Gender Issues
Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX Gao ID: GAO-04-639 July 22, 2004Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 extended protections against sex discrimination to students and employees at institutions receiving federal assistance for educational programs or activities. In the 32 years since Title IX was enacted, women have made significant gains in many fields, but much attention has focused on women's participation in the sciences. Because of the concern about women's access to opportunities in the sciences, which receive billions of dollars in federal assistance, this report addresses: (1) how do the Department of Education (Education), the Department of Energy (Energy), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) ensure that federal grant recipient institutions comply with Title IX in math, engineering, and science; (2) what do data show about women's participation in these fields; and (3) what promising practices exist to promote their participation?
Four federal science agencies have made efforts to ensure that grantees comply with Title IX in the sciences by performing several compliance activities, such as investigating complaints and providing technical assistance, but most have not conducted all required monitoring activities. Agency officials at Energy, NASA, and NSF told us that they refer complaints to Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where they are investigated. However, only Education has monitored its grantees by conducting compliance reviews--periodic, agency-initiated assessments of grantees to determine if they are complying with Title IX. Women's participation in the sciences has increased substantially in the last three decades, especially in the life sciences, such as biology. The proportion of women science students has grown, but to a lesser extent at the graduate level than the undergraduate level. Meanwhile, the proportion of faculty in the sciences who are women has also increased, but they still lag behind men faculty in terms of salary and rank. However, studies indicate that experience, work patterns, and education levels can largely explain these differences. Studies also suggest that discrimination may still affect women's choices and professional progress. We found several examples of agencies and grantees that have instituted practices designed to foster greater women's participation in the sciences. While some of the practices are aimed at encouraging more women to pursue the sciences, others provide time off and fewer teaching duties so faculty can balance work and family life. Finally, a few practices seek to expand the recruiting pool for jobs in the sciences and make them more attractive to a greater portion of the U.S. population, including women.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-04-639, Gender Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-639
entitled 'Gender Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences Has
Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title
IX' which was released on July 22, 2004.
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 Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2004:
Gender Issues:
Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need
to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX:
GAO-04-639:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-639, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 extended protections
against sex discrimination to students and employees at institutions
receiving federal assistance for educational programs or activities. In
the 32 years since Title IX was enacted, women have made significant
gains in many fields, but much attention has focused on women‘s
participation in the sciences.
Because of the concern about women‘s access to opportunities in the
sciences, which receive billions of dollars in federal assistance, this
report addresses: (1) how do the Department of Education (Education),
the Department of Energy (Energy), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) ensure
that federal grant recipient institutions comply with Title IX in math,
engineering, and science; (2) what do data show about women‘s
participation in these fields; and (3) what promising practices exist
to promote their participation?
What GAO Found:
Four federal science agencies have made efforts to ensure that grantees
comply with Title IX in the sciences by performing several compliance
activities, such as investigating complaints and providing technical
assistance, but most have not conducted all required monitoring
activities. Agency officials at Energy, NASA, and NSF told us that they
refer complaints to Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, where they are investigated. However, only Education has
monitored its grantees by conducting compliance reviews”periodic,
agency-initiated assessments of grantees to determine if they are
complying with Title IX.
Women‘s participation in the sciences has increased substantially in
the last three decades, especially in the life sciences, such as
biology. The proportion of women science students has grown, but to a
lesser extent at the graduate level than the undergraduate level.
Meanwhile, the proportion of faculty in the sciences who are women has
also increased, but they still lag behind men faculty in terms of
salary and rank. However, studies indicate that experience, work
patterns, and education levels can largely explain these differences.
Studies also suggest that discrimination may still affect women‘s
choices and professional progress.
Percentage of Doctoral Degrees Earned by Women from 1966-2000:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We found several examples of agencies and grantees that have instituted
practices designed to foster greater women‘s participation in the
sciences. While some of the practices are aimed at encouraging more
women to pursue the sciences, others provide time off and fewer
teaching duties so faculty can balance work and family life. Finally, a
few practices seek to expand the recruiting pool for jobs in the
sciences and make them more attractive to a greater portion of the U.S.
population, including women.
What GAO Recommends:
In this report, we make recommendations to the Administrator of NASA,
the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of NSF that they take actions
to ensure that compliance reviews of grantees are conducted as required
by Title IX.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-639.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202)
512-8403 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Four Federal Science Granting Agencies Made Efforts to Ensure
Compliance, but Three Have Not Conducted Required Monitoring:
Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased Substantially since
the Early 1960s, but Their Representation in Mathematics and
Engineering Continues to Be Low:
Some Agencies and Grantees Have Activities That May Foster Greater
Participation in the Sciences by Women:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: National Laboratories and Technology Centers:
Appendix III: Selected Legal Events and Cases Involving Title IX:
Appendix IV: Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Grant Programs
Funded by Education, Energy, NASA, and NSF:
Appendix V: Comparison of Enrollment Status:
Appendix VI: Comparison of Enrollment and Degrees Earned:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Appendix IX: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Appendix X: Comments from the National Science Foundation:
Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Compliance Procedures Required by Title IX Law and
Regulations:
Table 2: Enrollment Status in 2001 of Students Who Began Postsecondary
Education in 1995, by Type of Initial Major and Sex:
Table 3: Enrollment and Degrees Earned by Men and Women by Field and
Level of Study, 1999-2000.
Figures:
Figure 1: A Broad Outline of the Various Complaint Processes for Title
IX:
Figure 2: Percentage of Women Science Faculty Employed at 2-and 4-Year
Colleges and Universities in 1999 by Field of Study and Year of PhD
Completion:
Figure 3: Percentage of Students and Degree Recipients Who Are Women,
1999-2000:
Figure 4: Bachelors Degrees Earned by Women from 1966 to 2000:
Figure 5: Doctoral Degrees Earned by Women from 1966 to 2000:
Figure 6: Percentage of Women Faculty By Rank, Fiscal Year 2002:
Abbreviations:
BPS: Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study:
EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
NSOPF: National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty:
OCR: Office for Civil Rights:
SDR: Survey of Doctorate Recipients:
SED: Survey of Earned Doctorates:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 22, 2004:
The Honorable Ron Wyden:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer:
United States Senate:
Discrimination against women in areas such as college admissions,
intercollegiate athletics, and employment was widespread 40 years ago.
Although civil rights laws in the 1960s barred discrimination in
employment, it was not until Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 that these protections were extended to students and faculty by
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs
and activities receiving any federal financial assistance. While
researchers would agree that Title IX has contributed to greater
inclusion of women and girls in sports programs, some have stated that
there is little awareness that the law applies to academics.
In the 32 years since Title IX was enacted, women's roles in American
life have changed greatly and women have made significant gains in many
fields. Despite these gains, much attention has focused on the limited
participation of women in mathematics, engineering, and
science.[Footnote 1] Because of increased interest about women's access
to mathematics, engineering, and science, which receive billions of
dollars in federal assistance, you asked us to determine what is being
done to ensure compliance with Title IX in regard to the sciences. This
report addresses: (1) how do the Department of Education (Education),
the Department of Energy (Energy), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) ensure
that federal grant recipient institutions comply with Title IX in
mathematics, engineering, and science; (2) what do data show about
women's participation in these fields; and (3) what promising practices
exist to promote their participation?
To answer these questions, we reviewed the legislation and regulations
to identify all areas of compliance relevant to each federal agency. We
interviewed officials at each agency and gathered documentation to
identify agency activities to ensure compliance with Title IX. We
analyzed data from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at Education and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)--the agencies where
most sex discrimination complaints are filed. Given its role as
coordinating agency of Title IX compliance, we also gathered data and
interviewed officials at the Department of Justice (Justice). We
visited seven research universities where we interviewed officials,
students, and faculty.[Footnote 2] We also visited six national
laboratories and technology centers where we talked with administrators
and scientists.[Footnote 3] To gather information on women's
participation and experiences in the sciences, we analyzed national
data from Education and NSF. We also reviewed literature about women in
the sciences and challenges they face preparing for and pursuing
careers in the sciences. To identify promising practices to promote
women's participation in the sciences, we spoke with students and
practitioners. To assess the reliability of the various Education and
NSF data sources, we reviewed documentation on how the data were
collected and performed electronic tests to look for missing or out-of-
range values. In addition, we reviewed the methodology of studies and
reports using generally accepted social science principles as a basis
for including their results in our report. On the basis of these
reviews and tests, we found the data and studies sufficiently reliable
for our purposes. We conducted our review from July 2003 through June
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. (See app. I for a more extensive explanation of this
report's objectives, scope, and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
Federal science agencies have made efforts to ensure that federal grant
recipients comply with Title IX in the sciences by performing several
compliance activities, such as investigating complaints and providing
technical assistance, but most have not conducted all required
monitoring activities. Specifically, according to Energy, NASA, and NSF
officials, each agency referred complaints involving educational
institutions to Education and those involving employment to EEOC for
investigation. Officials at Education and EEOC reported that they have
investigated or resolved all complaints filed with them or referred to
them from other agencies. However, agency officials told us that they
could not determine whether grantees have investigated Title IX sex
discrimination complaints they have received, since grantees are not
required to report on their activities. Federal agencies have provided
grantees technical assistance and outreach materials to encourage
compliance with Title IX. The agencies also obtain required assurance
statements from every grantee that they will not discriminate. While
each of the four agencies has conducted complaint investigations and
provided technical assistance, only Education has monitored its
grantees by conducting periodic Title IX compliance reviews--agency-
initiated assessments of grantees to determine if they are complying
with the law.[Footnote 4]
Women's participation in the sciences has increased substantially in
the last three decades, especially in the life sciences, such as
biology. While women constituted only 3 percent of all scientists in
the early 1960s, they constituted nearly 20 percent by 2003. The
proportion of women science students has grown, but to a lesser extent
at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level. In 2000, 40
percent of undergraduates pursuing science studies were women, although
they accounted for less than a third of the graduate students--despite
women constituting a majority of college enrollment at both the
undergraduate and the graduate levels. However, in that same year, in
the life sciences, women constituted the majority of both undergraduate
and graduate students, and earned more bachelors and masters degrees
than men. Meanwhile, the proportion of faculty in the sciences who are
women has also increased since the early 1970s. However, female faculty
members still lag behind their male counterparts in terms of salary and
rank, and much of their gain in numbers has been in the life sciences,
as opposed to mathematics and engineering. A variety of studies
indicate that experience, work patterns, and education levels can
largely explain differences in salaries and rank. We found that women
faculty in the sciences more often taught than their male counterparts
and less often were given the opportunity to focus on their scientific
research as their primary work activity. A few studies also suggest
that discrimination may still affect women's choices and professional
progress, assertions that we also heard during many of our site visits
to selected campuses.
Some grant-making agencies, universities, and laboratories have
instituted policies and practices designed to foster greater female
participation in the sciences. Some of these are aimed at encouraging
more women to pursue and to persist in education in the sciences.
Others provide time off and fewer teaching duties so junior faculty can
balance work and family life while beginning a university career. In
addition, some policies and practices seek to expand the recruiting
pool for jobs in the sciences and make them more attractive to women.
In this report, we are making recommendations to the Administrator of
NASA, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of NSF that they take
actions to ensure that compliance reviews of grantees are conducted as
required by Title IX regulations.
Background:
With certain exceptions, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
requires all entities receiving any form of federal financial
assistance to prohibit sex discrimination in their education programs
or activities, which are defined broadly under Title IX to include all
the operations of the entity. Because most postsecondary schools have
students who receive federal financial assistance, such as federally
supported student aid, Title IX applies to most 2-year and 4-year
schools, both public and private. In addition to postsecondary schools,
many other recipients of federal educational grants, such as K-12
school districts, private laboratories, and museums, are also subject
to Title IX. Title IX's provisions apply to all operations and
ancillary services of covered programs. For example, the law applies to
recruitment, student admissions, scholarship awards, tuition
assistance, other financial assistance, housing, access to courses and
other academic offerings, counseling, employment assistance to
students, health and insurance benefits and services, and athletics. It
also applies to all aspects of employment, including recruitment,
hiring, promotion, tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination,
compensation, benefits, job assignments and classifications, leave, and
training.
Under Title IX, federal agencies that administer grants are required to
conduct several compliance activities. For example, Title IX
regulations require agencies to conduct periodic compliance reviews of
their grant recipients.[Footnote 5] A compliance review is an agency-
initiated assessment of grantees to determine if they are complying
with the law. Agencies must also make a prompt investigation in
response to timely written complaints from individuals who allege that
a grantee has engaged in sex discrimination, or whenever a compliance
review or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply
with Title IX. If the investigating agency does not find evidence that
the grantee has failed to comply with Title IX, it must inform both the
grant recipient and the complainant in writing. If the investigating
agency does find evidence of noncompliance with Title IX, then the
agency must first attempt to resolve the matter informally. For
example, the agency could attempt to mediate the issue to encourage the
grantee to voluntarily modify its activities in order to comply with
the law. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, then the agency
must take additional steps to secure compliance, including suspending
or terminating federal financial assistance. Individuals or groups are
allowed to file their complaints with grantees or with funding agencies
such as Education or NSF. If complainants are not satisfied with the
result of investigations, they can file their complaints with another
entity. For example, if a complaint is filed at the grantee level and
the complainant is unhappy with the result, he or she can file a
complaint at the agency level. In addition to filing complaints,
individuals or groups have the option of filing suit in federal court.
(See app. III for information on selected legal cases and events
involving Title IX since 1972.)
While federal agencies have primary responsibility for ensuring
compliance with Title IX, recipients of federal grants also have some
compliance responsibilities. For example, grantees are required to
provide assurances that their education programs or activities are
operated in compliance with Title IX. Grantees are also required to
designate at least one employee to coordinate their compliance efforts
and to establish complaint procedures to resolve student and employee
Title IX complaints. Finally, grantees must provide notification to
students and employees that sex discrimination is prohibited in their
programs or activities.
All federal agencies have enforcement responsibilities under Title IX.
All federal agencies, including Education, Energy, NASA, and NSF, are
responsible for handling Title IX enforcement of their own grantees and
may refer complaints against educational institutions to Education's
OCR and employment-related sex discrimination complaints to EEOC.
Education's OCR plays a key role in ensuring compliance with Title IX
because it has primary responsibility to investigate most types of
complaints at educational institutions, including complaints referred
from other federal agencies.
Although EEOC does not have any authority under Title IX, it does have
authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
investigate sex-based complaints of employment discrimination,
including sex discrimination against faculty and scientists. Even
though Title IX regulations specifically include employment as a
protected activity, agencies generally send all employment-related
discrimination complaints to EEOC for investigation. EEOC officials
told us that they process these complaints as Title VII complaints. As
such, EEOC will review referrals from other federal agencies made under
Title IX to see if they warrant investigation under Title VII.
The Department of Justice (Justice) was given authority under Executive
Order 12250 for the "consistent and effective implementation" of
several civil rights laws, including Title IX. Specifically, Justice is
responsible for the coordination of agencies' enforcement of Title IX,
including (1) reviewing and approving of agencies' regulations, (2)
developing standards and procedures for conducting investigations and
compliance reviews, (3) arranging for referral of cases between
agencies, and (4) representing federal agencies in court proceedings.
Justice consequently published a Final Common Rule in August 2000,
which promulgated Title IX regulations adopted by 21 agencies,
patterned after the Department of Education's Title IX regulations.
Figure 1 broadly outlines the various complaint processes under Title
IX.
Figure 1: A Broad Outline of the Various Complaint Processes for Title
IX:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The four science agencies we reviewed for this request--Education,
Energy, NASA, and NSF--award billions of dollars in grants each year
for mathematics, engineering, and science grants and projects.
Combined, these four agencies awarded almost $5 billion in grants for
the sciences in fiscal year 2003. NASA, Energy, and NSF have been
promoting scientific and technological research and programs in K-12
schools, higher education, and private industry for decades. Although
Education's mission encompasses more than scientific research, it has
several programs dedicated to the sciences. One such program, Graduate
Assistance in Areas of National Need, provides fellowships, through
academic departments of institutions of higher education; these
fellowships assist graduate students with excellent records who
demonstrate financial need and who plan to pursue the highest degree
available in a field designated as an area of national need. This
program has designated biology, chemistry, computer and information
science, engineering, geological science, mathematics, and physics as
areas of national need. This program was funded at over $30 million in
fiscal year 2003. (See app. IV for a list of grants these agencies
award for the sciences.)
The Four Federal Science Granting Agencies Made Efforts to Ensure
Compliance, but Three Have Not Conducted Required Monitoring:
The four federal science agencies have made efforts to ensure that
federal grant recipients comply with Title IX in the sciences by
performing several compliance activities, such as investigating
complaints and providing technical assistance, but most have not
monitored grantees as required by the law. Agency officials reported
that Energy, NASA, and NSF refer complaints involving educational
institutions to Education and those involving employment to EEOC, where
they are investigated. Because grantees are not required to report on
complaints filed with them, the agencies could not determine whether
grantees have investigated Title IX sex discrimination complaints they
have received. To encourage compliance with Title IX, federal agencies
have provided grantees technical assistance and also require an
assurance statement from every grantee that it will not discriminate.
However, only Education has monitored its grantees by conducting
periodic compliance reviews--an agency-initiated assessment of
grantees to determine if they are complying with the law. The lack of
grantee monitoring was, in part, because agencies have not effectively
coordinated the implementation of compliance reviews and, according to
agency officials, a shortage of resources to conduct the reviews.
Table 1: Compliance Procedures Required by Title IX Law and
Regulations:
Education;
Investigate and resolve complaints: Yes;
* Investigates complaints it receives involving educational
institutions and those referred from other agencies, including Energy,
NASA, and NSF;
* Refer complaints that solely involve employment discrimination to
EEOC;
Require statement of assurance from grantees: Yes;
Provide grantees with technical assistance: Yes;
Periodically conduct compliance reviews: Yes.
Energy;
Investigate and resolve complaints: Yes;
* Refer complaints against educational institutions to Education;
* Refer employment- related complaints to EEOC;
Require statement of assurance from grantees: Yes;
Provide grantees with technical assistance: Yes;
Periodically conduct compliance reviews: No.
NASA;
Investigate and resolve complaints: Yes;
* Refer complaints against educational institutions to Education;
* Refer employment-related complaints to EEOC;
Require statement of assurance from grantees: Yes;
Provide grantees with technical assistance: Yes;
Periodically conduct compliance reviews: Has agreement with Education
to conduct NASA's compliance reviews on educational institutions, but
none have been done.
NSF;
Investigate and resolve complaints: Yes;
* Refer complaints against educational institutions to Education;
* Refer employment-related complaints to EEOC;
Require statement of assurance from grantees: Yes;
Provide grantees with technical assistance: Yes;
Periodically conduct compliance reviews: No.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Federal Agencies Have Conducted Complaint Investigations, but They Are
Unaware of the Extent to Which Grantees Conducted Investigations:
Each of the four agencies we reviewed has established a process to
ensure that complaints made under Title IX are reviewed and addressed.
Specifically, Education officials told us that it investigated or
resolved all Title IX complaints it has received involving educational
institutions, including those referred to it by other agencies through
formal and informal agreements. Excluding athletic complaints,
Education reported that it has received over 3,300 Title IX complaints
against institutions of higher education since 1993. Some of these
complaints were referred to Education by other agencies, including
Energy, NASA, and NSF. Education officials told us that they are unable
to determine which of the complaints concerned higher education
programs in the sciences because their data management system does not
track that information. Officials at Energy, NASA, and NSF told us that
complaints meriting further investigation were referred to Education if
they involved educational institutions or to EEOC if they were related
to employment issues. However, officials at Energy, NASA, and NSF told
us that they have received very few Title IX complaints each year. (See
table 1 for information on compliance procedures required by Title
IX.)
EEOC also has established procedures to review complaints made under
Title IX, but the full number of complaints it has reviewed cannot be
determined. Officials at EEOC told us that it has received some Title
IX referrals, but since EEOC does not have statutory authority under
Title IX, it reviews complaints to determine if Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 applies. Consequently, EEOC does not track which
complaints originated as Title IX complaints, and it cannot determine
how many Title IX complaints it has investigated under Title VII.
Although EEOC investigates tens of thousands of complaints each year,
officials told us that they cannot determine if their investigations
involved scientists, or one of the four agencies, because EEOC's
database does not track the employee's occupation or the department in
which the complaint originated.
While grantees are required to establish procedures to resolve Title IX
sex discrimination complaints, agencies could not determine whether
they had done so because grantees are not required to report this
information. Despite this requirement, there is some evidence that some
grantees have not established these procedures. For example, Education
recently reviewed the Title IX compliance status of selected grantees
and found several instances in which grantees had not adopted or
published complaint procedures. Recognizing this issue, Education
issued a "dear colleague" letter in April 2004 to its grantees
reminding them of their Title IX requirements to establish and
publicize complaint procedures. Even if grantees have established
procedures to address Title IX complaints, they may not be tracking the
complaints they handle. Officials from every university we visited told
us that they had an internal process to handle Title IX sex
discrimination complaints, but a few were unable to provide us with
actual numbers because they do not keep these data. Also, some
officials told us that most complainants choose to file at the grantee
level rather than with the federal government.
Students and university and laboratory officials we spoke with offered
a number of reasons why there have been so few Title IX sex
discrimination complaints involving the sciences filed with Education,
Energy, NASA, and NSF. Specifically, many students and staff suggested
that their peers would be unlikely to file a complaint because of a
lack of awareness that Title IX covers academics. For example,
scientists and students at most schools we visited told us that they
thought Title IX covered only sports and did not know the law also
encompassed academic issues. Also, others suggested they would be
unlikely to file a complaint for fear of retribution from supervisors
or colleagues. For example, some women faculty members we spoke with
said that although they perceive that discrimination exists in their
department, filing a complaint could hinder their ability to attain
tenure. In addition, filing a sex discrimination complaint would take
time away from their research.
Federal Agencies Required Statements of Assurance from Grantees and
Provided Technical Assistance to Promote Compliance with Title IX:
Officials at federal agencies told us that they required statements of
assurance from grantees and provided technical assistance to grantees
upon request. Each agency required grantees to submit a statement of
assurance that their education programs or activities are operated in
compliance with Title IX, as well as with other civil rights laws, as
part of their grant application. (See table 1.) In addition to
obtaining these statements, agencies provide outreach materials or
technical assistance to grantees. We found that each agency provided
materials to grantees to help them better understand Title IX and its
requirements. At Education, officials sometimes issue "dear colleague"
letters to better inform grantees about how to fulfill Title IX
requirements.
Required Compliance Reviews Have Largely Been Neglected:
We found that compliance reviews, which are required by Title IX
regulations, have been largely neglected by agencies. Officials at
three of the four agencies told us that they have not conducted any
Title IX compliance reviews of their grantees. Education has conducted
17 compliance reviews of academic programs' adherence to Title IX at
institutions of higher education since 1993, 3 of which have dealt with
the sciences. Education officials told us that each year they plan to
conduct a number of reviews of compliance based on available funding
remaining after they conduct complaint investigations and provide
technical assistance to grantees. Officials reported that their goal is
to use 20 percent of their budget for both outreach and reviews of
compliance with federal laws, but in reality only about 15 percent of
their budget goes toward these activities. When choosing which reviews
would be conducted, officials reported that they identify compliance
issues based on Education's priorities and issues raised by Congress or
interest groups. Specifically, Education officials told us that the
three compliance reviews of science grantees--conducted in 1994 and
1995--were initiated because of congressional interest. This year,
Education plans to conduct over 50 compliance reviews on issues related
to special education and accommodations for the disabled. Officials
told us that they are not conducting any compliance reviews involving
Title IX this year. In addition to the requirement that Education
conduct its own compliance reviews, Education has agreements with 17
other agencies to conduct compliance reviews of educational
institutions under Title IX as well as other civil rights laws.
However, Education officials stated that performing compliance reviews
for other agencies was never feasible and that Education has informed
those agencies that it could not conduct these reviews for
them.[Footnote 6]
Energy, NASA, and NSF officials reported that they have not conducted
any Title IX compliance reviews of their grantees. Energy officials
reported that they have provided their field office staff with guidance
on conducting compliance reviews and that many field office staff
attended training on compliance reviews offered by Justice. Energy
officials also told us that they have conducted site visits to several
field offices to determine if compliance reviews were being done, but
found that no compliance reviews have been conducted, primarily due to
resource constraints. While NASA has an agreement with Education for
Education to conduct compliance reviews, neither Education nor NASA has
conducted reviews of NASA's grantees. Recognizing this, NASA has begun
to take steps toward ensuring that compliance reviews are conducted on
their grantees. NASA officials reported that they are developing a
compliance review program and have requested compliance information
from all of their grantees. Officials reported that they are in the
process of reviewing grantee responses to systematically ascertain if
grantees are in compliance, identify problem areas, and assist in
targeting grantees for possible on-site compliance reviews. Officials
at NSF reported that a lack of funding and staff precludes development
of a compliance review program. (See table 1.)
Interagency Coordination of Compliance Activities Is Limited:
Justice officials told us that it carries out three main activities to
coordinate agency compliance with Title IX. Specifically, it provides
technical assistance to agencies when questions arise about compliance
activities or requirements, brokers agreements between agencies and
Education to carry out complaint investigations and compliance reviews
of educational institutions, and requires agencies to submit an annual
report on their compliance activities. Some technical assistance has
taken the form of published guidance for agencies to assist them with
Title IX compliance, while other assistance is provided to agency
officials directly to address specific issues. For example, Energy
officials reported that they consult with Justice from time to time on
how to handle complex complaints they receive.
Justice officials reported that they helped to arrange the agreements
between Education and other agencies whereby Education has agreed to
conduct complaint investigations and compliance reviews on behalf of
the other agencies. Justice officials reported that they were not aware
that Education has not been adhering to the compliance review portion
of the agreements. However, Justice officials were aware that other
agencies, including Energy, NASA and NSF, were not conducting
compliance reviews as required, due to limited resources.
Justice officials reported that every agency submitted annual reports
on their compliance activities. Agencies are required to report the
numbers of complaints they received under Title VI and Title IX and
what action was taken on those complaints. Agencies must also report on
the total number of grants the agency awarded and whether those
grantees completed a statement of assurance not to discriminate. In
addition, agencies have to report and characterize any agreements they
may have with other agencies, such as Education. Justice officials
reported that they review these reports to determine gaps in compliance
and subsequently provide agencies with guidance on how to alleviate
those gaps. Although Executive Order 12250 requires Justice to
coordinate the implementation and enforcement by executive agencies of
various nondiscrimination provisions of several civil rights laws,
including Title IX, it has no legal authority to make agencies conduct
required compliance activities. Justice officials reported that aside
from reminding the agencies of the need to comply with Title IX
regulations and providing the agencies with guidance and technical
assistance, there is little they can do to ensure compliance with Title
IX.
In addition, Executive Order 12250 states "the Attorney General shall
annually report to the President through the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget on the progress in achieving the purposes of this
Order. This report shall include any recommendations for changes in the
implementation or enforcement of the nondiscrimination provisions of
the laws covered by this Order." However, Justice officials told us
that this report has not been issued since 1998 because the reports
were not an effective mechanism to encourage agency compliance with
regulations.
Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased Substantially since
the Early 1960s, but Their Representation in Mathematics and
Engineering Continues to Be Low:
Women's participation in the sciences has increased substantially in
the last three decades, especially in the life sciences, such as
biology. The proportion of women science students has grown, but to a
lesser extent at the graduate level than the undergraduate level.
Meanwhile, the proportion of faculty in the sciences who are women has
also increased since the early 1970s. However, women still lag behind
their male counterparts in terms of salary and rank, and much of their
gain in numbers has been in the life sciences, as opposed to
mathematics and engineering. A variety of studies indicate that
experience, work patterns, and education levels can largely explain
differences in salaries and rank. Studies also suggest that
discrimination may still affect women's choices and professional
progress.
Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased Substantially in
the Last Three Decades:
Although women's participation in the sciences has improved steadily
over the last three decades, men still outnumber women in nearly every
field in the sciences. In 1960, women made up less than 3 percent of
all scientists, but by 2003 women constituted nearly 20 percent of all
scientists.[Footnote 7] Although the number of women increased in every
field of science, the participation of women in scientific occupations
varied by field, with women having the largest percentage gains in
science and the smallest percentage gains in mathematics. In 1960 women
constituted less than 1 percent of engineers, 8 percent of scientists,
and 26 percent of mathematicians. By 2003 women made up 14 percent of
engineers, 37 percent of scientists, and 33 percent of mathematicians.
Data on women in faculty positions at 2 and 4-year colleges and
universities in 1999 indicate that women's participation differs based
on when they earned their PhD. Specifically, NSF data reveal that 11
percent of faculty at a 2 or 4-year college in 1999 who received their
PhD in the early 1970s were women, as were 34 percent who received
their PhD in the in the late 1990s. Figure 2 shows that women working
at 2 and 4-year colleges in 1999 have the greatest participation in
life sciences. Nineteen percent of life sciences faculty at a 2 or 4-
year college in 1999 who received their PhD in the early 1970s were
women, as were 44 percent who received their PhD in the late 1990s.
However, data show that women still constitute a relatively small share
of faculty in the sciences. For example, engineering has the lowest
participation levels for women faculty. Less than 1 percent of
engineering faculty at a 2 or 4-year college in 1999 who received their
PhD in the early 1970s were women, as were 19 percent who received
their PhD in the late 1990s.
Figure 2: Percentage of Women Science Faculty Employed at 2-and 4-Year
Colleges and Universities in 1999 by Field of Study and Year of PhD
Completion:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The estimates shown in this figure are based on sample data and
subject to sampling error. For fields other than computer and math
sciences, the 95 percent confidence intervals are within plus or minus
10 percentage points of the estimates. For computer and math sciences
the 95 percent confidence intervals are within plus or minus 17
percentage points of the estimates.
[End of figure]
Women continue to major in the sciences and earn degrees in the
sciences to a lesser extent than men, even though women now make up a
majority of all college students. In 2000, two of five undergraduates
in the sciences were women. Similarly, in 2000, while women made up
over half of all graduate students, they accounted for less than a
third of graduate students in the sciences.
Women Tend to Pursue More Degrees in Life Science and Fewer in
Engineering and Mathematics:
The percentage of women students differs across scientific fields, as
shown in figure 3. In 1999-2000, women were a majority of both
undergraduate and graduate students in life sciences, while only one-
fifth of engineering students were women, at both the undergraduate and
the graduate levels. Regarding degrees earned, the majority of degrees
in fields other than the sciences, at all levels--bachelors, masters,
and doctorates--are earned by women. However, with one exception, women
continue to earn fewer degrees than men in the sciences, at all levels.
Again, the exception is life sciences, in which women earned more
bachelors and masters degrees--but not doctorate degrees--than men. The
proportion of degrees in the sciences earned by women is highest in
life sciences and lowest in engineering. (See app. VI for enrollment
and degrees earned by men and women by field and level of study.)
Figure 3: Percentage of Students and Degree Recipients Who Are Women,
1999-2000:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The proportion of bachelors degrees in various science areas awarded to
women has grown relatively steadily since the mid-1960s, with the
exception of degrees in mathematics, which fluctuated within the narrow
range of 33 to 39 percent. (See fig. 4.) Similarly, the percentage of
PhDs awarded to women has generally increased in these science fields,
including mathematics, since 1966. Women made the greatest gains in
life sciences. (See fig. 5.)
Figure 4: Bachelors Degrees Earned by Women from 1966 to 2000:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Doctoral Degrees Earned by Women from 1966 to 2000:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some researchers suggest that the shortage of women pursuing degrees in
science is due to a lack of preparation and mentoring. Recent research
reported that women are not adequately prepared in K-12 or
undergraduate school and so they lose interest in the sciences.
According to several studies, in grade 12, high school girls took fewer
courses in science, scored slightly lower on standardized science
exams, were more likely to have negative attitudes toward science, and
were less likely to declare science as a college major, as compared
with high school boys.[Footnote 8] Some of the women students and
faculty with whom we talked reported that a strong mentor was a crucial
part of their academic training. In fact, some students and faculty
told us they had pursued advanced degrees because of the encouragement
and support of mentors. Some felt that having women mentors, who served
as role models, was important for women considering careers in the
sciences. Some pointed out that with few faculty women in some
departments in the sciences, it was hard for women students to find
women mentors.
However, we found that women who begin college with an engineering,
mathematics, or science major had similar rates of completing a
bachelors degree within 6 years as their male counterparts, according
to the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study. About
65 percent of women did so in 2001, while 18 percent were still
enrolled at the end of 6 years and about 17 percent left college
without a degree. Comparably, about 62 percent of men completed a
bachelors degree within 6 years, while about 19 percent were still
enrolled at the end of 6 years and about 19 percent left college
without a degree. Women who begin college with majors in the sciences
had higher rates of completing a degree in 6 years than women who
started college with other majors or undeclared majors. (See app. V for
the enrollment status in 2001 of students who began postsecondary
education in 1995, by type of initial major and sex.)
Salary and Rank Differences between Men and Women Scientists Are
Largely Explained by Work Patterns and Choices:
Several recent studies show that salary and rank differences between
men and women can largely be explained by work patterns and choices.
Even though the percentage of women in faculty positions has increased,
many studies show that women faculty have not yet caught up with men
faculty in several areas, including salary and tenure.[Footnote 9]
However, a recent study found that just over 91 percent of the
discrepancy between men's and women's faculty salaries could be
explained by differences in experience, work patterns, seniority, and
education levels.[Footnote 10] Our review of faculty data found that
women science faculty compared with men faculty:
* more often taught as their primary responsibility,
* less often conducted research as their primary responsibility,
* less often held a first professional degree or PhD,
* more often worked part-time,
* more often had less experience,
* more often were younger, and:
* more often were native U.S. citizens.
Similarly, a recent study of the top 50 departments of engineering and
science, as ranked by NSF, revealed that women faculty were more often
associate or assistant professors than full professors and that women
faculty were a minority of tenured faculty in the sciences.[Footnote
11] Figure 6 shows that the percentage of women faculty by rank varies
by field.
Figure 6: Percentage of Women Faculty By Rank, Fiscal Year 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Several studies have discussed that some women trade off career
advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to
manage work and family responsibilities. In fact, a recent study on
part-time faculty found that women faculty are 6 percent more likely
than men to prefer part-time employment.[Footnote 12] During our site
visits, women faculty told us that juggling family life with a tenure
track faculty position was extremely challenging. Some women told us
that they felt discouraged from pursuing a tenure track university
position because the biological clock and the tenure clock tend to tick
simultaneously.[Footnote 13] Some faculty members told us that they
felt they had to put off having children until they achieved tenure or
entirely give up the goal of having children, choices that men faculty
do not necessarily have to make. Others we spoke with commented that
they observed the long hours and difficult work of professors at
research universities in the sciences and felt they could not perform
well while also devoting time to family responsibilities.
In addition, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that
men and women faculty also worked in different types of institutions.
Among full-time faculty, women were more likely than men to work in 2-
year institutions (33 percent versus 23 percent), while men were more
likely than women to work in research universities (20 percent versus
14 percent).[Footnote 14] Women PhD students we interviewed revealed
that very few would seek tenure track positions at research
institutions. Most said that they would rather become faculty at small
colleges or scientists at a laboratory where they thought work
pressures would be less intense and they could maintain a more healthy
balance between work and family life.
Women May Also Face Practices That May Affect Their Participation:
Studies have also argued that the variability in men and women's
participation in the sciences may result from discrimination in the
workplace or subtler discrimination about what types of career or job
choices women can make. NCES recently reported that preparation is not
the sole factor leading to women's low participation in science
occupations but that workplace discrimination is a consistent barrier
to women in the sciences. In addition, when studying women science
faculty issues at MIT, researchers found that, after tenure, many
senior women faculty began to feel "marginalized."[Footnote 15] These
faculty members reported that they sensed they may not have been
treated equally with their men colleagues. During our site visits, some
women faculty and students told us that the climate in some academic
departments was changing for the better over time, as older men
faculty, who were unused to working with women, retire. On the other
hand, in other departments, women students reported that fellow men
students were hostile to women and made it very uncomfortable for women
to pursue their studies. Students and faculty we talked with reported
that deans, department chairs, and other officials were attempting to
bring about positive change for women on their campuses, but that
progress would be slow.
Some Agencies and Grantees Have Activities That May Foster Greater
Participation in the Sciences by Women:
We found several examples of grant-making agencies that have instituted
policies and practices designed to foster greater participation by
women in the sciences. While some of the policies and practices are
aimed at encouraging more women to pursue and to persist in education
in the sciences, others provide time off and fewer teaching duties so
junior faculty can balance work and family life while beginning a
university career. Finally, a few policies and practices seek to expand
the recruiting pool for jobs in the sciences and make them more
attractive to women.
Grant-Making Agency Includes Evaluation Criteria to Encourage Greater
Participation in the Sciences:
NSF, as part of its formal evaluation of grant applications, uses a
"second criterion," the impact of the project on U.S. society. NSF
makes a particular effort to recruit reviewers, experts in the
substantive area of the proposal, from nonacademic institutions,
minority-serving institutions, and disciplines closely related to the
one addressed in the proposal. These reviewers evaluate grant proposals
based on two merit criteria: first, what is the intellectual merit of
the proposed activity; second, what are the broader societal impacts of
the proposed activity. This second criterion includes promoting
teaching, broadening the participation of underrepresented groups, and
enhancing research infrastructure, such as facilities and partnerships,
as well as the integration of diversity into NSF projects, and research
mentoring, particularly for students typically underrepresented in the
sciences.
Projects meeting NSF's societal impact criterion may increase interest
in the sciences among students or provide valuable experience to a
diverse group of researchers, but to date there has not been a full
evaluation of this criterion. Beyond the first year of graduate school,
science education is largely laboratory centered. NSF grantees may take
more care to include graduate students or other researchers from
diverse backgrounds as staff on their projects. This could help ensure
that women and minorities can get the training and experience they need
to complete advanced degrees and work in an academic environment.
However, the effects of implementing the second criterion have yet to
be fully evaluated. A review by the National Academy of Public
Administration in 2001 found that NSF does not have adequate data to
track changes or improvements to encourage greater participation by
underrepresented minority researchers.
In addition, researchers told us that many NSF supported projects
include outreach components, frequently aimed at undergraduates and K-
12 students. Often, analysts speak of an insufficient "pipeline" of
women high school and college students planning to pursue higher levels
of education in the sciences. The goal of outreach programs is to pique
the interest of younger students in the sciences. Outreach activities
can include speeches or demonstrations or work opportunities in a
laboratory. These outreach activities may encourage some young women,
who otherwise might have lost interest, to pursue education in the
sciences.
Certain Practices Seek to Relieve Some of the Pressures for Women of
Beginning a Tenure Track University Career:
Adjusted Tenure Clock:
Some universities extend the tenure clock by one semester or one year
when a junior faculty member has a child. Most commonly, tenure
decisions are made several years after appointment as assistant
professor. To achieve tenure in the sciences, high productivity in
research and publication is required. As one faculty member expressed
it, "the biological clock and the tenure clock are perfectly in sync."
Some female faculty put off children until after they gain tenure,
often in their late 30s. Allowing junior faculty to "stop the clock"
relieves some of the pressure on junior faculty seeking tenure. Many
universities allow female faculty only 6 to 8 weeks of paid maternity
leave.
At some universities, the tenure clock adjustment that comes with the
arrival of a child applies to male faculty members as well. Some
professors we spoke with told us that often male professors do not play
as large a role as women in caring for newborns and can use the extra
year to add to their research and publication portfolios. In addition,
some junior faculty fear that stopping the clock will be counted
against them in the tenure decision. Even though adjusting the tenure
clock may be university policy, that policy may not be evenly
implemented in all departments. Moreover, assistant professors seeking
tenure must have many recommendations from established academics in
their field, some of whom may not be aware that the tenure candidate
stopped the clock. Therefore, some tenure recommendations may criticize
resulting gaps in a résumé.
Reduced Teaching Duties:
Some universities, primarily major research institutions, relieve
faculty members of one semester of teaching duties when a child is born
or other urgent family issues arise. Some faculty we spoke with noted
that there are events other than childbirth that require large amounts
of a faculty member's time and attention, such as assisting elderly
parents. Reduced teaching loads may operate in tandem with stopping the
tenure clock and generally applies to both men and women professors.
Relief from teaching duties frees up time to deal with family issues
and provides added flexibility in arranging work hours. However, when
one is involved in scientific research, pressure remains to produce
results. Researchers still have to run their laboratories. Scientists
responsible for research projects have to organize the work, supervise
graduate students working on the projects, and also advise students on
their academic course work and projects. Some faculty we spoke with
pointed out that relief from teaching duties may benefit male faculty
more than female faculty. In connection with the arrival of a child, to
the extent that male faculty may have less involvement in caring for
newborns, male faculty may use the extra time to do additional research
or laboratory work.
Several Practices Seek to Expand the Recruiting Pool for Scientific
Jobs and Make Them More Attractive to Women:
On-site Child Care:
Some universities and at least one laboratory we visited have developed
or expanded on-campus child care or made arrangements with nearby
facilities. Sometimes, when on-campus facilities are unavailable or
inadequate, arrangements may be made with nearby child care providers
to reserve a certain number of openings for faculty and staff. However,
obtaining child care can still be a problem in some situations such as
care for sick children. One laboratory we visited had plans for
developing a separate day care facility for sick children, but it has
not come about because of lack of funding.
Inclusive Hiring Processes:
Universities may specify a search process for new faculty. Such a
process might involve widespread advertising, might specify
representation of women and minorities on search committees, and might
require that there be members of underrepresented groups in the
candidate pool. This type of formal process may extend the hiring time.
However, if hiring pools, at first, are not sufficiently broad, further
publicity and additional work by the search committee may be required.
Measuring Status of Women Faculty:
Universities may also conduct periodic studies of recruiting, hiring,
tenure decisions, salaries, and resources provided. These are among the
aspects of university employment that can be quantified so comparisons
can be made between male and female professors. Periodic reviews of
such data can call the attention of the university or laboratory
community to imbalances that may exist. Continuing review of such data
helps ensure that inequities do not develop.
Addressing Climate Issues:
Schools and laboratories can conduct periodic surveys of faculty
concerns to develop information about factors such as inclusive social
atmosphere, or sexist attitudes. Though not easily quantifiable, such
factors nonetheless impact women's employment experience. Periodic
surveys raise awareness of the university or laboratory community to
attitudes and practices that may make it uncomfortable for women at the
institution. University officials hope that greater awareness will help
to avoid "marginalization" of female faculty and foster an inclusive
atmosphere.
Funding Additional Education:
Some laboratories subsidize the expenses of obtaining additional
education and training for their current employees. Further education
may lead to promotions or higher-level work. Such support is not
limited to women, but at one laboratory we visited, a high proportion
of beneficiaries were women.
Flexible Work Schedules:
Some laboratories allow part-time or flexi-time schedules, allowing
staff to vary their arrival and departure times. Additionally, at least
one laboratory we visited allowed job sharing, whereby two employees
each work on the same job on a part-time basis, coordinating closely
with one another to accomplish the assigned tasks. Each of these
alternative work arrangements helps workers balance their personal
lives with their work lives and makes it easier for researchers to deal
with family responsibilities, which some scientists told us are often
are borne more by women than men.
Conclusions:
Over the past three decades, women have made substantial gains as
professionals in the sciences, particularly in the life sciences. A
review of their numbers and roles today in the educational pipeline
suggests, however, that women will continue to fall short of equal
participation. Their lower levels of participation also suggest that
they remain a less than well tapped resource in the nation's growing
demand for scientists.
Our review of federal science agencies' oversight for Title IX suggests
that much of the leverage afforded by this law lies underutilized in
the science arena, even as several billion dollars are spent each year
on federal science grants. Although Energy, NASA, and NSF have carried
out most of the activities required of them under Title IX, the impact
of their work may be limited without compliance reviews of grantees and
their practices. Given the general lack of knowledge and familiarity
with the reach of Title IX and the disincentives for filing complaints
against superiors, investigations of complaints alone by federal
agencies are not enough to judge if discrimination exists. Without
making full use of all compliance activities available, agencies lack a
complete picture of federal grantee efforts to address occurrences of
sex discrimination. On the other hand, a more aggressive exercise of
oversight on the part of agencies that wield enormous influence in the
world of science funding--Energy, NASA, and NSF--would provide an
opportunity to strengthen the goal of Title IX and enable this
legislation to better achieve intended results.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To fully comply with Title IX regulations, we recommend the Secretary
of Energy and Director of NSF ensure that compliance reviews of
grantees are periodically conducted.
To fully comply with Title IX regulations, we recommend the
Administrator of NASA continue to implement its compliance review
program to ensure that compliance reviews of grantees are periodically
conducted.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science
Foundation for review and comment. Officials at each agency confirmed
that they had reviewed the draft and generally agreed with its findings
and recommendations. Officials from all five agencies provided us with
technical comments, many of which we have incorporated into the report,
and formal comments from Education, Energy, NASA and NSF are included
in appendixes VII through X. Justice did not provide formal written
comments for this report.
As discussed in their formal comments and in our report, Energy, NASA,
and NSF have begun to take steps, such as providing technical
assistance and collecting compliance information from grantees, to
ensure greater compliance with Title IX. Although officials at these
agencies agree that compliance reviews have not been conducted,
officials from each agency reported that they are making efforts to
carry out compliance reviews in the future. Where appropriate, we
incorporated information about agency efforts in the final version of
this report.
In the comments from Education, officials reported about compliance
reviews and other efforts that Education has conducted on school
districts and on nonscience programs at institutions of higher
education. While we agree that these efforts may provide greater access
for women in higher education science programs, as they may for women
in other fields, they were not within the scope of our review and,
therefore, were not included in this report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, the
Secretary of Energy, the Attorney General, the Administrator of NASA,
the Acting Director of NSF, appropriate congressional committees, and
other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at
no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please call me at
(202) 512-8403 if you or your staff have any questions about this
report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
XI.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Because of increased interest about women's access to mathematics,
engineering, and science, which receive billions of dollars in federal
assistance, you asked us to determine what is being done to ensure
compliance with Title IX in regard to mathematics, engineering, and
science. This report addresses: 1) how do the Department of Education
(Education), the Department of Energy (Energy), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science
Foundation (NSF) ensure that federal grant recipient institutions
comply with Title IX in mathematics, engineering, and science; 2) what
do data show about women's participation in these fields; and 3) what
promising practices exist to promote their participation?
We reviewed the legislation and regulations to identify all areas of
compliance relevant to each federal agency. We interviewed officials at
Education, Energy, NASA, and NSF and gathered documentation to identify
agency activities to ensure compliance with Title IX. We analyzed data
from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at Education and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agencies where most sex
discrimination complaints are filed. Given its role as coordinating
agency of Title IX compliance, we also gathered data and interviewed
officials at the Department of Justice (Justice).
We chose to visit research universities and national laboratories
because by visiting those institutions we were able to interview future
and practicing scientists working in a wide variety of areas. During
this phase of the review, we visited seven research universities where
we interviewed grant recipients, students and faculty. We also visited
six national laboratories where we talked with administrators and
scientists. Research universities were selected for site visits because
they received grants from at least three of the four agencies we
reviewed and were near at least one national laboratory and another
research university that also met our criteria. Those selected were:
* Clemson University,
* Columbia University,
* Duke University,
* Stanford University,
* State University of New York at Stony Brook,
* University of California, Berkeley, and:
* University of South Carolina.
Laboratories selected were:
* Brookhaven National Laboratory,
* Environmental Measurements Laboratory,
* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
* Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
* Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, and:
* Savannah River National Laboratory.
To gather nationwide information on women's participation and
experiences in mathematics, engineering, and science, we analyzed data
from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the
Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study, and the
National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) from Education and the
Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), and the Survey of Doctorate
Recipients (SDR) from NSF. We also reviewed literature to obtain
information about women in the sciences and issues they face preparing
for and pursuing careers in the sciences. In addition, we spoke with
practitioners regarding promising practices to promote the
participation of women in mathematics, engineering, and science. To
assess the reliability of the various Education and NSF data sources,
we reviewed documentation on how the data were collected and performed
electronic tests to look for missing or out-of-range values. In
addition, we reviewed the methodology of studies and reports using
generally accepted social science principles as a basis for including
their results in our report. Based on these reviews and tests, we found
the data and studies sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We
conducted our review from July 2003 through June 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: National Laboratories and Technology Centers:
Albany Research Center:
Ames Laboratory:
Argonne National Laboratory:
(East) Brookhaven National Laboratory:
Environmental Measurements Laboratory:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Los Alamos National Laboratory:
National Energy Technology Laboratory:
National Petroleum Technology Office:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
New Brunswick Laboratory:
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory:
Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory:
Sandia National Laboratory:
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory:
Savannah River National Laboratory:
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center:
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Selected Legal Events and Cases Involving Title IX:
Year: 1972;
Event/case: Title IX enacted[A];
Description: First federal law specifically prohibiting sex
discrimination at educational institutions receiving federal financial
assistance.
Year: 1975;
Event/case: Publication of Education's final regulations on Title
IX[B];
Description: Responded to nearly 10,000 public comments, most
concerning athletics.
Year: 1979;
Event/case: Cannon v. University of Chicago[C];
Description: Held that private parties may file suit in Title IX cases.
Year: 1980;
Event/case: Executive Order 12250;
Description: Delegated to Justice authority to coordinate the
implementation and enforcement by federal agencies of various
nondiscrimination provisions, including Title IX.
Year: 1984;
Event/case: Grove City College v. Bell[D];
Description: Held that Title IX applied only to programs that directly
receive or benefit from federal financial assistance.
Year: 1987;
Event/case: Civil Rights Restoration Act[E];
Description: Requires all programs of an educational institution
receiving federal funds to be subject to Title IX, superseding the
Grove City College v. Bell decision.
Year: 1992;
Event/case: Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools[F];
Description: Held that monetary damages are available to plaintiffs in
private Title IX actions.
Year: 1997;
Event/case: OCR sexual harassment policy guidance[G];
Description: Provided policy guidance on Title IX prohibitions against
sexual harassment in schools.
Year: 2000;
Event/case: Publication of final common rule regulations on Title
IX[H];
Description: Provided Title IX enforcement regulations for 21 agencies.
[SOURCE: GAO ANALYSIS.]
[A] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688.
[B] 45 C.F.R. Part 86, currently found at 34 C.F.R. Part 106.
[C] 441 U.S. 677 (1979).
[D] 465 U.S. 555 (1984).
[E] 20 U.S.C. § 1687.
[F] 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
[G] Department of Education, OCR, "Sexual Harassment Guidance:
Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third
Parties," 52 Fed. Reg. 12034 (Mar. 13, 1997). On Nov. 2, 2000, OCR
published in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period "Revised
Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees,
Other Students, or Third Parties." This revises OCR guidance in light
of recent Supreme Court cases relating to sexual harassment in schools. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 626 (1999).
[H] 65 Fed. Reg. 52858 (Aug. 30, 2000).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Grant Programs
Funded by Education, Energy, NASA, and NSF:
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Engineering grants;
2003 obligations: $541,700,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Mathematical and physical
sciences;
2003 obligations: $1,040,700,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Geosciences;
2003 obligations: $691,840,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Computer and information
science and engineering;
2003 obligations: $589,290,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Biological sciences;
2003 obligations: $570,490,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Social, behavioral, and
economic sciences;
2003 obligations: $198,610,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Education and human
resources;
2003 obligations: $934,880,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Polar programs;
2003 obligations: $110,400,000.
Agency: NSF;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Total;
2003 obligations: $3,638,250,700.
Agency: NASA;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Aerospace education
services program;
2003 obligations: $6,568,748.
Agency: NASA;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Technology transfer;
2003 obligations: [B] $51,707,000.
Agency: NASA;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Total;
2003 obligations: $58,275,748.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Used energy-related
laboratory equipment grants;
2003 obligations: [A].
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Inventions and
innovations;
2003 obligations: $2,632,950.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: National energy
information center;
2003 obligations: [A].
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Office of science
financial assistance program;
2003 obligations: $515,000,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: University coal research;
2003 obligations: $135,481,041.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Office of scientific and
technical information;
2003 obligations: $6,900,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Nuclear waste disposal
siting;
2003 obligations: $11,451,007.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Regional biomass energy
programs;
2003 obligations: $2,889,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Conservation research and
development;
2003 obligations: [A].
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Renewable energy
research and development;
2003 obligations: [A].
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Fossil energy research
and development;
2003 obligations: $247,990,587.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Office of technology
development and deployment for environmental management;
2003 obligations: [B] $60,000,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: National industrial
competitiveness through energy, environment and economics;
2003 obligations: [B] $1,500,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Epidemiology and other
health studies financial assistance program;
2003 obligations: $18,000,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Stewardship science
program;
2003 obligations: $10,949,075.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Defense nuclear
nonproliferation research;
2003 obligations: $4,000,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: University reactor
infrastructure and education support;
2003 obligations: $18,500,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Science and engineering
training to support diversity-related programs;
2003 obligations: $300,000.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Energy efficiency and
renewable energy information dissemination, outreach, training and
technical analysis/assistance;
2003 obligations: $0.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: State energy program
special projects;
2003 obligations: $17,320,255.
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Nuclear energy research,
development, and demonstration;
2003 obligations: [A].
Agency: Energy;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Total;
2003 obligations: $1,052,913,915.
Agency: Education;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Minority science and
engineering improvement;
2003 obligations: $8,942,000.
Agency: Education;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Graduate assistance in
areas of national need;
2003 obligations: $30,798,000.
Agency: Education;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Eisenhower regional
mathematics and science education consortia;
2003 obligations: [B] $15,000,000.
Agency: Education;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Preparing tomorrow's
teacher to use technology;
2003 obligations: [B] $62,094,000.
Agency: Education;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Mathematics and science
partnerships;
2003 obligations: $100,344,000.
Agency: Education;
Engineering, Mathematics, or Science Program: Total;
2003 obligations: $129,334,000.
Source: Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance.
[A] Obligations were not separately identifiable.
[B] Estimated.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comparison of Enrollment Status:
Data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study
show that for those who started with a major in the sciences, there is
no appreciable difference between men and women in the proportion that
have completed a bachelors degree 6 years after starting college. Among
those who started college with nonscience or undeclared majors, a
greater proportion of women than men had achieved bachelors degrees
within 6 years. For both men and women, those who began college
majoring in the sciences were more likely to have earned degrees within
6 years than those who began college with nonscience or undeclared
majors.
Table 2: Enrollment Status in 2001 of Students Who Began Postsecondary
Education in 1995, by Type of Initial Major and Sex:
Major in the sciences:
Major in the sciences: Men;
Completed Bachelors: Number: 79,462;
Completed Bachelors: Percent: 61.6%;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 24,634;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 19.1%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 24,955;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 19.3%;
Total: Number: 129,051;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Major in the sciences: Women;
Completed Bachelors: Number: 56,371;
Completed Bachelors: Percent: 65.3%;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 15,518;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 18%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 14,446;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 16.7%;
Total: Number: 86,335;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Major in the sciences: Both sexes;
Completed Bachelors: Number: 135,833;
Completed Bachelors: Percent: 63.1%;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 40,152;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 18.6%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 39,401;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 18.3%;
Total: Number: 215,386;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Major not in the sciences or undeclared:
Major not in the sciences or undeclared: Men;
Completed Bachelors: Number: 254,169;
Completed Bachelors: Percent: 52.9%;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 88,318;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 18.4%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 138,033;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 28.7%;
Total: Number: 480,520;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Major not in the sciences or undeclared: Women;
Completed Bachelors: Number: 403,000;
Completed Bachelors: Percent: 60.6%;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 100,537;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 15.1%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 161,430;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 24.3%;
Total: Number: 664,967;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Major not in the sciences or undeclared: Total: Both sexes;
Completed Bachelors: Number: 657,169;
Completed Bachelors: Percent: 57.4%;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 188,855;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 16.5%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 299,463;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 26.1%;
Total: Number: 1,145,487;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Total: Men;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 112,952;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 18.5%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 162,988;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 26.7%;
Total: Number: 609,571;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Total: Women;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 116,055;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 15.4%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 175,876;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 23.4%;
Total: Number: 751,302;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Total: Both sexes;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Number: 229,007;
Did not complete, still enrolled: Percent: 16.8%;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Number: 338,864;
Did not complete, not enrolled: Percent: 24.9%;
Total: Number: 1,360,873;
Total: Percent: 100%.
Source: BPS.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comparison of Enrollment and Degrees Earned:
Data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
show that the proportion of students, and of degree earners, who are
women varies substantially from one area to another in the sciences.
Table 3: Enrollment and Degrees Earned by Men and Women by Field and
Level of Study, 1999-2000.
Engineering;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: men: 486,840;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: women: 117,674;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: % women: 19%;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to men: 46,493;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to women: 11,882;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: % to women: 20%;
Graduate enrollment 2000: men: 76,467;
Graduate enrollment 2000: women: 18,666;
Graduate enrollment 2000: % women: 20%;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to men: 20,282;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to women: 5,302;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: % to women: 21%;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to men: 4,544;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to women: 834;
Doctorates awarded 2000: % to women: 16%.
Life sciences;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: men: 196,570;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: women: 329,050;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: % women: 63%;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to men: 26,413;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to women: 36,925;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: % to women: 58%;
Graduate enrollment 2000: men: 22,305;
Graduate enrollment 2000: women: 23,354;
Graduate enrollment 2000: % women: 51%;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to men: 2,766;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to women: 3,409;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: % to women: 55%;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to men: 2,686;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to women: 2,119;
Doctorates awarded 2000: % to women: 44%.
Mathematics;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: men: 47,564;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: women: 42,074;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: % women: 47%;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to men: 6,381;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to women: 5,685;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: % to women: 47%;
Graduate enrollment 2000: men: 8,758;
Graduate enrollment 2000: women: 5,218;
Graduate enrollment 2000: % women: 37%;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to men: 1,878;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to women: 1,530;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: % to women: 45%;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to men: 830;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to women: 275;
Doctorates awarded 2000: % to women: 25%.
Physical sciences;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: men: 86,760;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: women: 62,706;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: % women: 42%;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to men: 10,860;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to women: 7,340;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: % to women: 40%;
Graduate enrollment 2000: men: 24,911;
Graduate enrollment 2000: women: 11,961;
Graduate enrollment 2000: % women: 32%;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to men: 3,110;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to women: 1,712;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: % to women: 36%;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to men: 2,992;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to women: 1,024;
Doctorates awarded 2000: % to women: 26%.
Other;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: men: 1,187,524;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: women: 1,567,100;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: % women: 57%;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to men: 433,841;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to women: 636,107;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: % to women: 59%;
Graduate enrollment 2000: men: 228,151;
Graduate enrollment 2000: women: 350,677;
Graduate enrollment 2000: % women: 61%;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to men: 158,974;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to women: 247,447;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: % to women: 61%;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to men: 13,850;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to women: 15,408;
Doctorates awarded 2000: % to women: 53%.
Total;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: men: 2,005,258;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: women: 2,118,604;
Undergraduate enrollment, 2000: % women: 51%;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to men: 523,988;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: to women: 697,939;
Bachelors degrees awarded, 2000: % to women: 57%;
Graduate enrollment 2000: men: 360,592;
Graduate enrollment 2000: women: 409,876;
Graduate enrollment 2000: % women: 53%;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to men: 187,010;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: to women: 259,400;
Masters degrees awarded 2000: % to women: 58%;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to men: 24,902;
Doctorates awarded 2000: to women: 19,660;
Doctorates awarded 2000: % to women: 44%.
Source: IPEDS.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS:
July 2, 2004:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the GAO draft report
entitled Gender Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences Has
Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with T
Title IX (GAO-04-639).
I am pleased that your report acknowledges the Department of
Education's extensive activities under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 to monitor the compliance with Title IX of
recipients of federal financial assistance through assurances of
compliance, technical assistance, complaint investigations, and
periodic compliance reviews. The report makes no recommendations for
further action from the Department of Education, and a careful reading
of the full report makes it clear that the Department of Education has
done everything required by the Title IX regulations. On occasion the
report lumps the four federal agencies studied together, and refers to
them as "the federal science agencies." Unfortunately, in some of the
summaries, conclusions, and the synopses printed in the left-hand
column, the report makes general statements about "the federal science
agencies" failing to conduct compliance reviews, which may be
appropriate for the other agencies but is not an accurate reflection of
the report's findings regarding the Department of Education.
I would also like to take this opportunity to put the number of
compliance reviews reported for the Department of Education in a
broader perspective. This report on Title IX is narrowly focused on
women in math and science in the postsecondary education setting. The
report correctly fords that the Department of Education has done three
compliance reviews since FY 1993 of postsecondary education
institutions focused specifically on math and science. However, these
three reviews are the narrow intersection of the Department's larger
efforts in women in math and science and women in postsecondary
education. Since FY 1993, the Department bas conducted a total of 15
reviews in the area of women in math and science, but 12 of the reviews
were at the secondary level addressing the "pipeline" issues raised in
this report, Since the reviews were not of postsecondary institutions,
they were not reported, Similarly, since FY 1993 the Department has
conducted 17 non-athletics Title IX compliance reviews of postsecondary
institutions on issues such as sexual harassment, grievance procedures,
due process, and support services. These also were not reported because
the focus was not specifically on math and science. However, these
reviews would have had all the same benefits for the women in math and
science as for the women in other fields of study.
The Department has also recently conducted 26 compliance reviews of
state Departments of Education to ensure that Title IX Coordinators
have been designated and trained, and that Title IX nondiscrimination
policy and contact information for the Title IX Coordinators has been
published in accordance with the Title IX regulations.
I have enclosed with this letter a list of technical comments and
corrections, many of which have already been shared informally with
your staff If there are any questions regarding these continents and
corrections, please feel free to contact Steve Cramolini at 202-245713.
Very truly yours,
Signed by:
Kenneth L. Marcus:
Delegated the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
June 29, 2004:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director for Education Workforce And Income Security:
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
The Department of Energy has reviewed the proposed report, "Gender
Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but
Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX". We
provide the following comments on behalf of the Department.
GAO Finding:
That compliance reviews which are required by Title 1X regulations have
been largely neglected by agencies. Officials at three of the four
agencies told us that they have not conducted any Title IX compliance
reviews of their grantees.
DOE COMMENT:
Over the last several years, the Department of Energy (DOE) has acted
aggressively to ensure that applicants and recipients of Federal
financial assistance are in compliance with Title IX, as well as other
civil rights statutes and regulations that prohibit discrimination by
recipients of Federal financial assistance. DOE's Office of Civil
Rights and Diversity (OCRD) has developed a comprehensive compliance
monitoring and oversight program consisting, among other things, of
issuing a DOE policy, providing policy guidance, training, pre-award
reviews, and outreach and publication.
DOE has sixteen (16) field Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
Offices which are responsible for Title IX civil rights enforcement
applicable to recipients of financial assistance from DOE. The
Headquarters Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD) has oversight
responsibility of the 16 field offices. DOE's actions to ensure
compliance with Federal law in this area include the following.
First, in January 2000, the Secretary issued a policy statement to all
Department Heads setting forth DOE's Policy of non-discrimination in
Federally assisted programs and Activities. The policy reaffirms DOE's
commitment to ensuring that recipients of assistance from DOE do not
discriminate, and tasks each departmental element with taking steps to
ensure that recipients of departmental assistance comply with all
applicable laws pertaining to financial assistance, including with
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Second, in September 2000, the Director, OCRD, issued a memorandum to
all EEO/Diversity Managers regarding the need for conducting civil
rights compliance reviews. The memorandum sets forth the Departments'
civil rights responsibilities and the requirements that OCRD conduct
field reviews of the field office's responsibilities and efforts to
ensure compliance with Federal law by recipients of financial
assistance.
Third, in September 2000, the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity also
published and disseminated a handbook entitled, Conducting Compliance
Reviews of Federally Assisted Programs. This handbook was disseminated
to all Diversity Managers having enforcement responsibilities under
Title IX and other civil rights statutes. In addition, on October 23
and 24, 2002, OCRD sponsored civil rights training for its Diversity
Managers. The Department of Justice, Coordination and Review Section,
conducted the training. Twelve (12) of the 16 field EEO/Diversity
Managers received the training, as well as some headquarters and
procurement staff. The training dealt primarily with Title VI, however,
DOE's Title IX and Title VI complaint processing regulations are the
same.
Fourth, since July 2000, OCRD has conducted civil rights compliance
reviews at ten (10) of the Department's 16 field offices. The aim of
the reviews has been to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of each
field offices' civil rights compliance program, including its. system
of enforcement and oversight of recipients of Federal financial
assistance, including Title IX. OCRD has dedicated one staff person as
a reviewer of the field office Title IX program of enforcement. The
reviewer evaluates the program of pre-award and post-award compliance,
notification and outreach programs, and the field offices' complaint
processing program. While the field offices have not conducted Title IX
field compliance reviews, OCRD has reminded each field office reviewed
of its obligation to conduct such compliance reviews of its grantees.
Field office managers, procurement and EEO/Diversity managers have
consistently, however, stated that they lack the staffing and office
resources to conduct civil rights compliance reviews of their grantees.
Fifth, in fiscal year 2002, the Department awarded 1724 grants and
cooperative agreements. The Department conducted 732 pre-award reviews,
of which 48 were desk audits. DOE's pre-award process consists of
obtaining a DOE FORM 1600.5, Assurance of Compliance, executed and
dated by the authorized official, and in many cases, a questionnaire is
completed by the recipient. The pre-award review is an important part
of the compliance process, in that it assures that the recipients are
meeting the requirements of DOE's regulations governing
nondiscrimination at the time the award is made.
In addition, the Department headquarters procurement office includes in
its grant packages a Title IX brochure developed by the Office of Civil
Rights and Diversity entitled, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in
Federally Assisted Programs. A poster is also made available to
recipients entitled, Equal Opportunity: It's the Law!
Finally; we note that while the post-award review process is part of
OCRD's overall program for ensuring compliance with Federal law by
recipients of financial assistance, OCRD has attempted to maximize the
use of its limited resources up front in the pre-award review process
before awards are made. Nonetheless, DOE intends to re-evaluate its
current program and - resource permitting - undertake post-award review
of recipients of Federal financial assistance, as appropriate.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Theresa Alvillar-Speake:
Director:
Office of Economic Impact and Diversity:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Office of the Administrator:
Washington, DC 20546-0001:
July 13, 2004:
Mr. Bryon Gordon:
Assistant Director, Education Workforce and Income Security Group:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW:
Rm. 5C47:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
NASA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft General
Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled, "Gender Issues: Women's
Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do
More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX" (GAO-04-639).
We agree generally with the report's recommendation that "the
Administrator of NASA implement its compliance review program to ensure
that compliance reviews of grantees are periodically conducted," but
suggest that the recommendation be revised to recognize steps we have
already taken to address the issues you raise.
The following paragraphs provide the suggested revisions to the
report's recommendation regarding NASA, as well as the current status
and planned approach for addressing this recommendation.
Recommendation: GAO recommends that to frilly comply with Title IX
regulations the NASA Administrator should implement its compliance
review program to ensure that Title IX compliance reviews of grantees
are periodically conducted.
This recommendation is consistent with current NASA policy on its
administrative mandates regarding equal opportunity in NASA assisted
and conducted programs and activities. This recommendation validates
and reinforces the importance of activities already underway at NASA to
improve our compliance program for Title IX of the Education Amendments
Act of 1972.
We believe that NASA, while still pursuing important improvements in
our compliance activities regarding Title 1X and other grant related
equal opportunity laws, has already made significant improvements in
its Title IX compliance program. To more accurately describe our
progress in implementing Title 1X compliance policy, we recommend
revising the proposed recommendation in the following manner.
"To fully comply with Title IX regulations the NASA Administrator
should continue to implement the Agency's compliance review program to
ensure that onsite compliance reviews of grantees are periodically
conducted."
During the past year, NASA has taken steps to reactivate its previously
dormant Title IX compliance program. In FY 2003, NASA began
implementing its Title IX compliance program through a desk audit
review of grantee compliance with Title IX regulatory provisions. In
June 2003, NASA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Request
for Information, stating that the information collected would be
"analyzed and used by NASA to determine NASA grant recipients'
compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972." 68 Fed.
Reg. 37866 (June 25, 2003).
In December 2003, the NASA principal compliance officer for Title IX
issued a letter to all NASA grant recipients requesting information on
whether the recipient had, pursuant to Title IX requirements: (1)
designated an employee to act as the "Title IX
coordinator;" (2) adopted and published internal grievance procedures
to promptly and equitably resolve complaints alleging discrimination on
the basis of sex in its education programs or activities; 3) taken
specific steps to regularly and consistently notify the public, i.e.,
participants, employees, applicants, etc., that it does not
discriminate on the basis of sex in the operation of its education
programs and activities, and (4) conducted a self-evaluation to
evaluate current policies and practices and the effects of such
policies and practices on the admission and treatment of students, and
the employment of academic and non-academic personnel working in
connection with the recipient education program or activity.
At present, NASA is reviewing the grant recipient responses to
systematically identify grant recipient compliance, identify problem
areas, and assist in the targeting of recipients for possible onsite
compliance reviews.
Again, thank you for the critical insights the report provided. We
assure you that we are well on our way to fully implementing our Title
IX compliance program.
Cordially,
Signed by:
Frederick D. Gregory:
Deputy Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the National Science Foundation:
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:
4201 WILSON BOULEVARD:
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230:
July 2, 2004:
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft copy of the
report, "Gender Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences Has
Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title
IX (GAO-04-639)."
NSF agrees with the assessment that the participation of women in
mathematics, engineering, and science has increased in the last 32
years, but that participation in education in certain fields, and
advancement in faculty ranks, is still lagging.
The report recommends that NSF ensure that Title IX compliance reviews
of grantees are periodically conducted. We believe that the Department
of Education had agreed to conduct these on behalf of NSF.
Nonetheless, our Office of Equal Opportunity Programs is quite willing
to participate in an effort led by the Department of Justice to develop
new agreements or procedures for coordination of periodical compliance
reviews. We would want to develop an independent review program only in
the context of coordinated efforts, to make the best use of our
resources and to minimize the impact on our grantees.
The report notes that Title IX complaints made to NSF involving
education institutions are referred to Education, and those involving
employment to EEOC. We will continue to rely on investigation services
from those agencies for the small number of complaints we receive.
The report observes that some grantee institutions have not established
procedures for resolving Title IX sex discrimination complaints and
have not adopted or published complaint procedures. Further, they are
not tracking the complaints they do handle. Finally, the report notes
that there is little awareness generally that Title IX applies to
academics and not just sports programs.
NSF Grant Conditions (Grant General Conditions (GC-1), July 2002,
Article 27. Nondiscrimination, and the Federal Demonstration
Partnership Phase IV Operating Procedures, Appendix B) require
compliance with the provisions of Title IX. Nonetheless, we will task
our Policy Office in the Division of Grants and Agreements to explore
the viability of use of additional mechanisms for communicating the
requirements of Title IX compliance to NSF grantees, such as through
outreach and other formal policy issuances.
NSF continues to value and invest in broadening the participation of
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and
engineering. The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act of
1980 (Public Law 96-516) mandated that NSF report statistics on
underrepresented groups and initiate programs fostering more
proportionate participation. Our funding policies, review policies, and
programs continue to implement and embed this important mandate. One of
the four long-term strategic goals in our 2003-2008 Strategic Plan is a
diverse, competitive, and globally-engaged U.S. workforce of
scientists, engineers, technologists, and well-prepared citizens.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Acting Director:
[End of section]
Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Bryon Gordon, Assistant Director (202) 512-9207
Sonya Harmeyer, Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-7128:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Kopp Michelotti, Kelsey Bright, John
Mingus, James Rebbe, Richard Burkard and Sue Bernstein made important
contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For purposes of this report we refer to all mathematics,
engineering, and science programs as "the sciences" and to Education,
Energy, NASA and NSF as "the federal science agencies."
[2] We used the Carnegie Classification of colleges and universities to
categorize institutions of higher education. For purposes of this
report, institutions of higher education classified as doctoral/
research universities are referred to as research universities.
[3] Energy has designated 24 laboratories and technology centers as
their preeminent facilities where more than 30,000 scientists
and engineers perform cutting-edge research. (See app. II for a full
listing of Energy's national laboratories and technology centers.)
[4] The term "compliance review" as we use it in this report refers to
reviews of grantees who have already received grant funding. These
reviews are also known as postaward compliance reviews.
[5] Education published Title IX regulations in 1975, while Energy
published its original regulations in 1980. A final common rule was
published in August 2000 on Title IX enforcement for several agencies,
including NASA and NSF. Energy replaced its previous regulations with
the provisions of the common rule in 2001. The Title IX regulations for
all four agencies that we examined are substantially the same and for
purposes of this report any reference to a regulatory requirement is
applicable to all four agencies. All agencies' Title IX regulations
also incorporate their respective procedural regulations, including
complaint procedure requirements, for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in any
program or activity receiving federal funds.
[6] These agreements cover several civil rights laws, including Title
VI, Title IX, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Section 504 protects individuals from discrimination based on their
disability. The nondiscrimination requirements of the law apply to
employers and organizations that receive financial assistance from any
federal department or agency. Section 504 forbids organizations and
employers from excluding or denying individuals with disabilities an
equal opportunity to receive program benefits and services. It defines
the rights of individuals with disabilities to participate in, and have
access to, program benefits and services.
[7] Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Gender Equity: Men's and Women's
Participation in Higher Education, GAO-01-128 (Washington, D.C.:
December 15, 2000).
[9] U.S. Department of Education, National Center For Education
Statistics, Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of Minority and Women
Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities, NCES 2000-173, (Washington,
D.C.: March, 2000). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Salary
and Other Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty: Fall 1998, NCES
2002-170, (Washington, D.C.: September, 2002). U.S. General Accounting
Office, Women's Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference
between Men's and Women's Earnings, GAO-04-35 (Washington, D.C.:
October 31, 2003). Marcia L. Bellas, "Disciplinary Differences in
Faculty Salaries: Does Gender Bias Play a Role?," The Journal of Higher
Education; May/Jun 1997. Robert K Toutkoushian and Marcia L Bellas,
"The Effects of Part-Time Employment and Gender on Faculty Earnings and
Satisfaction," The Journal of Higher Education; Mar/Apr 2003. Report of
the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities
in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, Land of Plenty:
Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and
Technology (Washington, D.C., September 2000). Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at
MIT: How a Committee on Women Faculty Came to Be Established by the
Dean of the School of Science, What the Committee and the Dean Learned
and Accomplished, and Recommendations for the Future; (Boston, MA,
1999).
[10] NCES 2002-170.
[11] Donna J. Nelson and Diana C. Rogers, A National Analysis of
Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research
Universities, (Norman, OK, 2003).
[12] Toutkoushian and Bellas, 2003.
[13] Most commonly, tenure decisions are made several years after
appointment as assistant professor. In general, if an assistant
professor does not get tenure, the professor must seek employment
elsewhere. To achieve tenure in the sciences, high productivity in
research and publication is required, time-consuming demands that many
academics feel are incompatible with family formation and child-
rearing.
[14] NCES 2002-173.
[15] Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
