortunately, when benchmarked with seven other federal agencies, DOIï¿½s TOP falls short because it:

* Does not include a sufficient number of charges.  All seven of the benchmarked agencies have significantly more charges, which are also more clearly defined, listed in their TOP.  For example, FAA includes 64 charges and distinguished between penalties for supervisor and non-supervisor misconduct.   DOIï¿½s TOP is far less comprehensive.

* Does not categorize charges.  Six of the seven benchmarked agencies have charges segregated by category, such as time and leave, conduct, alcohol/drug offenses, and security/safety.  This makes it easier for the user to locate the charge easier.  DOIï¿½s TOP, on the other hand, does not categorize or define charges under categories.  Rather, it includes a confusing and redundant ï¿½Possible Chargesï¿½ column.

* Does not adequately address use of Douglas Factors.  Six of the seven benchmarked agencies clearly discuss the use of the Douglas Factors in the various disciplinary action documents.  DOI mentions the use of the Douglas Factors but does not clearly state how they are to be considered.

* Does not establish progressive penalties.  Six of the seven benchmarked agencies provide progressive penalties between first and subsequent charges.  Although many of the first offense penalties range from reprimand to removal, second and third offense penalties are very clearly established.  For example, many of NASAï¿½s second offenses are 3- to 14-day suspensions, and any third offenses generally start at 7-day suspensions to removal.  DOIï¿½s TOP does not consistently impose a harsher minimum penalty for repeat offenses even though it is DOI policy to administer discipline in a progressive manner.



Settlement Authority

The only policy issued regarding settlements of disciplinary actions is contained in the Solicitorï¿½s Manual.   The Solicitorï¿½s Manual is not part of the DM and generally is only distributed to employees of the Solicitorï¿½s Office (SOL).  The Solicitorï¿½s Manual delegates settlement authority in MSPB cases to the Associate Solicitor for General Law and to Regional Solicitors, with limited exception.6  The Solicitorï¿½s Manual fails to provide for input by the affected bureau or other DOI officials in the settlement process and offers no substantive guidance regarding settlement of MSPB matters.  As a result, the concerns expressed by managers about settlements cannot be discounted.  

Training

Employees must be able to identify misconduct in order to report it.  The information gathered through interviews and employee group meetings strongly suggested that employees were generally uncertain about DOI standards of conduct and the consequences of misconduct.  For example, in 59 percent of the group meetings, the participants said they received little or no training or orientation on standards of conduct or the consequences of misconduct.

Further, according to the survey results, a significant number of the leaders (supervisors, human resources personnel, and attorneys) responsible for upholding conduct standards at DOI reported that they either had never received training or needed more training in conduct and discipline. 

Sixty-six percent of human resources personnel reported needing more training on conduct and discipline actions; perhaps because 37 percent have had no training on the topic in over 3 years, with an additional 13 percent reporting that they have never had any training in conduct and discipline.  Sixty-nine percent of human resources personnel also reported that they do not believe supervisors are adequately trained in disciplinary actions.  

Over half of the supervisors surveyed responded that they need additional training on how to handle misconduct and how to discipline employees, with about 54 percent having had no training in over 3 years or no training at all. 

The results of our evaluation highlighted an immediate need for training for supervisors charged with enforcing discipline.  Supervisors cannot address misconduct if they do not know their options and responsibilities.  Currently, supervisory training on conduct and discipline is minimal.  In fact, about 10 percent (4 hours) of a 40-hour required class for new supervisors is devoted to training on conduct and discipline.  Furthermore, neither human resources personnel nor attorneys are required to receive subsequent training on discipline throughout their careers. 



Case Management

Finally, the issues and concerns we have identified throughout this report have had a cumulative affect on how misconduct cases are handled at DOI.  We believe the lack of or inadequate training combined with confusing and outdated guidance contributes to ineffective management of misconduct cases.  This is compounded by problems we found regarding timeliness, tracking and following up on misconduct cases.  

Human resources personnel, supervisors, and Solicitor attorneys expressed dissatisfaction with the timeliness of the disciplinary process.  Only 41 percent of human resources personnel are satisfied with the timeliness of deciding officials in taking disciplinary actions; less than 35 percent are satisfied with the timeliness of proposing officials.   The Office of the Solicitor enjoys a slightly higher level of satisfaction for timeliness at 55 percent. 

DOI does not have a centralized process to track employee disciplinary actions.  Rather, action monitoring varied from office to office and among bureaus.  According to the survey, less than 20 percent of human resources respondents reported having automated systems to track disciplinary cases.  As a result, DOI could not produce statistics on all disciplinary actions, report on specific types of actions within each bureau or across DOI, or monitor the timeliness and progress of actions.  

Without such information, managers cannot ensure the timely completion and follow-up of disciplinary actions.  For example, in an October 1998 incident involving personal use of a government vehicle and absence without leave, the proposal letter for a 40-day suspension was not issued until April 1999.  Because of bureau inaction, disciplinary action was ultimately cancelled in this case in December 2001.   

A tracking system could also serve as a management tool to analyze and monitor trends, target problems, and provide comprehensive information about settlement of cases.  

Conclusion

If employees are skeptical about the equity and effectiveness of discipline imposed, their confidence in the conduct and discipline process will be undermined.  On the other hand, if supervisors responsible for administering discipline do not have confidence that their actions will be supported throughout the administrative process, their failure to take appropriate action should not be an unexpected consequence.  Unfortunately, this tragic combination results in a perception that it is the individual who stands alone against misconduct in DOIï¿½s workplace.  Thus, employees are discouraged from, and even afraid of, reporting misconduct and supervisors are hesitant to take action, even when it is brought to their attention.  

The solution to this unfortunate state of affairs is relatively simple, but requires an overhaul to the culture of conduct and discipline in DOI.  Simply stated, DOI must develop and implement a comprehensive and consistent conduct and discipline program that sends a clear signal that conduct of the highest standard is expected of all DOI employees, that misconduct will not be tolerated and will be disciplined, and that employees who report and supervisors who discipline misconduct will enjoy the full support of DOI management.   

To develop and maintain a credible conduct and disciplinary program, DOI management must consistently address acts of misconduct at all levels.  We believe the following recommendations will not only address systemic problems discussed in this report but, if implemented, will dramatically improve the current conduct and disciplinary program.  In addition to the recommendations, we include a compilation of employeesï¿½ responses to our survey to provide insight on employeesï¿½ perceptions on conduct and discipline issues.  (See Appendix I.) 

If the principles in this report are upheld, employees will grow increasingly willing to report misconduct, supervisors will become increasingly willing to administer appropriate discipline and the cycle that perpetuates the perception of inequity and despair will be replaced by a process that bolsters fairness, confidence, and promotes the highest standards of conduct.





Recommendations

We recommend that the Secretary:

1. Ensure that all employees are aware of DOI and government standards regarding appropriate employee conduct, their responsibility to report observed misconduct to managers and in doing so, feel free of the fear of reprisal.

2. Ensure that all supervisory performance plans include a critical element that holds the incumbent accountable for taking timely and appropriate disciplinary action when warranted.

3. Provide supervisors, managers, human resources personnel, and Solicitor attorneys with training on when discipline is warranted, which discipline is appropriate, and how to ensure consistency.

