Limitations in DOD's Evaluation Plan for EEO Complaint Pilot Program Hinder Determination of Pilot Results
Gao ID: GAO-08-387R February 22, 2008In August 2004, pursuant to Section 1111 of the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense authorization act, the Secretary of Defense authorized components of the United States Air Force (USAF), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) to implement an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint pilot program to reengineer the EEO complaint process to, among other things, reduce complaint processing time and reinforce management accountability. The program was exempt from the procedural requirements of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and other regulations, directives, or regulatory restrictions prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As required by the legislation, in May 2006, GAO reported on the implementation of the pilot programs and found that two of the three pilot initiatives operated consistent with existing EEOC requirements, with a specific emphasis on alternative dispute resolution (ADR). USAF's pilot operated outside of EEOC regulations, as authorized under the legislation. We identified limitations in the Department of Defense's (DOD) evaluation plan for the pilot program that, if not addressed, would limit the likelihood that the evaluation would yield sound results. For example, the plan did not have well-defined or clear objectives or set criteria for determining if the pilots had met objectives. Accordingly, we made recommendations to DOD on ways to develop a sound evaluation plan that would more accurately and reliably assess the pilot programs' results and thereby support effective program and policy decisions. DOD made some changes to the evaluation plan based on our recommendations. USAF and DeCA's pilot programs ended on September 30, 2007; DLA ended its pilot on September 30, 2006. As required by the legislation, GAO evaluated the pilots at the conclusion of the program. Our objectives were to (1) describe the key aspects of the EEO process that were tested by the pilot program, (2) present data DOD reported from the pilot program, (3) evaluate improvements DOD made to its evaluation plan, (4) describe ADR processes used in the pilot programs compared to other ADR processes reported by federal agencies, and (5) provide lessons learned from the pilot program that can inform future EEO complaint process reform initiatives.
In summary, DeCA and DLA tested the informal stage of the EEO complaint process, primarily by increased use of ADR to informally settle disputes before they became formal complaints. DeCA developed a toll-free call line which they indicated was to enable employees to "vent" their grievances and DLA required management and new hires to attend training on ADR and offered it to all employees. USAF made substantive changes to the formal stage of the complaint process--combining the investigative and hearing phases--with a goal of reducing complaint processing times to an average of 127 days or less. At the end of their program, USAF officials reported that the average processing time for pilot cases was approximately 108 days. USAF's program officers informed us that they plan to seek approval to continue their program and have drafted legislation that would authorize them to do so. We have not obtained a copy of this draft legislation. Data reported by DOD showed that rates of participation in the pilot programs varied widely. As specified in the legislation, claimants had the option of participating in the pilot program or staying with the traditional process within their respective organizations. Further, DOD afforded those opting to participate in the pilot program the opportunity to opt out and go back to the traditional process at any time. USAF's participation rate was about 16 percent of those offered the pilot, but 76 percent of the pilot cases were resolved and another 9 percent, which were still pending as of September 30, 2007, will remain under the pilot. USAF officials generally attributed the relatively low number of complainants who opted to participate in the pilot to a lack of familiarity and trust in a new EEO complaint procedure. DeCA had 100 percent of those eligible accept the pilot and 51 percent (44 of 87 complaints) completing it with resolution. Over 95 percent of those eligible accepted DLA's pilot with 75 percent (12 of 15 complaints) completing it with resolution. During our briefings, we received several questions from congressional committee staff about what was meant by "completed the pilot with resolution," especially for USAF cases since these could be appealed to EEOC. USAF described as "resolved" those cases that received a decision on the merits or were settled during the USAF's process. Since DLA's and DeCA's pilot programs focused on the informal stage of the process, these agencies considered a case "resolved" when it did not proceed to a formal complaint under the traditional EEO complaint process.
