This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1098 
entitled 'Diversity at GAO: Sustained Attention Needed to Build on 
Gains in SES and Managers' which was released on September 16, 2008.

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

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

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal 
Service, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

September 2008: 

Diversity at GAO: 

Sustained Attention Needed to Build on Gains in SES and Managers: 

GAO-08-1098: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1098, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why IG Did This Study: 

GAO, like other federal agencies, faces challenges in increasing 
diversity in its workforce, including top leadership. Because of your 
interest in the effectiveness of diversity offices and the 
underrepresentation of women and minorities in legislative branch 
agencies, you asked GAO’s Inspector General (IG) to (1) determine 
whether GAO’s diversity efforts are achieving better representation of 
women and minorities in top leadership, (2) evaluate the accuracy and 
completeness of GAO’s fiscal year 2007 complaint and discrimination 
data, and (3) assess the independence and reporting relationship of the 
head of GAO’s Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness (OOI). 

In response, GAO’s IG reviewed relevant orders, documents, and data and 
interviewed officials at GAO and GAO’s Personnel Appeals Board 
(PAB)—the adjudicative body for GAO employees who appeal agency equal 
employment opportunity-related (EEO) decisions—and other parties. 

What IG Found: 

Overall, GAO made gains in the representation of women and minorities 
in both its SES and manager (GS-15) ranks, and equivalent positions, 
between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. Furthermore, the agency’s SES and 
managers in fiscal year 2007 were generally more diverse in comparison 
with executive branch agencies and the civilian labor force. Top 
management has made a commitment to increasing the diversity of its 
workforce and has implemented many leading diversity management 
practices. GAO has taken steps to identify, examine and address 
potential barriers to the hiring and advancement of women and 
minorities. Last year, the agency began work to examine disparities in 
the average ratings between African-American and Caucasian analysts, 
including those at the manager level. In June 2008, GAO issued its 
congressionally mandated Workforce Diversity Plan, which analyzed the 
demographic composition of the agency’s entire workforce and identified 
potential barriers to the advancement and hiring of minorities. As a 
result, GAO has baseline data to assess its future diversity efforts 
and an action plan for the next year to address gaps in minority 
representation. The Acting Comptroller General intends for the agency 
to annually prepare this plan, which will provide critical information 
for diversity management. 

GAO’s fiscal year 2007 complaint and discrimination data in GAO’s March 
2008 report to Congress included errors. For example, the report showed 
one complaint and one complainant more than were found in GAO’s files. 
Also, we could not verify the reported average annual number of days 
for processing complaints. Moreover, we found that, earlier this year, 
GAO did not include accurate fiscal year 2007 complaint data on its Web 
site, as required by law. Rather, GAO posted first quarter fiscal year 
2008 complaint data as if it were the full year data for fiscal 2007. 
GAO has corrected the data and posted the updated data to both its Web 
site and intranet. These errors were primarily the result of how GAO 
tracks complaints and other insufficient internal controls over the 
compilation and reporting of data. 

GAO voluntarily follows two of three Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission requirements for executive branch agencies regarding the 
independence and reporting relationships of EEO office heads. At GAO, 
the head of OOI reports directly to GAO’s chief executive—the 
Comptroller General—and conducts legal reviews of the agency’s final 
decisions on complaints independent of GAO’s in-house legal staff. 
Regarding the third requirement, GAO’s PAB has raised concerns about 
the involvement of OOI’s head in both complaint processing and 
diversity efforts. PAB is concerned this is a potential conflict of 
interest and has recommended that GAO create a separate unit solely to 
process complaints. GAO management has not adopted PAB’s 
recommendation, saying it is not an efficient use of resources, given 
the low number of formal EEO complaints OOI processes and the 
outsourcing of its complaint investigations. The scope of this review 
did not include a detailed analysis of OOI to determine what effect, if 
any, the consolidation of these functions has had on complaint 
processing. 

What IG Recommends: 

To improve diversity in SES and manager ranks, the IG recommends GAO 
establish a formal policy to annually produce a Workforce Diversity 
Plan to more effectively manage its diversity activities. To accurately 
report on complaint data, GAO should revise relevant orders, 
procedures, and internal controls. GAO generally agreed with the 
recommendations in our draft. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1098]. For more 
information, contact Frances Garcia at (202) 512-5748 or 
garciaf@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

GAO Has Improved Diversity, and Information from Annual Diversity Plans 
Will Help to Manage Future Progress: 

Fiscal Year 2007 Complaints and Discrimination Data Contained Errors: 

Concerns Continue about Integration of Discrimination Complaint 
Processing and Diversity Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and the IG's Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Selected PAB EEO Oversight Reports: 

Appendix III: Status of Nine Expert-Identified Best Leading Diversity 
Practices at GAO: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of the Comptroller General of the 
United States: 

Appendix V: IG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Comparison of Correct and Reported Complaint Data for Fiscal 
Year 2007: 

Table 2: Comparison of Fiscal Year 2007 Basis of Complaints, by Source 
of Data: 

Table 3: Comparison of Correct Data with Data Inaccurately Posted to 
GAO's Web Sites for Fiscal Year 2007: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Comparison of Percentage of Women and Minorities in GAO's 
Senior Executive Service and at Manager Level with Executive Branch 
Agencies and Civilian Labor Force, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Figure 2: Number of Men and Women in GAO's SES, Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

Figure 3: Number of Minority SES Members at GAO, Fiscal Years 2002- 
2007: 

Figure 4: Number of Minority Managers at GAO, Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

Figure 5: Percentage of Minorities in GAO's SES Candidate Program Since 
October 2002: 

Abbreviations: 

EEO: equal employment opportunity: 

EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 

GC: Office of General Counsel: 

IG: Inspector General: 

NAPA: National Academy of Public Administration: 

No FEAR Act: Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act: 

OOI: Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PAB: Personnel Appeals Board: 

SES: Senior Executive Service: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 10, 2008: 

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

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In today's multicultural workforce, diversity can be an organizational 
strength that can bring a wide variety of perspectives and approaches 
to bear on policy development and implementation, strategic planning, 
problem solving, and decision making. Organizations that promote and 
achieve a diverse workplace can attract and retain high-quality 
employees. GAO, similar to other federal agencies, faces both 
opportunities and challenges in increasing the diversity of its top 
leadership and workforce. 

Because of your interest in the effectiveness of diversity program 
offices and the underrepresentation of women and minorities in 
legislative branch agencies, you asked us to (1) determine whether 
GAO's diversity programs and initiatives are achieving better 
representation of women and minorities in the agency's Senior Executive 
Service (SES) and managerial ranks (GS-15), and their equivalents; 
[Footnote 1] (2) evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the fiscal 
year 2007 complaint and discrimination data reported to Congress; 
[Footnote 2] and (3) assess the independent authority and reporting 
relationships of the Managing Director of GAO's Office of Opportunity 
and Inclusiveness (OOI). 

To address the first objective, we identified and compared GAO's 
diversity management practices against those identified by the U.S. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Management Directive 715 
(MD-715) and nine expert-identified leading diversity management 
practices. In addition, we analyzed fiscal years 2002 through 2007 data 
on the number of women and minorities in SES and managerial positions, 
and their equivalents. To address the second objective, we reviewed 
relevant GAO orders and procedures, including those on processing 
discrimination complaints and internal controls regarding data quality. 
We also analyzed supporting documentation for the fiscal year 2007 data 
that GAO reported to Congress and interviewed key staff and managers. 
To address the third objective, we examined GAO's organizational 
structure, policies, and procedures; reviewed related reports; and 
interviewed officials in GAO's Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), OOI, and 
General Counsel. Appendix I further discusses our scope and 
methodology. We conducted our work from March 2008 to September 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, GAO increased the diversity of both 
its SES and managerial ranks. Moreover, GAO's SES and managers in 
fiscal year 2007 were generally more diverse in comparison with 
executive branch agencies and the civilian labor force. Our work shows 
that the agency uses a number of leading diversity management practices 
to recruit, hire, promote, and retain its employees. The agency's top 
management has made a commitment to diversity management. In addition, 
the agency has taken recent steps to identify and address potential 
barriers to the advancement and hiring of women and minorities. Last 
year, the agency contracted for a study to examine the disparity in 
average ratings for African-American and Caucasian analysts. This 
disparity can be a barrier for the advancement of African-Americans to 
the SES and manager ranks. In June 2008 GAO issued its congressionally 
mandated Workforce Diversity Plan, which assessed the representation of 
women, minorities, and people with disabilities throughout the agency. 
The agency used MD-715 as a guide in developing the plan. GAO found 
representational gaps in the SES, the manager level in certain job 
categories, and recent applicants for the SES candidate program. In 
response, the agency is planning to target efforts on the areas of 
greatest underrepresentation, such as Hispanics, at all levels in the 
agency. According to the Acting Comptroller General, GAO intends to 
annually prepare these plans, which will provide the agency with 
information on representational gaps, identify areas where barriers 
(agency policies, procedures, or practices) may operate to exclude 
certain groups, and the overall effectiveness of its diversity efforts. 

We found errors in GAO's March 2008 annual report to Congress and its 
Web posting of complaint and discrimination data reported for fiscal 
year 2007. For example, although agency documents show that six 
employees filed complaints, GAO reported seven in its annual report. In 
addition, we could not verify the reported average number of days that 
GAO spent processing complaints. We also found problems with fiscal 
year 2007 complaint data that GAO posted on its Web sites. 
Specifically, GAO inadvertently posted the wrong data as fiscal year 
2007 data. In general, the errors were the result of inadequate 
procedures for compiling and reporting all complaints and the agency 
not making full use of its electronic complaint software. As a result 
of our review, OOI has revised the fiscal year 2007 data posted to its 
Web site and plans to take steps to address other problems we 
identified. 

Although GAO is not required to comply with EEOC management directives 
to executive branch agencies, it has followed two of the three 
requirements related to independent authority and reporting 
relationships for the head of the agency's equal employment opportunity 
(EEO) office. We did identify a concern about the third requirement-- 
the consolidation of personnel-related and discrimination complaint 
functions in one office. GAO's OOI Managing Director is responsible for 
processing discrimination complaints and taking an active role in 
diversity programs, which could be the subject of a discrimination 
complaint. GAO's PAB, which oversees the agency's EEO activities, 
believes this situation potentially leaves the managing director open 
to charges of conflict of interest. PAB has recommended that GAO 
separate these two administrative functions and create a unit 
exclusively for processing discrimination complaints--a position 
consistent with an EEOC management directive.[Footnote 3] GAO 
management has not agreed to implement this recommendation, in part 
because the agency believes it would result in an inefficient use of 
resources given the small number of formal discrimination complaints 
filed each year. However, the annual number of formal complaints only 
partially reflects the office's workload. For example, in fiscal year 
2007, while GAO employees filed 15 formal discrimination complaints, 
about 130 GAO employees informally contacted OOI about their concerns 
of unfair treatment. The scope of this review did not include a 
detailed analysis of OOI to determine what, if any, effect the 
consolidation of these functions has had on complaint processing. 

Background: 

GAO, a legislative branch agency, performs a wide range of evaluative 
and related work. It conducts audits and evaluations of executive 
branch agencies, resolves disputes over awards of government contracts, 
and sets auditing and accounting standards for the federal government. 
The agency has a highly educated, multidisciplinary workforce of around 
3,100 employees who work in Washington, D.C., and 11 field offices. It 
employs analysts, auditors, economists, lawyers, and other 
professionals, and more than half of the workforce has master's or 
doctoral degrees. 

The GAO Personnel Act of 1980 gave the agency its own personnel system, 
separate from that of the executive branch, and it increased the 
agency's flexibility in hiring, paying, and managing its workforce. As 
a result, GAO was one of the first federal agencies to establish "broad 
banding," or "pay banding." The act also created PAB, a body 
independent from GAO management, to hear GAO employee issues related to 
discrimination and prohibited personnel actions and to conduct 
oversight of EEO programs. (See app. II for a list of selected PAB 
oversight reports.) Prior to the act, GAO employees alleging either 
employment discrimination or violations of the merit systems principles 
filed suits with the EEOC or the Merit Systems Protection Board, 
respectively. 

In the past decade, GAO has taken steps toward diversity management, 
which aims to create and maintain a positive work environment where the 
similarities and differences of individuals are valued, so that all can 
reach their potential and maximize their contributions to an 
organization's strategic goals and objectives. In 2001, GAO created OOI 
and gave the office responsibility for helping to create a fair and 
inclusive work environment by incorporating diversity principles in 
GAO's strategic plan and throughout its human capital policies and 
programs, as well as handling discrimination complaints. OOI manages 
the agency's EEO program, including informal precomplaint counseling 
and the formal discrimination complaint process. In addition, it 
monitors the implementation of GAO's disability policy and oversees the 
management of GAO's interpreting service for deaf and hard-of-hearing 
employees. 

GAO also has adopted strategic planning and has a 5-year strategic plan 
for the agency as a tool to meet its long-term goals and objectives. 
[Footnote 4] One of the agency's four strategic goals is to maximize 
the value of GAO by being a model federal agency and a world-class 
professional services organization, in part by leading strategically to 
achieve results and being an employer of choice with an environment 
that is fair and unbiased and that values opportunity and 
inclusiveness. 

GAO Has Improved Diversity, and Information from Annual Diversity Plans 
Will Help to Manage Future Progress: 

GAO has made progress in building a more diverse profile of its SES and 
managerial ranks. Moreover, as shown in figure 1, GAO's leadership is 
generally more diverse in comparison with executive branch agencies and 
the civilian labor force.[Footnote 5] At the same time, gaps remain in 
the representation of women and minorities in the agency's leadership. 
GAO's June 2008 Workforce Diversity Plan has identified low 
representation of African-American women, Asian-Americans,[Footnote 6] 
Hispanics, and the disabled among its SES and managers. The agency has 
a variety of leading diversity management practices to help reshape its 
workforce. The challenge facing GAO is to strategically manage its 
efforts to efficiently and effectively achieve greater diversity in its 
leadership. The Acting CG has stated that the agency intends to 
annually prepare a diversity plan in the spirit of EEOC's MD-715 
guidance, which will provide the agency with information essential to 
effectively and efficiently managing its diversity efforts. 