4. Revise and update DOI guidance on conduct and discipline (Departmental Manual and Handbook) and issue the new policy as a single source for DOI guidance on conduct and discipline.  Rescind delegation of authority for bureaus/offices to supplement DOI policies on discipline.

5. Memorialize in policy the roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Solicitor, the bureau managers, and Human Resources in the disciplinary process, including final settlement authority, in order to promote DOI-wide consistency in the administration of the conduct and discipline program.

6. Develop and implement a centralized management information system for DOI-wide oversight of disciplinary actions to facilitate consistency of penalties and accountability for settlements.


Survey Questions and Responses7

For questions one through twelve in the following section response percentages are listed for the Department as a whole and by Bureau/Office.

ALL EMPLOYEES (Weighted Data)
1) How often do you observe misconduct in your workplace?ï¿½
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
I am not aware of any misconduct
DOI
3.4%
12.2%
26.8%
38.4%
4.9%
14.4%
BIA
10.5%
19.1%
33.6%
24.0%
4.2%
8.7%
BLM
2.5%
12.3%
29.3%
38.9%
.3%
13.7%
BOR
1.9%
11.5%
26.5%
41.4%
5.5%
13.2%
Departmental Offices
4.5%
11.5%
24.2%
33.2%
7.5%
19.1%
FWS
1.7%
10.2%
21.1%
41.6%
6.5%
18.8%
MMS
3.4%
11.6%
25.2%
36.7%
6.7%
16.4%
NPS
2.1%
12.0%
27.2%
43.1%
3.0%
12.6%
OSM
2.5%
6.0%
24.0%
38.4%
6.0%
23.1%
USGS
0.9%
6.0%
22.3%
48.4%
6.7%
15.8%
2) How does discipline impact misconduct in your workplace?
(Select all that apply)ï¿½
Corrects misconduct
Deters other employees from engaging in misconduct
Deters me from engaging in misconduct
Has no impact
I do not know
DOI
24.3%
26.7%
22.3%
19.2%
29.8%
BIA
24.1%
25.8%
23.9%
26.1%
19.3%
BLM
23.2%
25.9%
22.8%
19.9%
29.1%
BOR
20.8%
27.4%
26.3%
18.2%
31.6%
Departmental Offices
18.1%
17.8%
14.0%
23.8%
39.2%
FWS
24.5%
23.9%
20.3%
17.4%
36.3%
MMS
17.7%
19.4%
18.1%
22.9%
36.7%
NPS
30.1%
35.4%
24.8%
14.4%
24.5%
OSM
20.8%
19.4%
20.5%
22.1%
37.5%
USGS
32.5%
31.8%
17.1%
14.2%
31.4%
3) What is the main purpose of discipline in your workplace?
ï¿½
To punish employees for misconduct
To deter employees from engaging in misconduct
To correct inappropriate behavior
None of the above
I do not know
DOI
7.3%
13.8%
52.5%
11.5%
14.9%
BIA
7.8%
16.6%
48.1%
16.6%
11.0%
BLM
7.0%
13.3%
54.6%
11.6%
13.5%
BOR
11.4%
13.7%
47.6%
11.1%
16.3%
Departmental Offices
4.8%
10.5%
50.5%
11.3%
22.9%
FWS
5.5%
12.3%
52.5%
11.2%
18.5%
MMS
7.8%
12.3%
48.8%
11.3%
19.7%
NPS
7.6%
14.4%
58.3%
9.5%
10.2%
OSM
4.6%
16.6%
46.3%
13.3%
19.1%
USGS
6.4%
16.6%
56.4%
7.9%
12.8%
4) Do you expect that misconduct will be disciplined in your workplace?ï¿½
Yes
No
I do not know
DOI
59.0%
27.9%
13.1%
BIA
49.4%
37.3%
13.3%
BLM
57.1%
30.6%
12.3%
BOR
58.5%
27.0%
14.4%
Departmental Offices
54.3%
30.4%
15.3%
FWS
63.2%
22.0%
14.7%
MMS
53.2%
29.7%
17.1%
NPS
65.1%
24.8%
10.2%
OSM
55.6%
30.3%
14.1%
USGS
70.6%
20.0%
9.4%
5) Is discipline administered fairly in your workplace?ï¿½
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
I do not know
DOI
11.7%
16.1%
21.6%
18.1%
6.3%
26.2%
BIA
10.8%
13.0%
23.8%
23.3%
13.4%
15.7%
BLM
 7.7%
16.0%
21.9%
19.7%
 6.2%
28.5%
BOR
 7.3%
15.3%
23.6%
19.8%
 5.4%
28.5%
Departmental Offices
10.1%
11.3%
17.0%
17.9%
 8.0%
35.6%
FWS
15.4%
14.9%
18.4%
14.7%
 4.6%
32.1%
MMS
 8.4%
15.4%
23.0%
17.7%
 4.9%
30.6%
NPS
16.2%
20.9%
24.4%
16.6%
 4.0%
17.9%
OSM
11.6%
12.7%
19.2%
14.9%
 6.5%
35.1%
USGS
19.1%
23.5%
18.0%
11.1%
 2.0%
26.2%
6) What do you think your supervisor would do if he/she became aware of misconduct in your workplace?

ï¿½
Ignore the misconduct no matter who committed the misconduct
Ignore the misconduct depending on who committed the misconduct
Take appropriate action to correct it no matter who committed the misconduct
Take appropriate action depending on who committed the misconduct
I do not
Know
DOI
3.1%
20.3%
49.9%
18.3%
8.5%
BIA
4.3%
29.5%
38.3%
20.9%
7.1%
BLM
4.0%
21.4%
47.5%
17.8%
9.2%
BOR
2.2%
21.3%
47.7%
19.8%
8.9%
Departmental Offices
5.2%
20.4%
46.8%
16.3%
11.4%
FWS
2.0%
17.5%
55.9%
16.8%
7.7%
MMS
3.8%
18.8%
49.8%
16.1%
11.5%
NPS
2.0%
16.5%
53.9%
19.9%
7.6%
OSM
4.0%
19.1%
48.5%
14.8%
13.5%
USGS
1.8%
13.1%
63.9%
14.8%
6.4%
7) Would you report misconduct if you knew it existed?

ï¿½
Yes, under all circumstances
Maybe, depending upon the circumstances
No, not under any circumstances
I do not know
DOI
36.2%
55.9%
3.0%
4.9%
BIA
45.5%
44.6%
5.4%
4.4%
BLM
33.8%
58.1%
2.5%
5.6%
BOR
26.9%
63.6%
4.2%
5.3%
Departmental Offices
28.8%
59.7%
2.5%
9.0%
FWS
35.7%
57.5%
1.9%
4.9%
MMS
27.2%
61.4%
4.5%
6.9%
NPS
43.2%
52.9%
1.6%
2.4%
OSM
31.0%
57.1%
3.8%
8.2%
USGS
43.9%
50.2%
2.1%
3.8%

8) What deters you from reporting misconduct?