GAO-08-387R, Limitations in DOD's Evaluation Plan for EEO Complaint Pilot Program Hinder Determination of Pilot Results
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-387R
entitled 'Limitations in DOD's Evaluation Plan for EEO Complaint Pilot
Program Hinder Determination of Pilot Results' which was released on
February 22, 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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 22, 2008:
Congressional Addressees:
Subject: Limitations in DOD's Evaluation Plan for EEO Complaint Pilot
Program Hinder Determination of Pilot Results:
In August 2004, pursuant to Section 1111 of the fiscal year 2001
Department of Defense authorization act,[Footnote 1] the Secretary of
Defense authorized components of the United States Air Force (USAF),
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and the Defense Commissary Agency
(DeCA) to implement an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
pilot program to reengineer the EEO complaint process to, among other
things, reduce complaint processing time and reinforce management
accountability. The program was exempt from the procedural requirements
of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and other regulations, directives, or regulatory
restrictions prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). As required by the legislation, in May 2006, GAO reported on
the implementation of the pilot programs and found that two of the
three pilot initiatives operated consistent with existing EEOC
requirements, with a specific emphasis on alternative dispute
resolution (ADR).[Footnote 2] USAF's pilot operated outside of EEOC
regulations, as authorized under the legislation. We identified
limitations in the Department of Defense's (DOD) evaluation plan for
the pilot program that, if not addressed, would limit the likelihood
that the evaluation would yield sound results. For example, the plan
did not have well-defined or clear objectives or set criteria for
determining if the pilots had met objectives. Accordingly, we made
recommendations to DOD on ways to develop a sound evaluation plan that
would more accurately and reliably assess the pilot programs' results
and thereby support effective program and policy decisions. DOD made
some changes to the evaluation plan based on our recommendations.
USAF and DeCA's pilot programs ended on September 30, 2007; DLA ended
its pilot on September 30, 2006. As required by the legislation, GAO
evaluated the pilots at the conclusion of the program. Our objectives
were to (1) describe the key aspects of the EEO process that were
tested by the pilot program, (2) present data DOD reported from the
pilot program, (3) evaluate improvements DOD made to its evaluation
plan, (4) describe ADR processes used in the pilot programs compared to
other ADR processes reported by federal agencies, and (5) provide
lessons learned from the pilot program that can inform future EEO
complaint process reform initiatives. To accomplish our objectives, we
used GAO's evaluation guidance and social science evaluation literature
to assess the changes DOD made to its evaluation plan and we assessed
the reliability of the pilot program data provided by program
officials. We also interviewed DOD and pilot program officials to
obtain their perspectives on the pilot program and lessons learned and
EEOC officials to get their views on the strengths and limitations of
the pilot program. We determined that the data provided by DOD were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. We conducted our
review from July 2007 through December 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
We provided detailed briefings on the results of our work to
congressional committee staff.[Footnote 3] The briefing slides are
included in the enclosure. This letter also provides clarifying
information that we obtained about participation rates in the pilot
program. In addition to the results of our assessments of the pilot
program, we are including information on EEOC's preliminary efforts
under an ongoing initiative to reform the federal EEO complaint
process, which EEOC officials told us after our briefings is focused on
the investigative phase of the process.
In summary, DeCA and DLA tested the informal stage of the EEO complaint
process, primarily by increased use of ADR to informally settle
disputes before they became formal complaints. DeCA developed a toll-
free call line which they indicated was to enable employees to "vent"
their grievances and DLA required management and new hires to attend
training on ADR and offered it to all employees. USAF made substantive
changes to the formal stage of the complaint process--combining the
investigative and hearing phases--with a goal of reducing complaint
processing times to an average of 127 days or less.[Footnote 4] At the
end of their program, USAF officials reported that the average
processing time for pilot cases was approximately 108 days. USAF's
program officers informed us that they plan to seek approval to
continue their program and have drafted legislation that would
authorize them to do so. We have not obtained a copy of this draft
legislation.
Data reported by DOD showed that rates of participation in the pilot
programs varied widely. As specified in the legislation, claimants had
the option of participating in the pilot program or staying with the
traditional process within their respective organizations. Further, DOD
afforded those opting to participate in the pilot program the
opportunity to opt out and go back to the traditional process at any
time. USAF's participation rate was about 16 percent of those offered
the pilot, but 76 percent of the pilot cases were resolved and another
9 percent, which were still pending as of September 30, 2007, will
remain under the pilot. USAF officials generally attributed the
relatively low number of complainants who opted to participate in the
pilot to a lack of familiarity and trust in a new EEO complaint
procedure. DeCA had 100 percent of those eligible accept the pilot and
51 percent (44 of 87 complaints) completing it with resolution. Over 95
percent of those eligible accepted DLA's pilot with 75 percent (12 of
15 complaints) completing it with resolution. During our briefings, we
received several questions from congressional committee staff about
what was meant by "completed the pilot with resolution," especially for
USAF cases since these could be appealed to EEOC. USAF described as
"resolved" those cases that received a decision on the merits or were
settled during the USAF's process. Since DLA's and DeCA's pilot
programs focused on the informal stage of the process, these agencies
considered a case "resolved" when it did not proceed to a formal
complaint under the traditional EEO complaint process.
Based on recommendations we made in our May 2006 report, DOD made
changes to its evaluation plan, including establishing benchmarks to
assess pilot "success" and clarifying objectives and how they were to
be measured. DOD officials, with assistance from USAF pilot officials,
made the most substantive improvements to the evaluation plan for the
USAF pilot and, as a result, an evaluation of that pilot initiative
will likely produce sound results. However, because of continuing
weaknesses in DOD's evaluation plan, an evaluation of the other two
pilot initiatives will not likely produce results sufficiently sound to
be applied governmentwide.
Pilots' use of ADR procedures had several common features that are
similar to best practices reported by EEOC for federal ADR
programs.[Footnote 5] These features included support from senior
management and training of managers and employees in ADR. Officials
from both DeCA's and DLA's pilots heavily emphasized the importance of
using ADR in resolving EEO concerns before they became formal
complaints, and officials from both agencies have indicated that they
will continue to emphasize this use of ADR.
We are not making new recommendations in this correspondence. However,
based on our evaluations of the pilot program, as discussed in this
letter and in our prior report, we have identified lessons learned that
could be applied to future pilots to help inform EEO complaint process
reform initiatives:
* Develop sound implementation and evaluation plans, including data
needs, as part of the design of the pilot itself and before
implementation to increase confidence in results and facilitate
decision making about broader application of the pilot.
* Involve senior management in designing, implementing, and evaluating
the pilot program to help with buy-in.
* Emphasize the importance of customer feedback and include mechanisms
to solicit such feedback.
* Involve EEOC, potentially in an advisory role, when designing the
pilot.
* Leverage strategies that have been tried successfully.
* Continue to stress the use of ADR to help resolve disputes.
DOD officials informed us that the department intends to issue a report
on the results of the pilot program in the Spring 2008 but did not
indicate how the limitations we identified in the evaluation plan would
impact how information, especially any results for DLA and DeCA, could
be used by DOD officials and other policy makers.
With regard to governmentwide complaint process reform, EEOC has
convened focus groups of various stakeholders to obtain feedback on how
to improve the investigative phase of the process. EEOC has identified
fairness, accountability, efficiency, and oversight as the four goals
guiding the reform efforts and plans to make recommendations to the
Commission in these areas. At the time of our review, EEOC staff had
not established specific timelines for developing recommendations. As
EEOC moves toward reforming the current federal sector EEO complaint
process, it will be important to consider the lessons learned from the
pilot program. This is especially true in regard to developing a sound
evaluation plan to measure results.
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Defense and the
Chair of the EEOC. EEOC had no comment. Department of Defense officials
responded that they had no official comments on the draft report. We
also received comments from one of the pilot agencies--DeCA--which we
summarize below along with our response.
In its comments, DeCA took exception with us limiting our focus to
DOD's evaluation plan and asserted that DeCA had its own set of
measurable goals to evaluate its pilot and that our report should
emphasize how well DeCA's objectives were accomplished. At the onset of
the pilot program, DOD designated the Civilian Personnel Management
Service (CPMS) to monitor and provide oversight responsibilities for
the pilot program, which included DeCA and two other DOD components.
CPMS developed and provided us with the pilot program's evaluation plan
and we provided an assessment of that plan in our May 2006 report on
DOD's EEO complaint pilot program.[Footnote 6] After providing a
recommendation to DOD to strengthen its evaluation plan in 2006, one of
the objectives of this follow-on engagement was to evaluate the revised
plan and we found that it had some improvements but still had key
limitations.
While we acknowledge DeCA's assertions of how well it accomplished the
objectives it established for its segment of the overall pilot program,
as stated above, the focus of our evaluation was to assess the official
evaluation plan prepared by CPMS. As we discuss in the draft report, we
found the revised evaluation plan lacking in several key areas specific
to the DeCA pilot. We continue to believe that a sound evaluation plan
is important for producing results that can inform decisions to
implement such programs elsewhere in DOD and potentially
governmentwide, one of the fundamental intentions of the pilot program.
DOD has committed to issuing its own evaluation report with findings
from the three pilot programs in Spring 2008, which we anticipate may
incorporate more details on DeCA's accomplishments.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary, Department of
Defense; the Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and other
interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others on
request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me on (202) 512-9490 or by e-mail at Stalcupg@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
were Belva Martin, Assistant Director; Karin F. Fangman; Cindy K.
Gilbert; and Anthony R. Patterson.
Signed by:
George H. Stalcup:
Director, Strategic Issues:
Enclosure:
List of Congressional Addressees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
United States Senate:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States House of Representatives:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
United States House of Representatives:
The Honorable Danny K. Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kenny Marchant:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of
Columbia:
United States House of Representatives:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
United States House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure:
Department of Defense‘s EEO Complaint Pilot Programs:
Briefing for Congressional Clients:
December 2007:
Contents:
Background:
GAO‘s Objectives:
Results in Brief:
Scope:
Methodology:
Current EEO Administrative Complaint Process (29 C.F.R. Part 1614):
Key Aspects of the EEO Complaint Process Tested:
Department of Defense (DOD) Reported Pilot Program Data (FY05–FY07):
Status of Evaluation Plan:
- Improvements;
- Limitations:
ADR Processes Used in Pilot Programs Compared to ADR Best Practices
Used in Other Federal Agencies:
Observations & Lessons Learned from DOD‘s EEO Pilot Program:
Moving Forward.
[End of contents]
Background:
Mounting backlog of equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints in
various stages of the EEO redress system precipitated calls for
streamlining.
Section 1111 of the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act
[Footnote 7] authorized DOD to carry out pilot programs for up to 3
years as alternatives to the current EEO complaint process for DOD
civilian employees:
* waived procedural requirements of EEOC, including those in 29 C.F.R.
Part 1614 (dealing with EEO complaints);•required that participation in
pilot programs be voluntary;
* preserved complainant's right to appeal final agency decision to EEOC
and file suit in district court; and;
* required that we evaluate and submit reports on the pilot programs
after the first and last full or partial fiscal years of the pilots.
Our first report on the pilot program recommended that DOD (1)
establish intra-agency meetings among the pilot sites, and (2) develop
a sound evaluation plan to accurately and reliably assess pilot program
results. DOD generally agreed with our recommendations in that report.
[Footnote 8]
DOD‘s EEO Pilot Programs:
Pilot sites:
* U.S. Air Force (All continental U.S. bases);
* Defense Logistics Agency (Headquarters);
* Defense Commissary Agency (23 sites).
Pilots varied but had several common features, including:
* began operating between October 2004 and February 2005;
* authorized by DOD initially for 2 years with option to continue for 1
additional year;
* allowed individuals to opt out at any time and return to the
traditional EEO complaints process, and;
* increased emphasis on ADR.
GAO‘s Objectives:
Our objectives were to:
* describe aspects of the EEO complaint process tested by the pilot
programs;
* present data DOD reported from the pilot program;
* evaluate improvements DOD made to its evaluation plan;
* describe how the ADR processes used in the pilot programs compare to
other ADR processes reported by federal agencies, and;
* identify lessons learned from the pilot programs that can inform
future EEO complaint process reform efforts.
Results in Brief:
* DeCA and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) tested the informal
stages of the EEO complaints process primarily using alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) to informally settle disputes. USAF made
substantive changes to the formal stage of the complaints
process”combining the investigative and hearing phases”with a goal of
reducing complaint processing time.
* Data reported by DOD showed that participation in the pilot varied
widely. USAF‘s participation rate was less than 20 percent of those
offered the pilot but of those, 76 percent were resolved. DeCA had 100
percent of those eligible accept the pilot and 51 percent complete it
with resolution. Over 95 percent of those eligible accepted DLA‘s pilot
with 75 percent completing it with resolution.
* Based on our recommendations, DOD made some improvements to its
evaluation plan to clarify objectives and how they will be measured and
established benchmarks to assess pilot ’success.“ Based on these
improvements, an evaluation of the USAF‘s pilot program will likely
produce sound results. However, an evaluation of the other two pilot
programs will not likely produce valid results.
* Pilots‘ ADR programs had several common features that are similar to
best practices reported by EEOC for federal ADR programs, including
support from senior management and training of managers and employees
in ADR.
* Among the lessons learned are the importance of developing sound
implementation and evaluation plans and involving EEOC, at least in an
advisor role in future pilots.
Scope:
To accomplish our objectives, we focused on:
* EEO complaint procedures in the pilot program;
* Pilot data as reported by DOD from January 2005–September 30, 2007;
* Reported results of other federal agency ADR efforts, and;
* DOD‘s Pilot Program Evaluation Plan.
We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from July 2007 through
December 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Methodology:
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed:
* Pilot program data reported by DOD, including the number and types of
cases processed or in process through September 30, 2007;
* Pilot program information from pilot program officials, agencies‘ Web
sites, and the Civilian Personnel Management Service (CPMS);
* Prior GAO reports;
* DOD‘s Pilot Program Evaluation Plan; and;
* GAO‘s evaluation guidance and social science evaluation literature.
We also interviewed EEOC and DOD pilot program officials.
Current EEO Administrative Complaint Process(29 C.F.R. Part 1614):
Two stages: informal and formal [Footnote 9]:
* Informal stage:
- Individual contacts agency EEO counselor;
- Individual offered counseling or ADR in an attempt to resolve
complaints.
* Formal stage:
- Individual files a complaint with agency;
- Agency investigates and provides the complainant with a copy of the
investigative file;
- Complainant chooses either (1) a decision based upon the agency
investigation, or (2) a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge who
renders a decision;
- If a hearing is requested, the agency issues its own final order to
the complainant as to whether it will fully implement the decision;
- The complainant may appeal a final agency decision (FAD) or agency
order to the EEOC;
- The agency may appeal the administrative judge‘s decision to the
EEOC;
- Either the agency or complainant may request reconsideration of an
EEOC decision.
Key Aspects Tested: U.S. Air Force‘s Compressed Orderly Rapid Equitable
(CORE) Pilot:
CORE sites: All Continental USAF Bases.
CORE‘s key objectives: (1) increase emphasis on ADR; (2) create three-
step process (ADR, fact-finding, and FAD), to be completed in 127 or
less days; and (3) increase local management accountability for timely
complaint resolution.
Primary Aspects of EEO Process Tested(Formal Stage):
* Offered ADR.
* Combined the Investigation and Hearing processes. [Footnote 10]
* Received and reviewed recommended FAD and transcripts upon completion
of CORE fact-finding conference.
* Issued FAD.
* Replaced hearing before EEOC administrative judge.
Key Aspects Tested: Defense Logistic Agency‘s Pilot for Expedited
Complaint Processing (PECP):
PECP sites: Headquarters only –Fort Belvoir, Va.
PECP‘s key objectives:(1) reduce processing time by streamlining
voluntary early resolution during the informal stage, (2) utilize ADR
during the informal stage to resolve EEO disputes instead of
counseling, and (3) offer expedited processing for aggrieved
individuals who elect PECP (60 days vs.90 days) during the informal
stage.
Primary Aspects of EEO Process Tested(Informal Stage):
* Strongly encouraged ADR during precomplaint stage.
* Streamlined counseling process for PECP participants who did not
chose ADR.
Key Aspects Tested: Defense Commissary Agency‘s Early Resolution
Opportunity (ERO) Pilot:
ERO sites: 23 test stores.
ERO‘s key objectives:(1) reduce the number of formal discrimination
complaints through emphasis on early resolution and (2) foster faster
resolution of disputes that do occur.
Primary Aspects of EEO Process Tested (Informal Stage):
* Established a ’1-800“ Precomplaint call-line for employees to ’vent.“
* Offered precomplaint counseling/facilitation between complainant and
management.
* Offered mediation if facilitation fails.
* Centralized informal process (e.g., counseling and facilitation)
within DeCA that had been carried out by Army, Navy, and Air Force
under interservice support agreements. [Footnote 11]
DOD‘s EEO Complaint Pilot Program Reported Participation and Results:
Table: Data for the pilot programs reported by DOD from January
2005–September 30, 2007 [Footnote 12]:
Agency: CORE;
Initial contacts: N/A[B];
Eligible for pilot: 1,506[C];
Opted for pilot: 239;
Opted out of pilot: 35;
Completed pilot with resolution: 182;
Completed pilot without resolution: 0;
Still under pilot[A]: 22.
Agency: PEPC;
Initial contacts: 16[D];
Eligible for pilot: 16;
Opted for pilot: 15;
Opted out of pilot: 1;
Completed pilot with resolution: 12;
Completed pilot without resolution: 2[E];
Still under pilot[A]: 0.
Agency: ERO;
Initial contacts: 138;
Eligible for pilot: 87;
Opted for pilot: 87;
Opted out of pilot: 0;
Completed pilot with resolution: 44;
Completed pilot without resolution: 43;
Still under pilot[A]: 0.
Source: DOD data.
[A] Although pilot has ended, cases in process will be allowed to
continue under CORE.
[B] CORE focuses on the formal stage of the complaint process; initial
contacts occur at the informal stage.
[C] Represents the number of individuals who filed formal complaints
and were offered CORE.
[D] Data are from October 1, 2004–September 30, 2006. DLA‘s pilot
program lasted 2 rather than 3 years.
[E] Although complaint not resolved, complainants opted not to file
formal complaint.
[End of table]
Improvements Made to the Pilot Programs‘ Evaluation Plan:
DOD‘s initial Evaluation Plan had some strengths, but lacked key
features.
CPMS, with assistance from USAF officials, revised the evaluation plan
based on GAO‘s prior recommendations.
Under CORE:
* Clarified pilot objectives and how they will be measured;
* Established benchmarks to assess pilot ’success“;
* Added statistical controls in order to distinguish pilot and nonpilot
cases;
* Developed a data reliability and analysis plan.
Based on these improvements, an evaluation of CORE will likely produce
sound results.
Under PECP & ERO:
* Clarified pilot programs‘ objectives;
* Established benchmarks to assess pilot ’success.“
Key Limitations to the Pilot Programs‘ Evaluation Plan Remain:
While CPMS made some improvements to the Evaluation Plan, key
limitations remain:
* Under PECP & ERO:
- Only one of the pilot programs‘ stated objectives–reducing processing
times–will be measured.
- Interpreting the comparisons with prior year data will continue to be
problematic.
- A data reliability plan is lacking.
* Based on the revised plan, an evaluation of PECP and ERO will not
likely produce sound results.
ADR Use in Pilot Programs Compared to ADR Best Practices in Other
Federal Agencies:
Pilots‘ ADR programs had several common features that are similar to
best practices as reported by EEOC.[Footnote 13] Among these:
* Support from senior management:
- All three pilots demonstrated senior leadership buy-in, including
participating in ADR training and developing ADR policies.
* Marketing of ADR program:
- All three pilot sites created brochures about their programs.
* Training of managers and employees in ADR:
- All three pilots provided training to managers and employees.
- CORE officers hired contractors to conduct selected trainings.
* Collaboration with unions:
- All three pilots collaborated with union representatives;
- CORE is marketed by some unions.
* Appearance of independence and neutrality:
- All three pilot programs were designed to maintain their appearance
of independence and neutrality.
- ERO used external neutrals in its ADR process.
DeCA and USAF were included in EEOC‘s fiscal years 2003-04 ADR best
practices report.
GAO Observations and Lessons Learned from DOD‘s EEO Complaints Pilot
Program:
Future initiatives to reform the EEO complaint process should consider
the following lessons learned based on the pilots:
* Develop sound implementation and evaluation plans before a pilot is
implemented, as this is important to increase confidence in results
which can facilitate decision making about broader application of the
pilot.
* Involve senior management in designing, implementing, and evaluating
the pilot program to facilitate with buy-in.
* Emphasize the importance of customer feedback and include mechanisms
to solicit such feedback.
* Involve EEOC, potentially in an advisory role, when designing the
pilot.
* Leverage strategies that have been tried successfully.
* Continue to stress the use of ADR to help resolve disputes.
Moving Forward:
DOD intends to release a report on the pilot program in Spring 2008.
According to the department, it will send the report to GAO, EEOC,
Congress, and the President to help inform future complaint process
reform.
USAF officials have indicated a desire to continue CORE and have
drafted legislation to that effect.[Footnote 14]
EEOC is developing potential recommendations to reform the federal
agency component of the EEO complaint process and is holding focus
group meetings with stakeholders to obtain their feedback on suggested
reforms aimed at enhancing the stated goals of fairness,
accountability, efficiency, and oversight.[Footnote 15]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 106-398 (Oct. 30, 2000).
[2] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: DOD's EEO Pilot Program Under
Way, but Improvements Needed to DOD's Evaluation Plan, GAO-06-538
(Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
[3] On December 6, 2007; December 14, 2007; December 17, 2007; and
January 7, 2008, we briefed congressional staff members.
[4] According to EEOC's 2006 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce,
federal agencies reduced the average time it takes to process equal
employment opportunity complaints to 186 days in fiscal 2006, down from
237 days in 2005.
[5] See EEOC, ADR Report: Part II--Best Practices in Alternative
Dispute Resolution FY 2003-FY 2004.
[6] GAO, GAO-06-538.
[7] Pub. L. No. 106-398 (Oct. 30, 2000). In the 2004 fiscal year
authorization, Congress authorized DOD to establish its own human
capital system, the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), Pub. L.
No. 108-136 (November 2003). This legislation did not modify the pilot
program authority, nor did it modify the rights and remedies available
to individuals with complaints of discrimination.
[8] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: DOD‘s EEO Pilot Program Under
Way, but Improvements Needed to DOD‘s Evaluation Plan, GAO-06-538
(Washington, D.C. May 5, 2006).
[9] See appendix for a detailed description of the EEO complaint
process.
[10] CORE fact finders conduct fact-finding conferences, which are an
investigation technique available under the current EEO process. Under
CORE, however, fact finders are also required to prepare recommended
decisions. CORE fact finders do not have the same authority as EEOC
administrative judges, including the authority to sanction
uncooperative parties.
[11] Although not part of the pilot program, ERO also utilized
electronic transmission of files to DOD‘s Investigation Resolution
Division during the formal stage.
[12] We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of our review.
[13] EEOC, ADR Report: Part II”Best Practices in Alternative Dispute
Resolution FY 2003-FY 2004. In this report, EEOC partnered with 21
federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of
Education, and the Social Security Administration.
[14] We have not seen the legislation.
[15] EEOC officials met with DOD Pilot program officials several times
during the pilot period; EEOC officials expressed interest in the CORE
pilot.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: 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:
