EEO at Justice

Progress Made but Underrepresentation Remains Widespread Gao ID: GGD-91-8 October 2, 1990

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the affirmative action program at the Department of Justice (DOJ), focusing on: (1) whether DOJ had the data necessary to evaluate the success of its efforts to recruit, hire, and promote minorities and women; and (2) the success of DOJ efforts where evaluation data existed.

GAO noted that, under a congressional agreement, it excluded the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the review. GAO found that: (1) DOJ had data on its efforts to hire and promote minorities and females, but with the exception of one key job, it did not have recruitment data; (2) although DOJ acknowledged the need for recruitment data, it failed to aggressively collect such data; (3) DOJ submitted late and incomplete affirmative employment plans to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); (4) between 1982 and 1988, minority and female representation increased for 40 of the 50 professional, administrative, technical, clerical, and other (PATCO) categories, and 46 of the 60 key job categories, but underrepresentation remained widespread; (5) as of December 1988, underrepresentation existed in 21 of the 50 professional, administrative, technical, clerical, and other categories and 33 of the 60 key job categories; (6) for 18 of the key job categories and 3 of the PATCO categories, the EEO group's representation at DOJ was less than half of its representation in the civilian labor force; (7) females across all race and ethnic groups had not achieved full representation in upper grade levels, and minority men's representation at those levels was uneven; (8) DOJ compared more favorably to other cabinet agencies in the administrative category than in the professional category; (9) specific accountability at DOJ for EEO matters appeared to be lacking; (10) DOJ agreed that using long-term trend data and analyses on a more comprehensive and systematic basis could enable it to better identify or forecast potential problem areas; and (11) DOJ chooses not to use numerical goals because it views them as tantamount to quotas.


Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:

The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.