(Select all that apply)
Nothing deters me from reporting misconduct
I do not want to get involved
I do not want to get a co-worker
In trouble
I fear that my peers will single me out for retaliation
I fear that my supervisor will single me out for reprisal
DOI
34.9%
 9.7%
10.0%
12.1%
15.6%
BIA
33.6%
9.7%
7.1%
16.2%
21.2%
BLM
32.4%
10.1%
9.2%
13.0%
16.8%
BOR
29.5%
11.2%
12.9%
15.4%
17.3%
Departmental Offices
31.1%
9.9%
11.1%
11.1%
12.5%
FWS
36.8%
9.3%
 9.9%
8.6%
13.1%
MMS
29.8%
13.7%
10.6%
13.7%
16.1%
NPS
40.8%
7.8%
10.3%
10.3%
14.1%
OSM
37.8%
8.6%
11.3%
8.6%
9.2%
USGS
45.9%
7.7%
10.6%
8.3%
8.6%

It is not my responsibility
Nothing will be done by my supervisor
None of the above
I do not know
DOI
6.0%
20.4%
12.1%
 3.7%
BIA
4.7%
28.0%
7.2%
3.8%
BLM
5.7%
22.6%
11.3%
4.5%
BOR
7.3%
17.9%
12.8%
3.4%
Departmental Offices
8.9%
23.2%
12.6%
5.3%
FWS
6.2%
16.8%
14.4%
3.2%
MMS
7.7%
21.4%
14.0%
4.9%
NPS
5.1%
17.2%
13.5%
2.6%
OSM
8.6%
18.9%
9.7%
5.1%
USGS
6.1%
15.1%
13.4%
2.2%
9) Does misconduct go undisciplined in your workplace?

Yes
No
I do not know
DOI
41.8%
28.7%
29.5%
BIA
54.5%
26.7%
18.8%
BLM
45.0%
24.4%
30.6%
BOR
40.1%
25.4%
34.5%
Departmental Offices
39.4%
25.7%
34.9%
FWS
33.9%
32.7%
33.4%
MMS
39.2%
22.9%
37.9%
NPS
42.5%
34.4%
23.1%
OSM
34.3%
25.4%
40.3%
USGS
31.0%
39.2%
29.8%

10) How are the following types of misconduct usually treated in your workplace?
ï¿½
Ignored
Disciplined
I do not know
    Accessing pornography on government computers



       DOI
3.5%
46.6%
49.9%
       BIA
6.6%
37.8%
55.6%
       BLM
2.6%
50.8%
46.6%
       BOR
2.8%
58.8%
38.4%
       Departmental Offices
3.1%
39.2%
57.7%
       FWS
2.3%
38.1%
59.6%
       MMS
3.2%
45.8%
51.0%
       NPS
4.2%
50.8%
45.0%
       OSM
3.8%
37.2%
59.0%
       USGS
3.8%
55.3%
40.9%
    Not paying balances of government charge cards on time



       DOI
7.6%
48.5%
43.9%
       BIA
12.6%
59.9%
27.5%
       BLM
8.9%
45.5%
45.6%
       BOR
5.6%
44.8%
49.6%
       Departmental Offices
3.2%
36.7%
60.1%
       FWS
5.9%
46.9%
47.2%
       MMS
3.6%
41.6%
54.8%
       NPS
7.8%
52.3%
39.9%
       OSM
4.0%
43.7%
52.3%
       USGS
6.7%
54.2%
39.1%
    Personal use of government charge cards



       DOI
5.8%
54.9%
39.3%
       BIA
12.8%
57.9%
29.3%
       BLM
5.9%
54.1%
40.0%
       BOR
3.4%
58.3%
38.3%
       Departmental Offices
2.5%
39.4%
58.0%
       FWS
3.9%
51.6%
44.5%
       MMS
3.4%
44.5%
52.1%
       NPS
6.4%
61.7%
31.9%
       OSM
4.3%
44.2%
51.5%
       USGS
3.4%
62.8%
33.8%
    Personal use of government vehicles



       DOI
13.1%
44.0%
43.0%
       BIA
24.1%
41.0%
34.9%
       BLM
13.9%
44.0%
42.1%
       BOR
10.5%
46.6%
42.8%
       Departmental Offices
2.2%
28.0%
69.8%
       FWS
9.7%
42.7%
47.7%
       MMS
3.8%
29.2%
67.0%
       NPS
16.0%
54.0%
30.1%
       OSM
8.1%
39.4%
52.6%
       USGS
8.9%
50.9%
40.2%



10) How are the following types of misconduct usually treated in your workplace?  (Continued)
Ignored
Disciplined
I do not know
    Personal use of government tools or equipment (beyond policy)



       DOI
18.6%
31.8%
49.6%
       BIA
23.6%
28.1%
48.3%
       BLM
20.2%
30.7%
49.1%
       BOR
19.6%
29.0%
51.4%
       Departmental Offices
10.5%
27.4%
62.1%
       FWS
14.4%
32.2%
53.5%
       MMS
15.8%
24.3%
59.9%
       NPS
20.8%
41.7%
37.5%
       OSM
11.6%
22.4%
66.0%
       USGS
17.2%
37.4%
45.4%
    Personal use of the Internet (beyond policy)



       DOI
19.4%
32.0%
48.6%
       BIA
14.3%
33.9%
51.7%
       BLM
24.1%
30.5%
45.4%
       BOR
19.2%
34.7%
46.0%
       Departmental Offices
19.9%
28.8%
51.3%
       FWS
16.2%
30.5%
53.3%
       MMS
20.7%
25.3%
54.0%
       NPS
21.0%
34.2%
44.8%
       OSM
20.8%
26.1%
53.1%
       USGS
19.7%
35.5%
44.8%
    Personal use of e-mail (beyond policy)



       DOI
19.7%
27.8%
52.5%
       BIA
15.7%
29.3%
55.0%
       BLM
24.1%
26.8%
49.1%
       BOR
19.8%
25.7%
54.4%
       Departmental Offices
18.0%
28.4%
53.7%
       FWS
15.4%
27.9%
56.8%
       MMS
23.4%
21.0%
55.6%
       NPS
21.1%
30.8%
48.1%
       OSM
20.8%
23.2%
56.1%
       USGS
22.0%
30.1%
47.8%
    Time and Leave abuse



       DOI
27.4%
41.5%
31.1%
       BIA
39.2%
36.1%
24.7%
       BLM
29.4%
36.2%
34.4%
       BOR
25.7%
40.2%
34.1%
       Departmental Offices
27.2%
40.8%
32.0%
       FWS
20.4%
45.6%
34.0%
       MMS
29.3%
36.1%
34.6%
       NPS
25.8%
49.4%
24.8%
       OSM
25.9%
34.2%
39.9%
       USGS
21.3%
52.4%
26.3%





10) How are the following types of misconduct usually treated in your workplace?  (Continued)
ï¿½
Ignored
Disciplined
I do not know
    Sexual harassment



       DOI
8.9%
52.1%
39.0%
       BIA
14.3%
39.4%
46.3%
       BLM
8.4%
58.7%
32.9%
       BOR
10.8%
52.8%
36.4%
       Departmental Offices
8.7%
39.3%
52.0%
       FWS
6.3%
50.0%
43.8%
       MMS
10.2%
46.2%
43.7%
       NPS
7.6%
60.0%
32.4%
       OSM
5.7%
46.9%
47.4%
       USGS
6.0%
62.6%
31.4%
    Travel voucher fraud



       DOI
4.7%
41.2%
54.2%
       BIA
8.6%
37.0%
54.4%
       BLM
4.5%
39.2%
56.3%
       BOR
3.7%
40.7%
55.6%
       Departmental Offices
0.9%
33.0%
66.1%
       FWS
4.3%
42.5%
53.2%
       MMS
4.1%
36.1%
59.8%
       NPS
4.5%
47.7%
47.8%
       OSM
3.0%
41.2%
55.8%
       USGS
3.0%
52.3%
44.8%
    Working under the influence of alcohol



       DOI
11.2%
40.3%
48.5%
       BIA
17.5%
43.5%
39.0%
       BLM
14.2%
39.0%
46.7%
       BOR
11.3%
34.1%
54.7%
       Departmental Offices
10.6%
30.0%
59.4%
       FWS
5.8%
37.5%
56.7%
       MMS
13.9%
28.5%
57.6%
       NPS
8.5%
53.3%
38.1%
       OSM
7.8%
35.6%
56.6%
       USGS
9.3%
45.7%
45.0%
    Working under the influence of drugs



       DOI
5.4%
39.3%
55.3%
       BIA
11.3%
38.3%
50.4%
       BLM
5.6%
38.5%
55.8%
       BOR
6.5%
34.8%
58.7%
       Departmental Offices
3.2%
30.5%
66.3%
       FWS
2.7%
37.3%
60.0%
       MMS
4.6%
26.0%
69.4%
       NPS
4.1%
52.9%
43.0%
       OSM
2.2%
32.3%
65.5%
       USGS
3.9%
45.1%
51.0%

10) How are the following types of misconduct usually treated in your workplace?  (Continued)ï¿½
Ignored
Disciplined
I do not know
    Workplace violence



       DOI
6.9%
47.6%
45.4%
       BIA
12.9%
38.7%
48.4%
       BLM
6.2%
50.1%
43.6%
       BOR
8.6%
45.2%
46.2%
       Departmental Offices
6.3%
40.0%
53.7%
       FWS
4.0%
44.6%
51.4%
       MMS
6.9%
45.9%
47.2%
       NPS
6.4%
59.2%
34.4%
       OSM
6.7%
40.4%
52.8%
       USGS
3.5%
56.7%
39.8%
11) Within the last three years, please indicate which topics you have received training on.

(Select all that apply)
Equal Opportunity
Diversity
Disciplinary actions (How to Deal with Problem Employees)
Ethics
DOI
39.8%
48.9%
23.7%
66.5%
BIA
29.2%
13.2%
16.5%
43.5%
BLM
52.5%
59.9%
24.8%
82.3%
BOR
39.9%
61.8%
20.9%
68.7%
Departmental Offices
21.4%
47.8%
17.0%
59.6%
FWS
30.3%
45.3%
18.3%
60.0%
MMS
35.7%
53.6%
22.0%
94.7%
NPS
49.1%
51.9%
39.6%
66.1%
OSM
62.8%
70.6%
21.8%
95.7%
USGS
34.7%
66.7%
27.8%
52.2%
       

Sexual harassment
Use of government credit cards
None of the above
DOI

56.3%
72.6%
10.4%
BIA

40.9%
67.1%
19.7%
BLM

76.4%
92.1%
 1.3%
BOR

60.2%
63.7%
12.4%
Departmental Offices

42.3%
39.4%
18.7%
FWS

46.3%
63.5%
16.7%
MMS

57.4%
57.3%
 1.1%
NPS

56.2%
83.6%
 6.8%
OSM

73.6%
71.7%
 1.3%
USGS

48.4%
68.0%
10.3%

12) How many times have you heard about settlements related to disciplinary actions in your workplace?ï¿½
Once
Twice
Three or
more times
Never
I do not know
DOI
14.0%
12.3%
19.9%
40.8%
13.0%
BIA
13.5%
11.1%
16.7%
43.3%
15.3%
BLM
14.4%
14.6%
23.4%
35.0%
12.7%
BOR
15.7%
14.7%
21.5%
36.1%
12.0%
Departmental Offices
14.7%
8.8%
10.2%
54.2%
12.2%
FWS
14.3%
8.8%
14.0%
50.8%
12.0%
MMS
13.5%
14.6%
27.1%
30.1%
14.6%
NPS
12.4%
12.9%
25.9%
35.5%
13.4%
OSM
11.1%
10.5%
15.9%
42.4%
20.0%
USGS
14.2%
14.1%
19.4%
42.0%
10.3%
Response percentages for questions 13 through 91 in the following section are listed for the Department as a whole. 8  Responses by Bureau/ Office can be found on the OIG website (http://www.oig.doi.gov).
ALL EMPLOYEES (Weighted Data)
13) Are you an attorney in the Solicitorï¿½s Office?ï¿½
Yes
No

0.6%
99.4%
14) Are you an employee who works on disciplinary matters in a human resources office?ï¿½
Yes
No

1.6%
98.4%
15) Do you supervise employees?
ï¿½
Yes
No

20.9%
79.1%
SUPERVISORS (Weighted Data)
16) Please indicate whether the following are formal or informal types of discipline.
Formal
Informal
Neither Formal nor Informal
I do not know
	Demotion	
94.1%
0.5%
2.3%
3.2%
	Letter of Counseling	
40.0%
50.9%
3.5%
5.6%
	Letter of Reprimand	
88.9%
8.7%
0.5%
1.9%
	Removal	
97.6%
0.4%
0.5%
1.5%
	Suspension	
97.4%
0.7%
0.5%
1.4%
	Verbal counseling	
6.9%
86.2%
4.7%
2.1%
17) Do you know where to go to get procedures and policies on discipline?
ï¿½
Yes
No
16) 
92.7%
7.3%
18) Are you familiar with the Table of Penalties?





ï¿½
Familiar
Somewhat familiar
Somewhat unfamiliar
Unfamiliar
I do not know what the Table of Penalties is
16) 
25.2%
34.8%
8.0%
16.3%
15.7%
19) Please indicate your level of agreement (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with the following statements about the DOI Table of Penalties
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I do not know
	Contains a range of penalties that is appropriate
10.1%
51.6%
3.5%
0.6%
34.2%
	Contains adequate guidance on progressiveness of penalties		ï¿½
6.9%
48.5%
8.3%
1.3%
35.0%
	Provides a list of charges that is specific enough	ï¿½
5.6%
44.1%
10.2%
1.3%
38.7%
	Provides sufficient guidance on penalty selection	ï¿½
5.1%
43.1%
13.1%
1.4%
37.3%
	Provides sufficient guidance on charge selection	ï¿½
4.8%
41.4%
13.0%
1.0%
39.9%
20) Are you aware of the types of disciplinary actions you can initiate?ï¿½
Yes
No
I do not know
16) 
82.1%
12.9%
5.0%
21) When was the last time you received training on misconduct and how to discipline employees?
Within the last year
1 to 2 years ago
3 or more years ago
I have never received training on misconduct and how to discipline employees
I do not know

17.9%
27.1%
34.0%
19.3%
1.7%
22) Do you feel you need training on misconduct and how to discipline employees?