Figure 1: Comparison of Percentage of Women and Minorities in GAO's 
Senior Executive Service and at Manager Level with Executive Branch 
Agencies and Civilian Labor Force, Fiscal Year 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure contains two multiple vertical bar graphs depicting the 
following data: 

SES and equivalents: 

Women, GAO: 42.9%; 
Women, Executive branch agencies: 29.1%; 
Women, Civilian labor force: 45.7%. 

African-American, GAO: 11.1%; 
African-American, Executive branch agencies: 8.5%; 
African-American, Civilian labor force: 10.1%. 

American Indian/Alaska Native, GAO: 0; 
American Indian/Alaska Native, Executive branch agencies: 1.3%; 
American Indian/Alaska Native, Civilian labor force: 0.7%. 

Asian-American, GAO: 4.8%; 
Asian-American, Executive branch agencies: 2.3%; 
Asian-American, Civilian labor force: 4.3%. 

Hispanic, GAO: 1.6%; 
Hispanic, Executive branch agencies: 3.6%; 
Hispanic, Civilian labor force: 13.3%. 

Managers (GS-15 and equivalents): 

Women, GAO: 45.6%; 
Women, Executive branch agencies: 31.4%; 
Women, Civilian labor force: 45.7%; 

African-American, GAO: 10.6%; 
African-American, Executive branch agencies: 7.7%; 
African-American, Civilian labor force: 10.1%. 

American Indian/Alaska Native, GAO: 0; 
American Indian/Alaska Native, Executive branch agencies: 0.9%; 
American Indian/Alaska Native, Civilian labor force: 0.7%. 

Asian-American, GAO: 3.5%; 
Asian-American, Executive branch agencies: 7.8%
Asian-American, Civilian labor force: 4.3%. 

Hispanic, GAO: 4.4%; 
Hispanic, Executive branch agencies: 4.1%; 
Hispanic, Civilian labor force: 13.3%. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO and OPM data. 

[End of figure] 

GAO Has Made Gains in Overall Diversity and Faces Future Challenges: 

Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, GAO increased the number of women 
in its SES from 45 to 54, or 20 percent, as figure 2 shows. As a 
proportion of the SES, women went from 34 percent to 43 percent. 

Figure 2: Number of Men and Women in GAO's SES, Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Year: 2002; 
Men in SES: 88; 
Women in SES: 45. 

Year: 2003; 
Men in SES: 85; 
Women in SES: 47. 

Year: 2004; 
Men in SES: 82; 
Women in SES: 52. 

Year: 2005; 
Men in SES: 75; 
Women in SES: 52. 

Year: 2006; 
Men in SES: 72; 
Women in SES: 49. 

Year: 2007; 
Men in SES: 72; 
Women in SES: 54. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO data. 

[End of figure] 

During this same time, GAO had mixed success in increasing the number 
of minorities in the SES, as shown in figure 3. The agency had a slight 
increase in the number of African-Americans (from 12 to 14) but a 
decrease in the number of Asian-Americans (from 8 to 6) and Hispanics 
(from 4 to 2).[Footnote 7] In GAO's June 2008 Workforce Diversity Plan, 
the agency reported that the percentages of African-American and Asian- 
American females in the SES have not increased at the same rate as 
their respective percentages in the agency's overall workforce. 
Moreover, the agency reported no representation of individuals with 
targeted disabilities or American Indians/Alaska Natives in its SES. 
[Footnote 8] EEOC considers a low representational rate to be a 
benchmark or indicator of potential barriers to equal participation at 
all levels in a federal agency that requires further study.[Footnote 9] 

Figure 3: Number of Minority SES Members at GAO, Fiscal Years 2002- 
2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data: 

Year: 2002; 
African-American SES members: 12; 
Asian-American SES members: 8; 
Hispanic SES members: 4. 

Year: 2003; 
African-American SES members: 12; 
Asian-American SES members: 8; 
Hispanic SES members: 4. 

Year: 2004; 
African-American SES members: 12; 
Asian-American SES members: 9; 
Hispanic SES members: 3. 

Year: 2005; 
African-American SES members: 14; 
Asian-American SES members: 7; 
Hispanic SES members: 2. 

Year: 2006; 
African-American SES members: 14; 
Asian-American SES members: 7; 
Hispanic SES members: 1. 

Year: 2007; 
African-American SES members: 14; 
Asian-American SES members: 6; 
Hispanic SES members: 2. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO data. 

[End of figure] 

At the manager level during this same time, GAO increased the numbers 
of women and minorities. The manager level is the developmental or 
"feeder" pool for the SES. As with the SES, women made the largest 
gains, increasing their representation from 39 percent of the managers 
to 46 percent. The increases in minority representation were smaller 
but generally steady, as figure 4 shows. 

Figure 4: Number of Minority Managers at GAO, Fiscal Years 2002-2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data: 

Year: 2002; 
African-American Managers: 52; 
Asian-American Managers: 17; 
Hispanic Managers: 15; 
Native American Managers: 1. 

Year: 2003; 
African-American Managers: 55; 
Asian-American Managers: 18; 
Hispanic Managers: 15; 
Native American Managers: 1. 

Year: 2004; 
African-American Managers: 64; 
Asian-American Managers: 21; 
Hispanic Managers: 17; 
Native American Managers: 0. 

Year: 2005; 
African-American Managers: 63; 
Asian-American Managers: 20; 
Hispanic Managers: 17; 
Native American Managers: 0. 

Year: 2006; 
African-American Managers: 66; 
Asian-American Managers: 22; 
Hispanic Managers: 20; 
Native American Managers: 0. 

Year: 2007; 
African-American Managers: 63; 
Asian-American Managers: 26; 
Hispanic Managers: 21; 
Native American Managers: 0. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO data. 

[End of figure] 

At the manager level, GAO recently reported low percentages for 
Hispanic females, African-American males, and Asian-American females 
among Band III analysts. The agency also reported having no African- 
Americans, Asian-Americans, or Hispanics in certain manager-level 
administrative and professional-manager job categories.[Footnote 10] 

GAO's SES candidate program has a significant effect on the diversity 
of the SES because the agency uses it to promote many managers into the 
SES ranks. For entry into the program, the agency uses a competitive 
selection process that is open to both internal and external candidates 
at the manager level. Participation in the program lasts about 18 
months and includes special training and different work experiences to 
develop executive competencies. Upon successful completion of the 
program, candidates can gain an SES position without further 
competition. Since October 2002, women have composed 22 (or 42 percent) 
of the 52 total program participants. Minorities have composed 8 (or 15 
percent) of all of the participants, although there were no American 
Indians/Alaska Natives. In addition, as figure 5 shows, the percentage 
of minorities in the classes has fluctuated--from a high of 27 percent 
in 1 year to a low of 9 percent in the September 2007 class. 

Figure 5: Percentage of Minorities in GAO's SES Candidate Program Since 
October 2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Year SES candidate class started: 2002; 
African-American: 0; 
Hispanic: 0; 
Asian-American: 10; 
Total minority percentage in class: 10. 

Year SES candidate class started: 2003; 
African-American: 22; 
Hispanic: 0; 
Asian-American: 0; 
Total minority percentage in class: 22. 

Year SES candidate class started: 2005; 
African-American: 18; 
Hispanic: 9; 
Asian-American: 0; 
Total minority percentage in class: 27. 

Year SES candidate class started: 2006; 
African-American: 9; 
Hispanic: 0; 
Asian-American: 0; 
Total minority percentage in class: 9. 

Year SES candidate class started: 2007; 
African-American: 0; 
Hispanic: 9; 
Asian-American: 0; 
Total minority percentage in class: 9. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO data. 

[End of figure] 

In June 2008, GAO reported that no Asian-Americans, Hispanic males, or 
African-American females applied for the September 2007 class of the 
SES candidate program. The Managing Director of OOI said that the low 
representation of minorities among recent applicants demonstrates that 
without constant vigilance, progress could be lost, even though the 
agency has generally been successful at attracting minorities to its 
SES candidate program. 

In the short term, this program has the potential to help GAO obtain a 
larger pool of diverse candidates for the SES because it accepts 
applicants from both inside and outside the agency. In recent years, 
the agency has hired two external applicants for this program. 
According to agency officials we interviewed, past experience has shown 
that external candidates often face an additional challenge of 
assimilating into GAO's SES culture, which is steeped in audit 
methodology and practices, while at the same time they must lead staff 
who are knowledgeable about these practices and procedures. 

GAO also directly hires employees at the SES and manager level. Direct 
hiring has an effect on diversity, and in the short term, the hiring of 
women and minorities could help improve diversity at these levels. 
Between October 2002 and May 2008, GAO hired a total of 67 individuals 
at the SES and manager level. Of these, 10 (15 percent) were minority 
men and women and 21 (31 percent) were Caucasian females. 

In its EEO oversight role, PAB has recommended that GAO review its SES 
selection process, including the SES candidate program, to determine 
whether any barriers may be having a negative effect on representation. 
In response, the agency has stated that it regularly reviews the SES 
selection processes and discusses how it can attract a greater 
diversity of applications, including recruitment sources and 
advertising with special interest groups. 

GAO Uses Leading Practices, and Annual Diversity Plans Can Provide 
Essential Information for Effective Management: 

GAO has in place many of the leading diversity management practices 
identified in EEOC's MD-715 guidance for a model EEO program[Footnote 
11] and in a GAO study of expert-identified leading diversity 
management practices.[Footnote 12] (See app. III for a table showing 
the status of GAO's implementation of the nine expert-identified 
practices.) For example, GAO's top executives, including the current 
Acting Comptroller General and former Comptroller General, have made a 
commitment to diversity management--a best practice identified by both 
the EEOC and diversity management experts. Diversity management is a 
regular item on the agenda at periodic meetings of GAO's SES. 
Furthermore, GAO has taken recent action that will identify 
representational gaps and eliminate unnecessary barriers to hiring and 
advancement of women, minorities, and people with disabilities. 

In accordance with a leading practice, GAO has made diversity part of 
its 5-year strategic plan, which sets out the agency's long-term goals 
and objectives.[Footnote 13] One of the agency's four strategic goals 
is to maximize the value of GAO by being a model federal agency and 
world-class professional services organization. One objective for this 
goal is to be an employer of choice with an environment that is fair 
and unbiased and that values opportunity and inclusiveness. In 
addition, GAO has incorporated diversity management in the performance 
appraisal systems for its SES and other supervisors, as well as adopted 
mediation to voluntarily resolve complaints of discrimination. 
Moreover, as part of an ongoing effort to involve employees in its 
diversity management, the agency recently created a Diversity Committee 
with representatives from all employee groups, such as Blacks In 
Government, the Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, the 
Asian American Liaison Group, the Gay and Lesbian Employees 
Association, the Hispanic Liaison Group, and the International 
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. The committee's 
purpose is to foster opportunities for dialogue between GAO management 
and staff by seeking and conveying the views and concerns of individual 
diversity groups. The committee's members will comment on new or 
revised GAO policies, procedures, plans, and practices pertaining to 
diversity issues. 

While GAO has improved the diversity of its SES and managerial ranks 
and uses many leading diversity management practices, the agency has 
not had a process for developing essential information on a regular 
basis to effectively manage its diversity efforts. However, in June 
2008 GAO issued its Workforce Diversity Plan, as requested in the 
committee report for the legislative branch appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 14] Executive branch agencies are required 
to do this plan annually. In developing its plan, GAO used EEOC's MD- 
715--the same guidance executive branch agencies are required to use-- 
although GAO is not required to follow it. In accordance with EEOC MD- 
715, GAO analyzed workforce data to assess demographic trends and to 
determine whether there were differences in the representation of 
minorities in the agency's workforce when compared with the appropriate 
benchmarks.[Footnote 15] As a result, the agency now has baseline data 
on the diversity of its workforce. In addition, it has identified a 
number of potential barriers that may impede fair and open competition 
in the workplace. The plan also includes the GAO's 2008-2009 Workforce 
Diversity Action Plan, which lists three broad goals: (1) recruit more 
Hispanics, African-Americans, and staff with disabilities; (2) enhance 
staff-development opportunities that prepare staff for upper-level 
positions; and (3) create a more inclusive environment. While the 
action items are short-term activities, such as developing a diversity 
recruitment and hiring plan by April 2009, some could lead to long term 
changes that affect diversity. 

In addition, the agency awarded last year a contract to assess the 
factors that may explain statistically significant differences in 
rating averages between African-American and Caucasian analysts from 
2002 to 2006. A final report was issued on April 25, 2008, and it 
included more than 25 recommendations. Within a week, the Acting 
Comptroller General issued a memorandum to employees expressing his 
commitment to address the report's recommendations. GAO has already 
undertaken steps to implement some of the recommendations and to 
establish a plan to implement other recommendations. 

Fiscal Year 2007 Complaints and Discrimination Data Contained Errors: 

The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act) of 2002 requires GAO to provide data on 
its complaints and discrimination cases annually in a report to 
Congress and to post updates of current fiscal year data on its Web 
site. In the annual report, we found errors in the fiscal year 2007 
data for the number of complaints, the number of GAO employees who 
filed complaints, and the basis of the complaints (such as race, 
gender, and religion). We also could not verify the fiscal year 2007 
data reported for complaint processing times. In addition, when GAO 
posted complaint data earlier this year on its intranet and Web site, 
it inadvertently published the wrong data for fiscal year 2007. 
[Footnote 16] We determined that these and other errors largely 
resulted from insufficient controls over the compilation and reporting 
of the data, including not making full use of its electronic complaint 
software. 