ï¿½
Yes
No
I do not know

51.2%
45.3%
3.5%
23) Would you consider recommending an award for an employee who has been disciplined for misconduct?
Yes
No
Depends on the circumstances
I do not know

11.1%
20.7%
66.6%
1.6%


24) Please indicate which actions have you taken for misconduct.

(Select all that apply)
Demotion
Letter of Counseling
Letter of Reprimand
Removal

3.7%
48.7%
46.6%
23.8%

Suspension
Verbal counseling
Other
I have not disciplined an employee for misconduct

27.5%
79.8%
8.0%
14.4%
25) Which of the following statements best describes your involvement in disciplinary actions?



I have been a proposing official
I have been a deciding official
I have been both a proposing and a deciding official on separate actions
I have been both a proposing and a deciding official on the same action
I have never been a proposing or a deciding official
None of the above

33.7%
 6.0%
22.8%
 5.0%
17.3%
15.2%
26) Over the last 4 years, approximately how many times have you disciplined employees using the following types of discipline?
None
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
More than 20 times
	Demotion	
97.0%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
	Letter of Counseling	
51.0%
46.3%
2.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
	Letter of Reprimand	
58.6%
40.3%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
	Removal	
81.4%
18.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
	Suspension	
75.0%
24.1%
0.7%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
	Verbal counseling	
17.1%
63.2%
13.1%
3.5%
1.0%
2.2%
27) What actions have you taken with employees in lieu of discipline?

(Select all that apply)
Allowed employees to resign with no indication of disciplinary action on their record
Relieved employees of certain responsibilities
Transferred employees to other positions at same grade
Other

18.0%
24.9%
7.9%
10.8%


Relieved employees of supervisory duties
Detailed employees to other positions or offices
I am not aware of any actions taken in lieu of discipline


8.0%
7.7%
55.3%


28) For which of the following disciplinary actions do you consult human resources?

(Select all that apply)
Demotion
Letter of Counseling
Letter of Reprimand
Removal

47.8%
37.2%
48.7%
50.5%

Suspension
Verbal counseling
All of the above
None of the above

50.5%
12.2%
46.5%
4.8%
ï¿½29) In general, who selects the initial penalty in a disciplinary action related to misconduct?

I do
An Employee Relations Specialist
My supervisor
Solicitorï¿½s Office attorney
Other
I do not know

41.6%
25.1%
13.9%
0.6%
4.4%
14.4%
30) Have you worked with a Solicitorï¿½s Office attorney on a discipline issue?


Yes
No

19.5%
80.5%
31) Thinking about the last time you worked with a Solicitorï¿½s Office attorney on a discipline issue, please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied: 
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the attorney to get back with you	
56.4%
19.2%
9.7%
10.2%
4.5%
	Availability of the attorney	
55.3%
20.7%
10.4%
10.0%
3.5%
	Courteousness of the attorney	
77.1%
12.1%
 7.3%
3.0%
0.5%
	Knowledge of misconduct and disciplinary topics	
67.3%
19.4%
 9.5%
2.2%
1.7%
	Timeliness in responding to your request	
54.0%
22.2%
10.4%
9.7%
3.8%
	Overall level of service	
60.0%
19.5%
10.9%
6.6%
3.0%
32) Have you worked with a human resources staff member on a discipline issue?

Yes
No

72.8%
27.2%
33) Thinking about the last time you worked with a human resources staff member on a discipline issue, please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied:
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the staff member to get back with you
70.8%
14.9%
4.1%
6.3%
3.9%
	Availability of the staff member	
68.9%
17.5%
4.5%
6.6%
2.5%
	Courteousness of the staff member	
81.3%
10.8%
4.7%
2.5%
0.7%
	Knowledge of misconduct and  disciplinary topics
72.3%
15.5%
5.1%
4.8%
2.2%
	Timeliness in responding to 	your request
67.5%
16.9%
4.8%
6.5%
4.2%
	Overall level of service
69.0%
15.8%
6.0%
6.1%
3.0%
34) What authority do you have to settle cases arising out of disciplinary actions?ï¿½
I have no authority to unilaterally settle cases
I have complete authority to settle cases that do not cost money
I have discretionary authority to settle cases under a specific dollar limit
I have authority to settle cases only with the consent of my supervisors/ managers
Other
I do not know what authority I have to settle a case

44.3%
3.2%
2.2%
11.3%
1.3%
37.8%
35) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement regarding settlements--Judges persuade the Agency to settle by suggesting that the penalty will be decreased or overturned

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I do not know

6.9%
14.5%
18.0%
7.1%
2.0%
51.6%
36) Have you wanted to take disciplinary action but chose not to becauseï¿½

(Select all that apply)

Responses of all supervisors:

(See below for filtered results excluding supervisors who did not select the option ï¿½I will always take disciplinary actionï¿½.)
ï¿½
I was fearful of an employee grievance
I was fearful of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
I did not want to offend the employee
I feared retaliation by the employee
I lacked knowledge of the disciplinary process
I thought the case would be settled anyway because similar actions were settled in the past

7.7%
10.7%
2.2%
5.5%
8.9%
4.4%

It took time away from other duties
Management mitigated (decreased the penalty) similar actions in the past
Management would not support the action
The employee was a good performer
Other
I will always take disciplinary action

11.7%
10.6%
21.4%
8.7%
14.4%
36.1%
36) Have you wanted to take disciplinary action but chose not to becauseï¿½ 

(Select all that apply)


Responses of supervisors who did not select the option ï¿½I will always take disciplinary actionï¿½:

I was fearful of an employee grievance
I was fearful of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
I did not want to offend the employee
I feared retaliation by the employee
I lacked knowledge of the disciplinary process
I thought the case would be settled anyway because similar actions were settled in the past

12.0%
16.8%
3.5%
8.6%
13.9%
6.9%


It took time away from other duties
Management mitigated (decreased the penalty) similar actions in the past
Management would not support the action
The employee was a good performer
Other


18.4%
16.6%
33.5%
13.7%
22.5%
37) Over the last four years, how many disciplinary actions were you involved with that resulted in a settlement?ï¿½
One
Two
Three or more
None
I do not know

11.6%
6.5%
5.0%
74.6%
2.4%

HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL (Weighted Data)
38) Over the last four years, how many disciplinary actions were you involved with that resulted in a settlement?ï¿½
One
Two
Three or more
None
I do not know

17.2%
13.4%
32.8%
31.5%
5.1%
39) How are employees disciplined in your servicing area? ï¿½
Leniently
Appropriately
Harshly
None of the above
I do not know

27.7%
64.2%
1.2%
3.0%
3.8%
40) Are you aware of instances where no disciplinary action was taken on the following? 
Yes
No
I do not know
	Accessing pornography on government Computers	
11.2%
75.1%
13.7%
	Not paying balances of government charge cards on time	
33.0%
54.3%
12.7%
	Personal use of government charge cards	
25.2%
61.5%
13.4%
	Personal use of government vehicles	
23.0%
63.7%
13.2%
	Personal use of government tools or equipment (beyond policy)	
20.4%
58.2%
21.5%
	Personal use of the Internet (beyond policy)	
21.9%
58.2%
19.9%
	Personal use of e-mail (beyond policy)	
18.3%
57.6%
24.1%
	Time and Leave abuse	
41.1%
50.3%
8.5%
	Sexual harassment 	
9.5%
72.6%
17.9%
	Travel voucher fraud	
9.3%
65.1%
25.6%
	Working under the influence of alcohol	
17.8%
63.9%
18.4%
	Working under the influence of drugs	
5.3%
69.7%
25.1%
	Workplace violence	
8.4%
73.0%
18.6%
41) What factors deter supervisors in your servicing area from disciplining employees?

(Select all that apply)
Cases will be settled anyway
Lack of support from management
Reluctance to deal with EEO (equal employment opportunity) complaints
Reluctance to deal with future grievances

16.6%
39.5%
48.3%
46.4%


The disciplinary process is too time-consuming
None of the above
I do not know


53.4%
15.1%
8.4%




42) Please indicate your level of agreement (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with the following statements about the DOI Table of Penalties
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I do not know
	Contains a range of penalties that is appropriate		ï¿½
22.3%
58.4%
7.3%
5.9%
0.6%
5.5%
	Contains adequate guidance on progressiveness of penalties			ï¿½
18.6%
52.8%
11.2%
 9.1%
2.5%
5.9%
	Provides a list of charges that is specific enough			ï¿½
13.9%
53.5%
12.7%
11.0%
2.2%
6.7%
	Provides sufficient guidance on penalty selection			ï¿½
15.3%
49.0%
15.5%
 9.9%
3.6%
6.7%
	Provides sufficient guidance on    charge selection	ï¿½
13.4%
50.1%
16.2%
10.5%
3.4%
6.4%
43) Does your office maintain any of the following systems? 

(Select all that apply)
Automated system for managing formal disciplinary actions
Automated system for managing informal disciplinary actions
Automated system for managing reported misconduct
Manual log sheet for recording formal disciplinary actions

12.1%
7.3%
4.8%
24.3%

Manual log sheet for recording informal disciplinary actions
Manual log sheet for recording reported misconduct
None of the above
I do not know

18.0%
15.3%
46.1%
17.9%
44) Which of the following scenarios best describes how letters regarding disciplinary actions are prepared?ï¿½
HR provides a template letter for supervisors to complete
HR writes letters based on facts given by supervisors
Supervisors prepare letters from a standard template and send them to HR to review
Supervisors prepare letters and send them to HR to review
Supervisors do not involve HR in the process
None of the above

9.9%
41.6%
29.0%
16.1%
0.6%
2.8%
45) Please choose a response for each statement regarding how penalties for misconduct are selected
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
I do not know
	Supervisors select penalties for discipline without consulting HR
			ï¿½
0.2%
4.5%
12.2%
35.3%
40.2%
7.6%
	Supervisors approach HR with an idea of an appropriate penalty for misconduct and determine the penalty in consultation with HR
			ï¿½
26.4%
40.6%
19.4%
 4.4%
3.1%
6.1%
	HR makes a decision on the penalty without input from the supervisor 	ï¿½
0.7%
1.8%
4.1%
19.1%
67.7%
6.5%
46) Excluding the Symposium on Employee and Labor Relations (SOELR), when was the last time you attended training on conduct and disciplinary actions?ï¿½
Within the last year
1 to 2 years ago
3 or more years ago
Never
I do not know

20.7%
26.2%
37.3%
13.2%
2.6%
47) Do you feel you need more training on conduct and disciplinary actions?ï¿½
Yes
No

66.1%
33.9%
48) Are most managers adequately trained in disciplinary actions?ï¿½
Yes
No
I do not know

20.2%
69.1%
10.7%
49) Does your office have sufficient staff to assist management with disciplinary actions in a timely manner?
Yes
No
I do not know

60.6%
34.8%
4.6%
50) What actions have been taken with employees in lieu of discipline?

(Select all that apply)
Employees were allowed to resign with no indication of disciplinary action on their record
Employees were detailed to other positions or offices
Employees were relieved of certain responsibilities
Employees were relieved of supervisory duties

54.0%
36.2%
42.0%
31.7%

Employees were transferred to other positions at same grade
I am not aware of any actions taken in lieu of discipline
None of the above
I do not know

38.3%
15.2%
3.7%
6.2%
51) Are supervisors adequately trained in disciplinary actions?
Yes
No
I do not know

19.4%
71.0%
9.5%
52) Have you worked with a manager (deciding official) on a discipline issue?
Yes
No

85.2%
14.8%
53) Thinking about the last time you worked with a manager (deciding official) on a discipline issue, please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied.
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the manager to get back with you	
49.2%
20.9%
13.1%
12.5%
4.3%
	Courteousness of the manager
76.4%
10.3%
8.3%
2.9%
2.2%
	Knowledge of misconduct and disciplinary topics	
32.6%
29.5%
18.8%
14.6%
4.5%
	Selection of penalty	
45.9%
27.4%
13.2%
9.6%
3.8%
	Timeliness in taking disciplinary actions
40.6%
21.3%
9.8%
17.4%
10.9%
54) Have you worked with a supervisor (proposing official) on a discipline issue?
Yes
No

84.3%
15.7%
55) Thinking about the last time you worked with a supervisor (proposing official) on a discipline issue please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the supervisor to get back with you
40.7%
30.5%
9.8%
14.7%
4.3%
	Courteousness of the supervisor
71.3%
14.9%
7.5%
5.2%
1.1%
	Knowledge of misconduct and disciplinary topics
25.8%
31.5%
19.3%
18.5%
5.0%
	Selection of penalty	
37.2%
33.7%
16.5%
9.3%
3.3%
	Timeliness in taking disciplinary actions
34.7%
26.1%
12.1%
18.1%
9.1%
56) Have you worked with a Solicitorï¿½s Office attorney on a discipline issue?ï¿½
Yes
No

56.7%
43.3%
57) Thinking about the last time you worked with a Solicitors Office attorney on a discipline issue please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the attorney to get back with you	ï¿½
52.50%
25.9%
3.5%
13.2%
5.0%
	Availability of the attorney	ï¿½
51.8%
24.2%
5.1%
12.9%
6.1%
	Courteousness of the attorney	ï¿½
74.8%
11.5%
8.1%
2.4%
3.2%
	Knowledge of misconduct and disciplinary topics	ï¿½
62.8%
19.9%
5.7%
8.1%
3.5%
	Timeliness in responding to your request	ï¿½
54.8%
22.6%
9.7%
8.9%
4.0%
	Overall level of service	ï¿½
57.4%
20.9%
10.8%
5.8%
5.1%
58) Do you personally have authority to settle cases related to disciplinary actions?ï¿½
Yes
No
I do not know

 8.9%
86.7%
 4.4%
59) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement regarding settlements -Judges persuade the Agency to settle by suggesting that the penalty will be decreased or overturned.ï¿½
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I do not know

13.5%
21.9%
22.4%
6.1%
2.6%
33.5%
60) Is the Solicitorï¿½s Office adequately staffed to advise human resources staff on disciplinary matters?
Yes
No
I do not know

22.0%
26.7%
51.3%
61) Does the Solicitorï¿½s Office have the expertise to represent the Agency in conduct-related personnel litigation?ï¿½
Yes
No
I do not know

49.4%
9.1%
41.5%
62) If you request assistance from the Solicitorï¿½s Office, under what conditions will the Solicitorï¿½s Office represent the Agency before the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB)?ï¿½
Always
Only if the employee has an attorney
Never
I have never requested assistance
I do not know

41.0%
 4.2%
 0.2%
17.7%
36.9%
63) Does the Solicitorï¿½s Office have the appropriate number of staff to represent the Agency in conduct-related personnel litigation?ï¿½
Yes
No
I do not know

15.2%
24.0%
60.8%
64) Do you supervise other employees?
Yes
No

53.3%
46.7%

SOLICITOR ATTORNEYS 
65) What is your area of specialization? 

(Select all that apply)

Responses of all attorneys:

(See below for responses of attorneys who assist management on disciplinary matters at least once per year.)
Energy Law
Environmental and Natural Resources Law
Fiscal Law
Indian Law
Land Management Law

15.1%
67.9%
5.7%
32.1%
36.8%

ï¿½
Personnel Litigation and Civil Rights
Procurement and Patents
No area of specialization
Other


27.4%
 8.5%
 2.8%
17.9%
65) What is your area of specialization? 

(Select all that apply)

Responses of attorneys who assist management on disciplinary matters at least once per year:

Energy Law
Environmental and Natural Resources Law
Fiscal Law
Indian Law
Land Management Law

16.0%
60.0%
10.0%
30.0%
46.0%

ï¿½
Personnel Litigation and Civil Rights
Procurement and Patents
No area of specialization
Other


58.0%
14.0%
40.0%
20.0%
66) How often do you assist Bureau/Departmental management on disciplinary matters? (Do not include disciplinary matters within SOL.)
1-4 times per year
5-15 times per year
More than 15 times per year
Never

22.9%
12.8%
11.9%
52.3%
67) What factors deter supervisors from disciplining employees?

(Select all that apply)
Cases will be settled anyway
Lack of support from management
Reluctance to deal with EEO (equal employment opportunity) complaints
Reluctance to deal with future grievances

6.7%
25.0%
33.7%
30.8%

ï¿½
The disciplinary process is too time-consuming
None of the above
I do not know

ï¿½
40.4%
4.8%
41.3%
68) Have you worked with a human resources staff member on a discipline issue?
Yes
No

47.7%
52.3%
69) Thinking about the last time you worked with a human resources staff member on a discipline issue, please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the staff member to get back with you
71.2%
23.1%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
	Availability of the staff member
69.2%
26.9%
1.9%
1.9%
0.0%
	Courteousness of the staff member
84.6%
13.5%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
	Knowledge of misconduct and disciplinary topics		
67.3%
23.1%
5.8%
3.8%
0.0%
	Timeliness in responding to your request
72.5%
15.7%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
	Overall level of service	
71.2%
17.3%
0.0%
11.5%
0.0%
70) Have you worked with a manager (deciding official) on a discipline issue?
Yes
No

42.2%
57.8%
71) Thinking about the last time you worked with a manager (deciding official) on a discipline issue, please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the manager to get back with you	
71.7%
15.2%
8.7%
2.2%
2.2%
	Courteousness of the manager	
82.6%
8.7%
4.3%
2.2%
2.2%
	Knowledge of misconduct and disciplinary topics	
47.8%
21.7%
10.9%
17.4%
2.2%
	Selection of penalty	
47.8%
26.1%
6.5%
13.0%
6.5%
	Timeliness in taking disciplinary actions	
48.9%
22.2%
 4.4%
15.6%
8.9%
72) Have you worked with a supervisor (proposing official) on a discipline issue?
Yes
No

38.5%
61.5%
73) Thinking about the last time you worked with a supervisor (proposing official) on a discipline issue, please rate the following items using the scale from satisfied to dissatisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
	Amount of time it took for the supervisor to get back with you	
73.8%
14.3%
9.5%
0.0%
2.4%
	Courteousness of the supervisor
78.6%
11.9%
7.1%
0.0%
2.4%
	Knowledge of misconduct and disciplinary topics	
50.0%
16.7%
19.0%
9.5%
4.8%
	Selection of penalty	
45.2%
26.2%
19.0%
4.8%
4.8%
	Timeliness in taking disciplinary actions	
45.2%
31.0%
7.1%
9.5%
7.1%
74) Please indicate your level of agreement (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with the following statements about the DOI Table of Penalties
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I do not know
	Contains a range of penalties that is appropriate	
5.7%
30.5%
5.7%
1.9%
1.0%
55.2%
	Contains adequate guidance on progressiveness of penalties
4.8%
21.9%
9.5%
5.7%
1.9%
56.2%
	Provides a list of charges that is specific enough	
2.9%
23.1%
9.6%
5.8%
1.9%
56.7%
	Provides sufficient guidance on penalty selection	
3.8%
22.9%
6.7%
7.6%
2.9%
56.2%
	Provides sufficient guidance on charge selection	
2.9%
19.0%
9.5%
10.5%
1.9%
56.2%
75) Please indicate your level of agreement (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with the following statement regarding settlements -- Judges persuade the Agency to settle by suggesting that the penalty will be decreased or overturned.

Responses of all attorneys:

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I do not know

4.7%
21.5%
9.3%
8.4%
1.9%
54.2%
Responses of attorneys who assist management on disciplinary matters at least once per year:
9.6%
36.5%
15.4%
15.4%
3.8%
19.2%

76) Excluding the Symposium on Employee and Labor Relations (SOELR), when was the last time you attended training on conduct and disciplinary actions?
Within the last year
1 to 2 years ago
3 or more years ago
Never
I do not know

6.4%
14.7%
18.3%
56.9%
3.7%
77) Do you feel like you need more training on conduct and disciplinary actions?
Yes
No

56.5%
43.5%
78) How much influence does the Solicitorï¿½s Office attorney have in the selection of a proposed penalty in disciplinary actions related to misconduct?
Significant influence
Some influence
Little influence
No influence
I do not know

13.0%
23.1%
 9.3%
1.9%
52.8%
79) When must your office represent the Department before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in disciplinary cases?
Always
If requested
Only if the employee has an attorney
Never
At our discretion
I do not know

30.6%
11.1%
 1.9%
 6.5%
0.9%
49.1%
80) Is your office adequately staffed to advise management on disciplinary matters?
Yes
No
I do not know

25.9%
34.3%
39.8%
81) Does your office have adequate staff to represent the Agency in conduct-related personnel litigation?
Yes
No
I do not know

27.1%
37.4%
35.5%
82) How much influence does the Solicitorï¿½s Office attorney have in the selection of the charge in disciplinary actions related to misconduct?
Significant influence
Some influence
Little influence
No influence
I do not know

14.8%
22.2%
 7.4%
2.8%
52.8%
83) Please indicate your litigation experience in conduct-related disciplinary actions.

(Select all that apply)
I have litigated before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
I have litigated before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
I have litigated before the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)

40.7%
38.9%
31.5%

ï¿½
I have assisted the Department of Justice/US Attorneys in federal court litigation arising out of discipline-based actions
I have never litigated an appeal involving a conduct-related action

30.6%
51.9%





84) What authority do you have to settle cases arising out of disciplinary actions? 

(Select all that apply)
I have no authority to unilaterally settle cases
I have complete authority to settle cases that do not cost money
I have discretionary authority to settle cases under a specific dollar limit
I have authority to settle cases only with the consent of my supervisors / managers

25.2%
0.9%
9.3%
10.3%

ï¿½
I have authority to settle cases only with the consent of Agency management
Other
I do not know what authority I have to settle a case

ï¿½
31.8%
4.7%
43.9%
85) Does your office maintain any of the following systems?

(Select all that apply)
Automated system for managing conduct related cases
Automated system for managing non-conduct related cases
Automated system for managing settlements (conduct or non-conduct related)
Manual log sheet for recording conduct related cases

12.8%
12.8%
5.5%
11.9%

Manual log sheet for recording non-conduct related cases
Manual log sheet for recording all settlements
None of the above
I do not know

11.9%
 4.6%
20.2%
58.7%
86) Does your office have the expertise to represent the Agency in conduct-related personnel litigation?
Yes
No
I do not know

68.5%
7.4%
24.1%
87) Do you supervise other employees?
Yes
No

22.9%
77.1%
DEMOGRAPHICS 
88) Please indicate where you work.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service

12.0%
17.3%
9.5%
7.9%
14.4%

Office of Surface Mining
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Other Departmental Offices

4.2%
16.1%
8.7%
10.0%
89) Please indicate where you are located.
Field Office
Headquarters
Regional Office
State Office
Other
No Response

49.0%
13.1%
20.7%
6.8%
10.0%
0.4%
90) Please indicate how long you have worked for DOI.
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
Over 20 years
No Response

2.3%
16.9%
10.4%
31.8%
38.3%
0.2%
91) Please indicate your pay plan.
Executive Schedule
General Schedule (GS)
Senior Executive Service
Wage Grade (WG, WL, etc.)
Other
No Response

0.3%
92.8%
0.4%
4.6%
1.6%
0.4%

Evaluation Methodology

This evaluation was conducted during 2002 and 2003 in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Presidentï¿½s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.  The evaluationï¿½s objective was to determine whether the DOI disciplinary program achieved results that promoted the efficiency of the Department. The scope of the evaluation was fiscal years 1999 through 2002, i.e., the case files and other departmental records we examined were created during this period.

By statute (5 U.S.C. 7503 and 5 U.S.C. 7513), disciplinary actions may only be taken for ï¿½such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.ï¿½  Accordingly, we evaluated the Departmentï¿½s program against this standard.  We considered whether (1) discipline is consistently applied throughout the Department; (2) it corrects inappropriate behavior; and (3) it deters further misconduct.  We used the following instruments and techniques.

In-person interviews

We conducted 114 interviews at 39 separate locations with headquarters, regional, and field staff from each of the eight bureaus and the departmental offices. These interviews included managers, employee relations specialists, solicitor attorneys, union representatives, equal employment opportunity counselors, and highranking departmental officials.  

In addition, we obtained the observations and opinions of non-supervisory staff through voluntary open meetings at 22 locations. These meetings, attended by over 400 employees, were held exclusively for the ï¿½rank and fileï¿½; supervisory staff did not attend.

Case File Review

We reviewed 154 completed disciplinary action files at 11 locations to determine how the actions were processed and the results of those actions.

Benchmarking

To identify best practices, we benchmarked DOIï¿½s guidance on conduct and discipline with the guidance of seven other federal agencies, including: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Nationwide Survey

The IG Employee Survey on Conduct and Discipline was administered in March 2003 to a stratified random sample of over 25,000 permanent DOI employees throughout the United States. This voluntary, anonymous survey was the largest and most inclusive survey undertaken by the Office of Inspector General. It was designed to identify broad issues concerning discipline that exist Department-wide by gathering the perceptions and opinions of the largest possible number of employees.  

Survey Administration

The survey was conducted primarily through the Internet, with employees notified of their selection for the survey by e-mail.  Paper survey forms were sent to employees without access to the Internet due to the Cobell v. Norton litigation (the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, and the Office of the Solicitor). 

Of the 25,038 employees contacted (21,519 via e-mail and 3,519 through the U.S. Postal Service), 9,340 employees responded to the survey, resulting in a 37 percent overall response rate. The actual number of complete and usable records was 8,922, representing a usable response rate of 36 percent. These 8,922 records are comprised of: 5,198 non-supervisors, 3,304 supervisors, 311 human resources personnel, and 109 Office of the Solicitor attorneys.

Survey Sample Determination

To ensure a representative data set, a statistically valid random sample was drawn from all permanent employees in each of the eight bureaus and the departmental offices. The sample was stratified by bureau/office and four position categories: supervisory, non-supervisory, human resources, and Office of Solicitor attorneys. To further ensure that the survey results were statistically unbiased, the data were weighted where applicable to account for over- and under-represented groups within the sample.  Weighting ensures that the demographic make-up of the departmental workforce is reflected in the final data set.

Reliability of Results and Margin of Error

Whenever conclusions are drawn from sample data, there is always a chance that the conclusion will be incorrect due to sampling error.  A sampling error is the difference between the estimate derived from a sample of the population and the ï¿½trueï¿½ value that would result if every single person in the population had been polled under the same conditions.  To account for this sampling error, we computed the confidence interval (percent certainty) for the responses of each population (i.e., all employees, supervisors, non-supervisors, employee relations, and Office of Solicitor attorneys) in the survey. This interval determines our confidence that the actual response percentage is within plus or minus ï¿½xï¿½ percent of what it would be if the entire workforce had been polled with complete accuracy.  In this survey, the 95-percent confidence interval for the all employee, Department-wide percentages has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.1 percent.  In other words, we can say with 95-percent certainty that the results for this group have a statistical precision of plus or minus 1.1 percentage point.



1 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Small Business Administration (SBA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (DOC), Agency for International Development (USAID), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  
2 Total does not include part-time or seasonal employees.
3 ï¿½Organizational Justice and Ethics Program ï¿½Follow-Throughï¿½:  Influences on Employees' Harmful and Helpful Behaviorï¿½ by Linda Klebe Trevino and Gary R. Weaver, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 11, 
Issue 4, 2001.
4 The MSPB is a federal administrative tribunal that may hear employee appeals of disciplinary actions if the matter is an adverse action for a suspension over 14 days through removal.
5 Douglas Factors are a set of criteria developed by MSPB that supervisors must consider in determining an appropriate penalty for an act of employee misconduct.
6 Chapter 5, Exceptions to General and Specific Delegations, #10.  Approval of Settlements for Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Discrimination Cases.    Above a certain dollar amount, the matter must be approved by the Solicitor.  

7 Due to rounding, response percentages for each question may not always add to 100 percent.  For questions marked ï¿½select all that applyï¿½, percentages will total more than 100 percent because respondents could select multiple answers.  Weighting procedures have been applied where applicable to ensure that the demographic make-up of the Departmental workforce is properly reflected.

8 Due to rounding, response percentages for each question may not always add to 100 percent.  For questions marked ï¿½select all that applyï¿½, percentages will total more than 100 percent because respondents could select multiple answers.  Weighting procedures have been applied where applicable to ensure that the demographic make-up of the Departmental workforce is properly reflected.
??

??

??

??




	

	- 3 -	

	- 1 -

Appendix 1

Appendix 2