In its March 2008 annual report, GAO had errors in fiscal year 2007 
complaints and discrimination data. Table 1 shows a comparison of 
correct data to data included in GAO's annual report regarding the 
number of complainants, complaints, and repeat filers--those who have 
previously filed a complaint. 

Table 1: Comparison of Correct and Reported Complaint Data for Fiscal 
Year 2007: 

Type of data: Complainants; 
Correct data: 6; 
Data in GAO annual report: 7. 

Type of data: Complaints; 
Correct data: 15; 
Data in GAO annual report: 16. 

Type of data: Repeat filers; 
Correct data: 2; 
Data in GAO annual report: 2. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO information. 

[End of table] 

The annual report also contains errors related to the basis, or nature, 
of the complaint, as shown in table 2. For example, the annual report 
overstates by two the number of complaints based on religion, while it 
understates by eight the number of complaints based on reprisals. 

Table 2: Comparison of Fiscal Year 2007 Basis of Complaints, by Source 
of Data: 

Basis of complaint: Race; 
Correct data: 2; 
Data in GAO annual report: 1; 
Difference: 1. 

Basis of complaint: Color; 
Correct data: 1; 
Data in GAO annual report: 1; 
Difference: 0. 

Basis of complaint: 
Religion; Correct data: 10; 
Data in GAO annual report: 12; 
Difference: -2. 

Basis of complaint: Reprisal; 
Correct data: 14; 
Data in GAO annual report: 6; 
Difference: 8. 

Basis of complaint: Sex; 
Correct data: 2; 
Data in GAO annual report: 2; 
Difference: 0. 

Basis of complaint: National origin; 
Correct data: 1; 
Data in GAO annual report: 1; 
Difference: 0. 

Basis of complaint: Equal Pay Act; 
Correct data: 0; 
Data in GAO annual report: 0; 
Difference: 0. 

Basis of complaint: Age; 
Correct data: 4; 
Data in GAO annual report: 4; 
Difference: 0. 

Basis of complaint: Disability; 
Correct data: 2; 
Data in GAO annual report: 2; 
Difference: 0. 

Basis of complaint: Non-EEO; 
Correct data: 0; 
Data in GAO annual report: 0; 
Difference: 0. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO information. 

[End of table] 

We traced the reasons for the errors in the annual report back to 
insufficient internal controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness 
of the data. For example, in developing the data, the responsible 
person did not include all of the complaints or all of the information 
about the complaints processed. Part of the problem involved complaints 
that OOI did not process because they were filed against a person 
within OOI.[Footnote 17] We found that OOI did not have procedures on 
how to track complaints processed outside of OOI or how to report on 
such complaints for purposes of the No FEAR Act. In addition, the 
agency had no written procedures regarding the development and 
verification of the data to ensure completeness and accuracy, and we 
did not find any indication in the records we reviewed that the 
person's work had been verified or reviewed by a supervisor. 

Furthermore, we could not verify the processing times for fiscal year 
2007 complaints in the annual report. We found that OOI, the unit 
responsible for developing complaint data, does not have written 
procedures for calculating and verifying the average number of days 
that complaints were in the investigation stage and awaiting final 
action by the agency. To compute these processing times, OOI staff used 
an informal process and manually did the calculations. However, we 
could not verify the calculations because the person who made the 
calculations had little experience in this area, and the records of 
their calculations were incomplete. In addition, OOI did not make full 
use of its electronic complaint tracking software, which has the 
capabilities to track and determine complaint processing times, because 
of past difficulties in using the software. GAO specifically purchased 
this software 5 years ago to improve the accuracy of its complaint 
data. In response to these findings, the agency is planning to revise 
its procedures to improve the accuracy of processing times, including 
making full use of this software. 

We also found that GAO inadvertently posted on its intranet and Web 
site the wrong data for fiscal year 2007. The posted data--which were 
for the first quarter of fiscal year 2008--were different from the 
correct data. As shown in table 3, the posted data understated the 
number of complainants by 4, the number of complaints by 13, and the 
number of multiple filers by 2. The posted data also included errors 
regarding the basis of complaints and the complaint processing times. 

Table 3: Comparison of Correct Data with Data Inaccurately Posted to 
GAO's Web Sites for Fiscal Year 2007: 

Type of data: Complainants; 
Correct data: 6; 
Inaccurate Web-posted data: 2. 

Type of data: Complaints; 
Correct data: 15; 
Inaccurate Web-posted data: 2. 

Type of data: Multiple filers; 
Correct data: 2; 
Inaccurate Web-posted data: 0. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO information. 

[End of table] 

The errors in the quarterly postings resulted from a combination of 
factors. First, internal controls were not adequate to ensure that 
posted data were accurate. Second, the responsible staff who had little 
experience with the No FEAR Act data said that they were confused by 
the act's language and reporting format, which the EEOC developed for 
use by executive branch agencies, and made errors because of their 
confusion. Third, OOI has continued to rely on a manual paper-based 
process for tracking and reporting all complaints and have made limited 
use of its electronic complaints tracking software. The manual process 
made it harder to accurately track the number of complaints and to 
determine processing times. As a result of our work, OOI has posted to 
its intranet and Web site the correct data for fiscal year 2007 and 
plans to revise its procedures for other problems we have identified. 

Concerns Continue about Integration of Discrimination Complaint 
Processing and Diversity Efforts: 

To ensure the fair and impartial processing of discrimination 
complaints, EEOC's guidance on the federal sector EEO process for 
executive branch agencies has three requirements regarding the 
reporting relationship and independence of the heads of agency EEO 
offices.[Footnote 18] Although GAO is not required to follow EEOC's 
guidance, it adheres to two of the three requirements. Concerns have 
been expressed about the agency not following the third recommendation-
-keeping the EEO functions separate from the personnel function. PAB, 
in its EEO oversight capacity of GAO, has recommended that the agency 
create a separate unit solely to process discrimination complaints. 

EEOC's Management Directive 110, among other things, has three 
requirements for the head of agency EEO offices regarding reporting 
relationships and independence. First, to underscore the importance of 
equal employment opportunity to an agency's mission and to ensure that 
the EEO Director is able to act with the greatest degree of 
independence, it requires that the EEO Director report directly to the 
head of the agency. Second, to enhance the credibility of the EEO 
office and the integrity of the EEO complaints process, it requires 
that the EEO fact-finding function in general, and the legal 
sufficiency reviews of final agency decisions for discrimination 
complaints in particular, not be done by attorneys in a unit that 
represents or defends the agency in such disputes. Third, to maintain 
the integrity of the EEO investigative and decision-making processes, 
the guidance requires that the EEO functions, especially investigations 
and decision making, must be kept separate from the personnel function 
to avoid conflicts of position or conflicts of interest, as well as the 
appearance of such conflicts. 

We found no problems with two requirements. The OOI Managing Director 
reports directly to the Comptroller General, the head of GAO. In 
addition, the OOI Managing Director, who is an attorney, does legal 
sufficiency reviews of final agency decisions and arranges for 
independent investigations. For the small number of complaints that OOI 
staff have not directly processed, GAO's Chief Administrative Officer 
assigns a manager to act on OOI's behalf, while General Counsel assigns 
an attorney who is not in GAO's Legal Services unit to assist the 
manager. Legal Services is part of GAO's Office of General Counsel and 
serves as the agency's in-house legal counsel and represents the agency 
in legal disputes. 

PAB has reported about the potential for a real or apparent conflict of 
interest because the OOI Managing Director is responsible for 
overseeing discrimination complaints while having a substantial role in 
GAO's human capital activities, including diversity programs--which is 
a personnel function. PAB has pointed out that this situation does not 
conform to the EEOC directive, which states, ". . . the same agency 
official responsible for executing and advising on personnel actions 
may not also be responsible for managing, advising, or overseeing the 
EEO pre-complaint or complaint processes." An illustrative example of a 
potential area of conflict is the OOI Managing Director's role in 
reviewing employee performance ratings. He reviews selected ratings 
before they are final to identify any potential EEO concerns, and he 
then discusses his concerns with the appropriate SES official. 
Therefore, if an employee were to file a discrimination complaint 
because of a rating, the OOI Managing Director would have been involved 
in a review for potential EEO concerns and still would be responsible 
for the fair and impartial processing of the complaint. 

PAB has recommended that GAO create a separate complaint unit to 
process discrimination complaints exclusively and with no 
responsibility for personnel, or human capital, issues. GAO has stated 
that it does not believe that creation of a separate unit is warranted 
due to the small number of discrimination complaints filed each year 
and that the appearance of any conflict of interest is mitigated by GAO 
contracting out its complaint investigations. PAB continues to believe 
that a structural separation between the two administrative functions 
is warranted. The scope of our review did not include a detailed 
analysis of OOI to determine what effect, if any, the consolidation of 
these functions has had on complaint processing. 

Moreover, the small number of formal complaints does not reflect the 
office's workload, the majority of which involve informal contacts with 
the office and its efforts to resolve issues raised by GAO employees 
without the filing of a formal complaint. For example, in fiscal year 
2007, GAO employees filed 15 discrimination complaints, while about 130 
employees made informal contacts to OOI. These contacts concerned a 
range of issues, including appraisals, promotion, work assignments, 
harassment, work environment, feedback, communication, and training. 

Conclusions: 

While the agency has made progress, the task ahead--further increasing 
the diversity of its leadership and workforce--is challenging. It will 
require a concerted effort that must be sustained over time. The small 
gains in minority representation in recent years will not be sufficient 
for achieving a more diverse leadership. To move forward, GAO needs to 
establish as part of its long-term approach a written policy that 
requires the agency to produce an annual plan that evaluates its 
workforce data and helps identify and remove unnecessary barriers to 
the advancement and hiring of women, minorities, and people with 
disabilities. The agency has taken a key step toward this end with its 
June 2008 Workforce Diversity Plan and the Acting Comptroller General's 
stated intention to producing a diversity plan annually. Because of 
GAO's transitional state with an Acting Comptroller General, we believe 
the agency needs to incorporate its intention into the order governing 
OOI's responsibilities. By formally adopting the MD-715 annual review 
and evaluation process, GAO will be better able to evaluate the effects 
of its initiatives, use the evaluations as a basis for any strategic 
improvements, and hold agency leadership accountable. 

In addition, GAO needs to improve its internal complaint processing 
procedures and the procedures related to compiling and reporting on 
those complaints. This will help to avoid recent problems and ensure 
that complaint data provided to others are accurate and reliable. 

GAO may want to monitor the situation related to its decision not to 
create a separate unit for processing discrimination complaints. Some 
of the factors that the agency considered in its original decisions 
seem to have changed, and the agency does face some risk of real or 
apparent conflicts of position or conflicts of interest. Further, the 
number of employees making informal contacts to OOI is substantial 
compared with the number of discrimination complaints. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To acquire the information needed to make decisions for managing GAO's 
diversity efforts and to achieve the intended results in the most 
timely and efficient manner, we recommend that the Acting Comptroller 
General take the following two actions: 

* Establish as agency policy the development of an annual diversity 
plan that includes the evaluation of the agency's workforce, identifies 
and removes unnecessary barriers to advancement and hiring, and is 
comparable to the requirements outlined in EEOC's MD-715. 

* Use information from its annual diversity plan to hold agency 
leadership accountable for the overall results of the agency's 
diversity efforts. 

To improve the accuracy and completeness of the complaint and 
discrimination data reported to Congress and others, we recommend that 
the Acting Comptroller General take the following two actions: 

* Revise GAO's complaint processing procedures order to clarify 
responsibility for tracking and reporting on the processing of 
complaints against a person within OOI. 

Strengthen internal controls for tracking, reviewing, and reporting on 
complaints. 

Agency Comments and the IG's Evaluation: 

The Inspector General provided GAO with a draft of this report for 
review and comment. GAO generally agreed with our recommendations. 
Regarding the report's four recommendations on GAO's diversity planning 
efforts, the agency did not believe the report had given sufficient 
credit to the agency's foundation for long-term diversity planning and 
management. Based on further discussion of these comments and the 
clarification that management intends to continue producing an annual 
workforce diversity plan in the spirit of EEOC's MD-715 guidance, we 
believe that such an annual plan would address the intent of the draft 
report's recommendations. As a result, we revised the final report to 
contain two agency planning recommendations to ensure that workforce 
diversity plans are developed at least annually and that they are used 
to help increase management accountability. Regarding the IG's two 
recommendations on discrimination complaint data and reporting, the 
agency agreed to take steps to improve data quality and reporting and 
acknowledged taking steps to implement them. GAO also provided 
technical corrections that we have incorporated, as appropriate. GAO's 
written comments appear in appendix IV. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to other 
interested congressional committees and GAO's Acting Comptroller 
General. We will also make copies available to others on request. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-5748 or garciaf@gao.gov. Contact points for 
GAO's Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. IG staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Frances Garcia: 
Inspector General: 
GAO: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

GAO's Inspector General reviewed GAO's efforts to promote fair 
representation of women and minorities in its Senior Executive Service 
and other senior-level positions. Our objectives were to: 

* determine whether GAO's diversity programs and initiatives are 
achieving better representation of women and minorities in top 
leadership positions (i.e., Senior Level Executive and GS-15 positions, 
or their equivalent), 

* evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the fiscal year 2007 
complaint and discrimination data reported to Congress, and: 

* assess the independent authority and reporting relationships of the 
Managing Director of GAO's Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness 
(OOI). 

To determine whether the GAO diversity-related programs and initiatives 
are achieving better representation of women and minorities in the 
Senior Executive Service (SES) and managerial ranks (GS-15) and their 
equivalent positions, we primarily used (1) the U.S. Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission Management Directive 715 (MD-715) checklist, 
which we modified to eliminate questions applicable only to executive 
branch agencies; and (2) nine leading diversity management practices 
identified by experts in the field and discussed in GAO's report 
Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and Agency 
Examples. Executive branch agencies are to use the MD-715 checklist 
annually to internally evaluate their performance for establishing and 
maintaining effective diversity programs, such as the essential 
elements of a model equal employment opportunity program. We used MD- 
715 and the GAO report on leading practices as criteria for our 
assessment because they provide policy guidance and standards for 
establishing and maintaining effective diversity programs. In addition, 
we obtained and analyzed data from GAO's Chief Administrative Officer 
on women and minorities in the SES and manager and equivalent ranks for 
fiscal years 2002 through 2007, data on GAO's SES candidate program for 
fiscal year 2002 through May 2008, and GAO's hiring of SES and managers 
for fiscal year 2003 through May 2008. We also interviewed agency 
officials, such as the Chief Human Capital Officer and the OOI Managing 
Director, as well as representatives from the firm that conducted the 
study on ratings disparities between African-American and Caucasian 
analysts and an employee group to obtain insight on the agency's 
diversity management programs and initiatives. The scope of our audit 
was limited to GAO's diversity programs in effect as of January 1, 
2008. 

To evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the agency's fiscal year 
2007 complaint and discrimination data and the information systems that 
produce that data, we reviewed GAO's order and procedures on processing 
discrimination complaints and reviewed relevant files. Our assessment 
also included reviewing supporting documentation for the data reported 
in GAO's annual report to Congress and posted on its intranet and Web 
site. In addition, we interviewed staff and managers in OOI and the 
Office of General Counsel (GC) to ascertain how complaint and 
discrimination data are collected, recorded, and reported. We further 
assessed the internal control systems GAO uses to process complaints, 
determine processing times, and develop the annual report and Web 
postings to ensure the quality of data. 

To assess the independent authority and reporting relationships for 
GAO's OOI Managing Director, we examined the agency's organizational 
structure, policies, and procedures and reviewed GAO's Personnel 
Appeals Board's (PAB) reports on equal employment opportunity 
oversight. We also compared how GAO is currently organized to process 
discrimination complaints against how executive agencies are required 
to process such complaints, as described in EEOC Management Directive 
110. In addition, we interviewed the officials in PAB, OOI, and GC to 
discuss areas of concern for potential conflicts of interest. 

We conducted our work from March 2008 to September 2008 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 
based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Selected PAB EEO Oversight Reports: 

The Employment of Hispanics at GAO. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2007. 
[Footnote 19] 

The State of Equal Employment Opportunity at GAO in the 21st Century. 
Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2005. 

Study of GAO's Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness. Washington, 
D.C.: February 20, 2004. 

Minority Recruitment at GAO. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2002. 

Selection Into the Senior Executive Service at GAO (1992-1997). 
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998. 

Follow-Up Report to GAO's Discrimination Complaint Process and 
Mediation Program. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 1998. 

GAO's Discrimination Complaint Process and Mediation Program. 
Washington, D.C.: September 29, 1995. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Status of Nine Expert-Identified Best Leading Diversity 
Practices at GAO: 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: 
Top leadership commitment; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Check]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: Diversity as 
part of an organization's strategic plan; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Check]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: Diversity 
linked to performance; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Check]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: Measurement; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Check]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: 
Accountability; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Check]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: Succession 
planning; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Check]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: Recruitment; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Check]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: Employee 
involvement; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Check]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Expert-identified leading diversity management practices: Diversity 
training; 
Not yet adopted: Do not anticipate adopting: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: No decision made, not in use: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Will adopt: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Plan under development: [Empty]; 
Not yet adopted: Written plan complete: [Empty]; 
Level of adoption: Partially adopted: [Check]; 
Level of adoption: Fully adopted: [Empty]. 

Source: IG analysis of GAO information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of the Comptroller General of the 
United States: 

Office of the Comptroller General of the United States: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 4, 2008: 

Ms. Frances Garcia: 
Inspector General: 

Dear Ms. Garcia: 

On behalf of the Executive Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
comment on the draft report on GAO's diversity efforts. First, we 
appreciate the reports' recognition of the gains GAO has made in the 
number of women, African Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics in 
our collective SES and manager ranks. While GAO has a very diverse 
profile, gaps exist in certain categories, however, especially 
Hispanics. We are committed to addressing these issues and continuing 
to improve the diversity of our leadership as well as our workforce 
overall. 

To this end, this year we built upon the vision for diversity spelled 
out in our strategic plan for serving the Congress by producing a very 
detailed Workforce Diversity Plan. This plan includes steps that will 
lead to significant long term changes to our human capital processes 
that are at the heart of diversity issues confronting GAO. The plan is 
based on a careful analysis of appropriate workforce data, measures our
performance against benchmarks recommended by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and recommends changes that can be 
accomplished over the next 12 months in order to hold ourselves 
accountable for achieving the plan's goals. As stated in the Workforce 
Diversity Plan, we intend to conduct another review next year and 
report on the progress made to implement this year's action steps. This 
will be an annual management review. 

With regard to your two recommendations focused on data and reporting, 
we agree to take steps to improve the accuracy and completeness of the 
complaint and discrimination data and have taken steps to implement 
them. Concerning the recommendations on our planning efforts, we 
certainly agree that continuing to improve our planning and 
accountability processes are important, and to that end, we will 
incorporate your recommendations, as appropriate, into our ongoing 
efforts to refine our related approaches; however, we believe that our 
planning efforts to date lay more of a foundation for the long term 
than your report implies. Our response to several of your 
recommendations in this area follows. 

IG Recommendations and Our Responses: 

* Conduct a detailed analysis of its work force comparable to those 
outlined in EEOC's MD-715 on annual or biennial basis. 

Response: Our Workforce Diversity Plan, which we issued in June 2008, 
is a detailed analysis of GAO's workforce based on EEOC's guidance in 
its Management Directive 715 (MD-715) (see page one of the plan). 
Please note that we state on the bottom of page 3 of the Workforce 
Diversity Plan that, "We plan to conduct another review next year and 
report on the progress made to implement this year's action plan." It 
is our intention to update the workforce diversity plan annually. 

* Establish specific, measurable, and time-based goals and performance 
measures related to these goals. 

Response: We are very committed to maintaining and increasing the 
diversity of GAO's workforce. While our Workforce Diversity Plan has 
established performance goals and timeframes for taking certain 
actions, we also need to be cognizant of applicable legal standards 
requiring that any methods used for affirmative action purposes be 
narrowly tailored in scope and appropriately targeted to address the 
nature and circumstances surrounding the disparities at issue. 

In line with Supreme Court case law, the thrust of diversity or 
affirmative action efforts has moved from the use of strict goals and 
timetables for hiring or promotion of women and minorities to a focus 
on barrier analysis. The EEOC made this clear in its 2004 issuance of 
MD-715. It directs agencies to emphasize the identification and 
elimination of workplace barriers through a series of steps, including 
examination of the composition of staff, determination of any 
meaningful disparities, and the implementation of approaches to 
identify potential barriers to hiring or advancement. As discussed 
above, GAO follows the spirit of MD-715. We conduct an examination of 
the composition of the staff on an annual basis and have developed 
approaches in our Workforce Diversity Plan to foster diversity among 
the SES and management ranks, as well as the rest of the staff. 
Consistent with Supreme Court holdings, these measures include the 
enhancement of staff development opportunities and outreach and 
recruitment efforts to increase the pool of qualified applicants, such 
as attending job fairs or posting vacancies at schools with substantial 
minority enrollment. 

In conclusion, while we need to be cognizant of applicable legal 
standards, we support your recommendation to use performance measures 
and goals tied to removing barriers for women and minorities and 
believe that our Workforce Plan encompasses that approach. We also are 
confident that the agency is able to assess the effectiveness of our 
hiring and promotion efforts through the various means set forth in the 
Workforce Diversity Plan. 

* Use Performance measures and information to hold agency leadership
accountable for the overall results of the agency's diversity efforts. 

Response: We agree with the recommendation, in general, that 
performance measures should be used to hold leadership accountable for 
results. Our agency performance management systems have been designed 
to focus on results and ensure accountability as agency goals are 
cascaded down to the unit and then individuals. Further, we have 
established performance standards for promoting inclusiveness and 
accomplishing agency goals (under the competencies developing people 
and leading others, respectively) in our SES and managers' (Band III 
equivalent) appraisal systems. Nonetheless, we recognize that 
improvements can be made. We are currently reassessing our performance 
appraisal systems for the analysts, attorney and administrative/ 
technical populations-including the manager levels-and we plan to 
reassess the SES appraisal system in the near future. In making 
revisions to the systems for our leaders we are committed to looking 
for opportunities to further incorporate accountability for the 
agency's diversity efforts. 

While not a specific recommendation, your report also suggests that we 
reconsider the need to create a separate complaint unit to process 
discrimination complaints exclusively and with no responsibility for 
personnel or human capital issues. While we understand the basis for 
this proposal, there are real benefits to having all Office of 
Opportunity and Inclusiveness (O&I) staff available to handle daily 
staff concerns. Our experience has been that the more quickly you can 
address concerns raised by staff, the more likely you are to resolve 
the issues without resorting to formal complaints, and the more likely 
you are to get a more satisfactory result. EEOC's MD-715 supports our 
approach. This directive identifies several essential elements of model 
EEO programs and several steps agencies must take. The directive 
states, among other things, that agencies must "Ensure EEO 
professionals are involved with and consulted on, the management and 
deployment of human resources. The EEO Director should be a regular 
participant in senior staff meetings and regularly consulted on human 
resources issues." Again, notwithstanding these and other resource 
concerns, we will keep this suggestion in mind as we monitor the number 
of complaints we receive. 

In closing, I want to reiterate my steadfast and personal commitment to 
developing and maintaining a diverse workforce at GAO. GAO's strategic 
plan, our detailed June 2008 Workforce Diversity Plan, and our 
concerted efforts to implement the over 25 recommendations we received 
in late April from the Ivy Planning Group in its African American 
Performance Assessment Study provide a comprehensive approach to 
achieving these goals and translate this commitment into concrete 
actions. To help continue this momentum, I will soon be providing an 
update on our efforts to implement Ivy's recommendations. 

We have also provided some technical comments for your consideration in 
finalizing your report. I appreciate your contributions to helping GAO 
strengthen it diversity efforts. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Gene L. Dodaro: 
Acting Comptroller General of the United States: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: IG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

IG Contact: 

Frances Garcia, (202) 512-5748 or garciaf@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Cathy L. Helm (Assistant 
Director) and Keith Steck made significant contributions to this 
report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Human Capital: Workforce Diversity Governmentwide and at the Department 
of Homeland Security. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
08-815T]. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2008. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Management of Civil Rights Efforts 
Continues to Be Deficient Despite Years of Attention. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-755T]. Washington, D.C.: May 
14, 2008. 

Human Capital: Workforce Diversity Governmentwide and at the Small 
Business Administration. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-725T]. Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2008. 

NASA: Progress Made on Strategic Human Capital Management, but Future 
Program Challenges Remain. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1004]. Washington, D.C.: August 8, 2007. 

Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information 
for Management Decision Making. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927]. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2005. 

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce 
Planning. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39]. 
Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003. 

Human Capital Management: FAA's Reform Effort Requires a More Strategic 
Approach. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-156]. 
Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2003. 

Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in 
Managing Their Workforces. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-2]. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2002. 

A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-373SP]. Washington, D.C.: 
March 15, 2002. 

Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement Initiatives. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?T-GGD-00-26]. Washington, 
D.C.: October 15, 1999. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In GAO, SES positions and their equivalents are SES, Senior Level, 
and executive schedule positions. GAO has few actual GS-15 positions; 
their equivalents within GAO's pay systems are Band III analysts and 
specialists (Assistant Directors), Level II managerial and supervisory 
positions, Level-IV professional technical specialists, and Band III 
attorneys (equivalent to Band II Attorneys in 2002-2004). 

[2] In accordance with the Notification and Federal Employee 
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), P.L. 107- 
174, GAO is required to (1) annually report information related to 
discrimination, harassment, and related matters and (2) post quarterly 
updates of these data on its Web site. 

[3] EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 110, 
Federal Sector Complaints Processing Manual (Nov. 9, 1999). 

[4] GAO, GAO Strategic Plan 2007-2012, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2007). 

[5] The civilian labor force is defined as those 16 and older 
(including the federal workforce), regardless of citizenship, who are 
employed or looking for work and are not in the military or 
institutionalized. A minimum age of 18 is required for most federal 
employment. 

[6] For purposes of this report, we are using the term Asian-American 
to include employees who identify their ethnicity and race as Asian, 
Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific islander. 

[7] Hispanics are underrepresented throughout the federal government 
when compared with the U.S. civilian labor force, according to OPM. 

[8] Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, 
partial paralysis, complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental 
retardation, mental illness, and distortion of limb or spine. 

[9] EEOC defines barrier as an agency policy, principle, or practice 
that limits or tends to limit employment opportunities for a particular 
sex, race, or ethnic background or because of an individual's 
disability status. 

[10] GAO, Workforce Diversity Plan (Washington, D.C.: June 2008). 

[11] EEOC, MD-715 Section I: The Model EEO Program. 

[12] GAO, Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and 
Agency Examples, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-
90] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005). 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1SP]. 

[14] U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, 
Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 
2008, H.R. 110-198, 110th Cong., 1st sess. (June 19, 2007). The 
subcommittee report requested an affirmative action plan. 

[15] EEOC, MD-715 Section II: Barrier Identification and Elimination. 

[16] In addition to posting No FEAR Act data to its Web site, GAO also 
publishes the quarterly data on its intranet for employee access. 

[17] As set forth in GAO's discrimination complaint resolution process 
order, generally GAO employees are to file discrimination complaints 
with OOI, which processes them. For complaints filed against OOI staff 
or management, the order provides for a GAO top executive to assign 
such complaints to other GAO managers, so that they may process the 
complaints instead of OOI, as occurred in fiscal year 2007. 

[18] EEOC, Management Directive 110. 

[19] PAB reports can be located on its Web site, [hyperlink, 
http://www.pab.gao.gov/oversight.php]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: