https://www.gao.gov Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:17:19 -0400 GAO /images/gao_logo_rss.gif https://www.gao.gov/ Feed provided by GAO. Click to visit. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-564 What GAO Found Limited nationwide data hinder a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and costs of workplace sexual harassment. According to GAO's analysis of available federal data and literature review, the few reliable nationwide estimates of sexual harassment's prevalence vary substantially due to differences in methodology, including the question structure and time period the survey used. Moreover, the likelihood of experiencing workplace sexual harassment can vary based on an individual's demographic characteristics—such as gender, race, and age—and whether the workplace is male- or female-dominated. For example, women, younger workers, and women in male-dominated workplaces were more likely to say they experienced harassment. GAO did not find any recent cost estimates of workplace sexual harassment, but identified four broad categories of costs: health, productivity, career, and reporting and legal costs (see figure). Examples of Costs Associated with Workplace Sexual Harassment The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as part of its mission to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination, maintains data on sexual harassment and retaliation charges filed against employers, but cannot systematically analyze the relationship between the two for all charges filed nationwide. After filing sexual harassment charges or engaging in other protected activity, employees may experience retaliation, such as firing or demotion, and EEOC data show that retaliation charges constitute a growing portion of its workload. EEOC's planning documents highlight its intention to address retaliation and use charge data to inform its outreach to employers. However, while EEOC can review electronic copies of individual charges for details, such as whether a previously filed sexual harassment charge led to a retaliation charge, its data system cannot aggregate this information across all charges. Without the capacity to fully analyze trends in the relationship between sexual harassment and retaliation charges, EEOC may miss opportunities to refine its work with employers to prevent and address retaliation. Experts at GAO's roundtable said nationally representative surveys would help to improve available information on workplace sexual harassment. Expert recommendations focused on three main areas: (1) survey administration and resources, including advantages and disadvantages to various federal roles; (2) methods to collect data, such as using stand-alone surveys or adding questions to existing surveys; and (3) content of data to be collected, including employee and employer characteristics and specific costs. Why GAO Did This Study While many workers in the United States experience workplace sexual harassment—resulting in substantial costs to them and their employers—the extent of sexual harassment and the magnitude of its effects are not fully understood. GAO was asked to examine the extent to which reliable information is available on workplace sexual harassment's prevalence and costs. This report examines (1) what is known about the prevalence and costs of U.S. workplace sexual harassment, including the federal workforce, (2) the extent to which EEOC collects sexual harassment data, and (3) data collection approaches experts recommend to improve available information. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed EEOC data and survey data from other federal agencies, interviewed officials and reviewed documentation from multiple federal agencies, and interviewed experts on sexual harassment. GAO also convened a 2-day roundtable of experts, with assistance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and conducted a literature review. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that EEOC assess the feasibility of systematically analyzing its data on retaliation charges and the associated protected activities, including those related to sexual harassment. EEOC did not state whether or not it concurred with GAO's recommendation. GAO continues to believe this recommendation is appropriate, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Cindy S. Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Wed, 30 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-637 What GAO Found In 2019, the number of women on the boards of directors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two government-sponsored enterprises (enterprises)—were five and three, respectively, slightly higher than in 2011. Female directors held leadership positions on the enterprises' boards for the first time in 2019, serving as vice chair at Fannie Mae and chair at Freddie Mac. The percentage of women in senior management positions remained relatively consistent for 2011 and 2018, while minority representation was higher in 2018 than in 2011 (see figure). The enterprises have implemented leading practices to support workforce diversity, such as career and networking events to recruit diverse populations and employee mentorship programs. Share of Women and Minorities in Senior Management at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 2011 and 2018 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used diverse broker-dealers (such as minority- and women-owned) for financial transactions to a limited extent. In 2019, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both paid about 6 percent of their financial transaction fees to diverse broker-dealers. The enterprises have taken steps to work with diverse broker-dealers more often, such as by lowering some capital requirements to allow participation by typically smaller, less-capitalized diverse broker-dealers. Broker-dealer representatives GAO interviewed said that enterprises had taken steps to increase their participation. However, some representatives noted that additional performance feedback and data on how they compare to larger firms would help them understand what business areas they could improve to meet standards for handling additional, more complex products. The enterprises said that some of the information on other firms is proprietary. In 2017, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) began reviewing the diversity and inclusion efforts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of its annual examinations of the enterprises. In 2017, FHFA found the enterprises generally took steps to promote diversity and inclusion but made recommendations to improve both enterprises' programs. In response, the enterprises have directed more attention and resources to diversity efforts. FHFA officials told GAO the agency planned to review the diversity and inclusion of the enterprises' financial transactions in late 2020 and would update its examination manual to include a focus on activities in this area. Why GAO Did This Study Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises regulated by FHFA that buy and pool mortgages into mortgage-backed securities. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 requires the enterprises to promote diversity and inclusion in employment and related activities. GAO was asked to review the enterprises' diversity and inclusion efforts. This report examines, among other things, (1) trends in the diversity of the enterprises' boards and senior management; (2) the extent to which the enterprises used diverse broker-dealers and implemented practices to promote more diversity; and (3) FHFA oversight of the enterprises' diversity and inclusion efforts. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed enterprise and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data on the enterprises' workforces, boards, and broker-dealers; and reviewed FHFA and enterprise policies and regulations and previous GAO reports on these issues. GAO also interviewed FHFA and enterprise staff and a nongeneralizable sample of external stakeholders knowledgeable about broker-dealer diversity. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at (202) 512-8678 or ClementsM@gao.gov. Tue, 08 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-600 What GAO Found The Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Interior (Interior), and Education (Education) administered at least 38 grant programs from fiscal years 2015 through 2018 that could have helped prevent or address delinquency among Native American youth. These agencies made about $1.9 billion in awards to grantees through these programs during this period. These agencies incorporated almost all of the leading practices GAO identified for performance measurement or program evaluation when assessing the performance of selected grant programs. For example, HHS's Administration for Children and Families (ACF) incorporated 13 of the 14 leading practices for performance measurement but did not fully assess grantee data reliability for one of its programs. By developing a process to assess the reliability of grantee data contained in the annual performance reports that tribal recipients submit, ACF could obtain further assurance that it has an accurate representation of grantee performance. GAO also found that Interior's Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) did not conduct formal data reliability checks on performance data that grantees report and did not always collect performance reports from grantees in a timely manner for one of its programs. By developing a process to assess the reliability of a sample of grantee performance data and taking steps to alert grantees when they are late in submitting performance reports, BIE could better ensure that grantees are complying with the terms and conditions of the grant program and better understand how the program and its grantees are performing. Officials in all 12 interviews with tribes or tribal consortia GAO interviewed cited risk factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency in their communities. Number of Interviews in Which Tribal Officials Cited Risk Factors Contributing to Juvenile Delinquency Note: The figure includes the most common risk factors tribal officials cited for juvenile delinquency. While tribal officials cited restrictions placed on federal grant funding, difficulty communicating with program staff, and challenges hiring and retaining staff as barriers to implementing federal programs, they also identified promising practices, such as executing culturally relevant programs, for preventing or addressing juvenile delinquency. Why GAO Did This Study Federal and other studies have noted that exposure to violence and substance abuse make Native American youth susceptible to becoming involved with the justice system. GAO was asked to examine federal and tribal efforts to address juvenile delinquency and the barriers tribes face in doing so. This report examines (1) federal financial assistance targeting tribes that could prevent or address juvenile delinquency; (2) the extent to which federal agencies assess the performance of selected grant programs and incorporate leading practices; and (3) the juvenile delinquency challenges tribes report facing. GAO identified relevant grant programs during fiscal years 2015 through 2018—the most recent data available when GAO began the review. GAO analyzed documents and interviewed agency officials to determine how they assessed grant program performance and conducted interviews with 10 tribes and two tribal consortia to discuss challenges with delinquency. What GAO Recommends GAO is making three recommendations, including that relevant HHS and Interior offices develop a process to assess the reliability of tribal grantee performance information and that an Interior office take steps to alert grantees that are late in submitting progress reports. Interior concurred with the two recommendations. HHS disagreed with GAO's recommendation. GAO clarified the recommendation to HHS and continues to believe it is warranted. For more information, contact Gretta L. Goodwin, (202) 512-8777, or GoodwinG@gao.gov. Thu, 06 Aug 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-654T What GAO Found According to data from the most recent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) survey in 2016, an estimated 22 percent of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees, and 14 percent of federal employees overall, experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace from mid-2014 through mid-2016. VA has policies to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace, but some aspects of the policies and of the complaint processes may hinder those efforts. Misalignment of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Director position: VA's EEO Director oversees both the EEO complaint process, which includes addressing sexual harassment complaints, and general personnel functions. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), this dual role does not adhere to one of its key directives and creates a potential conflict of interest when handling EEO issues. Incomplete or outdated policies and information: VA has an overarching policy for its efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment of its employees. However, some additional policies and information documents are not consistent with VA's overarching policy, are outdated, or are missing information. For example, they may not include all options employees have for reporting sexual harassment, which could result in confusion among employees and managers. Delayed finalization of Harassment Prevention Program (HPP): VA has not formally approved the directive or the implementing guidance for its 4-year-old HPP, which seeks to prevent harassment and address it before it becomes unlawful. Lack of formal approval could limit the program's effectiveness. VA uses complaint data to understand the extent of sexual harassment at the agency, but such data are incomplete. For example, VA compiles information on allegations made through the EEO process and HPP, but does not require managers who receive complaints to report them to VA centrally. As a result, VA is not aware of all sexual harassment allegations across the agency. Without these data, VA may miss opportunities to better track prevalence and to improve its efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment. VA provides training for all employees and managers, but the required training does not have in-depth information on identifying and addressing sexual harassment and does not mention HPP. Some facilities within VA's administrations supplement the training, but providing additional information is not mandatory. Requiring additional training on sexual harassment could improve VA employees' knowledge of the agency's policies and help prevent and address sexual harassment. Why GAO Did This Study In June 2020, GAO issued a report entitled Sexual Harassment: Inconsistent and Incomplete Policies and Information Hinder VA's Efforts to Protect Employees (GAO-20-387). This testimony summarizes the findings and recommendations from that report, including (1) the extent to which VA has policies to prevent and address sexual harassment of VA employees, (2) how available data inform VA about sexual harassment of its employees, and (3) training VA provides to employees on preventing and addressing sexual harassment. What GAO Recommends GAO made seven recommendations in its June 2020 report, including that VA ensure its EEO Director position is not responsible for personnel functions; require managers to report all sexual harassment complaints centrally; and require additional employee training. VA concurred with all but the EEO Director position recommendation, which GAO continues to believe is warranted. For more information, contact Cindy S. Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-448 What GAO Found Two-thirds of U.S. public school districts have schools with physical barriers that may limit access for people with disabilities, according to GAO's survey of district officials. Barriers, such as a lack of accessible door hardware and steep ramps, can make it challenging for students, teachers, and others with disabilities to use public school facilities (see fig.). In 55 schools across six states, the most common areas with barriers GAO observed were restrooms, interior doorways, and classrooms. GAO also observed barriers related to safety and security. For example, for security, some schools had installed double-door vestibules with limited maneuvering space that could trap people who use wheelchairs. Examples of Doorway and Auditorium Barriers GAO Observed in Schools Note: Barriers presented in this figure potentially limit physical access for people with disabilities, but taken alone, would not necessarily establish whether a legal violation has occurred. An estimated 70 percent of districts had large-scale renovations, small-scale upgrades, or accessibility evaluations planned in the next 3 calendar years, but frequently cited funding constraints as a challenge to these efforts. Districts also identified the need to prioritize projects that keep buildings operational, such as roofing and heating projects. In addition, GAO's survey, observations during site visits, and interviews with national disability groups revealed a tension between making safety and security upgrades and improving physical accessibility. The Department of Justice (Justice) has not provided technical assistance on physical accessibility in schools, and GAO's surveys indicate such help is needed. Justice has authority to provide information on interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), including for public schools, and it has provided technical assistance regarding other public facilities, such as stadiums. In addition, Justice, along with the Department of Education (Education) and other federal agencies, recently launched a new website on school safety, but it does not include specific information on how to improve accessibility of public school facilities or provide information on ADA requirements in the context of school safety upgrades. Without such information, federal agencies may miss opportunities to help ensure that people with disabilities have safe and secure access to public school facilities. Why GAO Did This Study National reports have raised concerns about the physical accessibility of public school facilities for people with disabilities. These facilities serve important roles as schools, voting locations, and emergency shelters, among other things. GAO was asked to examine the physical accessibility of public school facilities. This report examines the extent to which (1) school districts have school facilities with physical barriers that may limit access for people with disabilities, (2) districts plan to improve the accessibility of school facilities and the challenges they face, and (3) Justice and Education assist districts and states in improving school facilities' physical accessibility. GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of school districts; surveyed states and the District of Columbia; examined 55 schools across six states, selected for variation in size and other characteristics; reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; and interviewed federal, state, and school district officials, and national disability groups. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that Justice work with Education to (1) provide information specific to accessibility of public school facilities and (2) provide information on federal accessibility requirements in the context of public school safety and security. Justice neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-477 What GAO Found The overall proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) full-time, permanent, career workforce increased from 33 to 37 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018. The direction of change for specific groups varied. For instance, the proportion of Hispanics rose from 3 to 6 percent, while the proportion of African Americans fell from 26 to 21 percent. The proportions of racial or ethnic minorities were generally smaller in higher ranks. During this period, the overall proportion of women increased from 51 to 54 percent, reflecting their growing proportion in USAID's Foreign Service. Racial or Ethnic Groups in USAID's Workforce in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2018 Promotion outcomes at USAID were generally lower for racial and ethnic minorities than for whites in early to mid career. When controlling for factors such as occupation, GAO found statistically significant odds of promotion in the Civil Service were 31 to 41 percent lower for racial or ethnic minorities than for whites in early and mid career. In the Foreign Service, average promotion rates were lower for racial or ethnic minorities in early to mid career, but differences were generally not statistically significant when GAO controlled for various factors. USAID has previously identified underrepresentation of specific groups in its workforce, but staffing gaps, partly due to a lack of senior leadership attention, prevent the agency from consistently performing required Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activities. The Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD), responsible for USAID's EEO program, has been significantly understaffed. Vacancy rates in most OCRD divisions were 50 percent or higher in November 2019 and, despite attempts to hire more staff, remained at 30 to 50 percent as of April 2020. These staffing gaps have limited OCRD's capacity to process EEO complaints and investigations within mandated timeframes and analyze USAID's demographic data. Staffing gaps also prevented OCRD from submitting required reporting on the status of its EEO program in fiscal year 2018. A lack of consistent leadership in OCRD as well as a lack of senior USAID leadership attention to diversity has contributed to OCRD's staffing gaps. As a result, USAID lacks the capacity to respond to allegations of discrimination, identify potential barriers to equal employment opportunity, and submit required annual reports on the progress of its diversity and inclusion efforts in a timely manner—all of which are required EEO functions. Why GAO Did This Study USAID has a stated commitment to fostering an inclusive workforce that reflects the diversity of the United States and has undertaken efforts to increase diversity in its Civil and Foreign Services. However, concerns about the demographic composition of USAID's workforce are longstanding. GAO was asked to review issues related to the diversity of USAID's workforce. This report examines, among other things, the demographic composition of USAID's workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018, differences between promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities, and the extent to which USAID has identified workforce diversity issues and worked to address those issues. GAO analyzed USAID's personnel data for its full-time, permanent, career workforce for fiscal years 2002 through 2018—the most recent available data. GAO's analyses do not completely explain the reasons for differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from various unobservable factors. Thus, GAO's analyses do not establish a causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion outcomes. GAO also reviewed USAID documents and interviewed USAID officials and members of 13 employee groups. What GAO Recommends GAO is making four recommendations to USAID, including three to perform required EEO activities and one to demonstrate senior leadership attention to diversity efforts. USAID concurred with the recommendations. For more information, contact Jason Bair at (202) 512-6881 or bairj@gao.gov. Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-515T What GAO Found The overall proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in the Department of State's (State) full-time, permanent, career workforce grew from 28 to 32 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018. The direction of change for specific groups varied. For instance, the proportion of African Americans fell from 17 to 15 percent, while the proportions of Hispanics, Asians, and other racial or ethnic minorities rose by varying percentages. The proportion of racial or ethnic minorities and women was lowest in the higher ranks of State's workforce. Diversity in State Department Workforce in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2018 GAO's analyses of State data for fiscal years 2002 through 2018 found differences in promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities and whites and for men and women. GAO found these differences in both descriptive analyses (calculating simple averages) and adjusted analyses (controlling for certain individual and occupational factors that could influence promotion). For example, GAO's descriptive analysis of data for State's Civil Service found that rates of promotion for racial or ethnic minorities were 16 to 42 percent lower, depending on the rank, than for whites. Similarly, after controling for certain additional factors, GAO's adjusted analysis of these data found that promotion for racial or ethnic minorites was 4 to 29 percent less likely than for whites. Also, both types of analysis generally found that promotion outcomes for women relative to men were lower in the Civil Service and higher in the Foreign Service. For example, women in the Foreign Service were more likely than men to be promoted in early to mid career. State has identified some diversity issues, but it should consider other issues that could indicate potential barriers to diversity in its workforce. State's annual reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for fiscal years 2009 through 2018 identified issues such as underrepresentation of Hispanic employees and underrepresentation of minorities in the senior ranks. However, GAO's analysis and GAO's interviews with State employee groups highlighted additional issues that could indicate barriers to diversity. For example, State's reports have not identified lower promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities relative to whites, which GAO found in its analysis. Until State takes steps to explore such issues, it could be missing opportunities to investigate and remove barriers that impede members of some demographic groups from realizing their full potential. Why GAO Did This Study State has expressed a commitment to maintaining a diverse workforce and has undertaken efforts to increase diversity in its Civil and Foreign Services. EEOC directs federal agencies to regularly evaluate their employment practices to identify barriers to equal opportunity, take measures to eliminate any barriers, and report annually on these efforts. This testimony examines (1) the demographic composition of State's workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018; (2) any differences in promotion outcomes for various demographic groups in State's workforce; and (3) the extent to which State has identified any barriers to diversity in its workforce. For the January 2020 report on which this testimony is based (GAO-20-237), GAO analyzed State's data for its full-time, permanent, career workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018. GAO also analyzed the number of years until promotion from early career ranks to the executive rank in both the Civil and Foreign Services. (GAO's analyses do not completely explain the reasons for differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from various unobservable factors. Thus, GAO's analyses do not establish a causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion outcomes.) In addition, GAO reviewed State documents and interviewed State officials and employee group representatives. What GAO Recommends In its January 2020 report, GAO recommended that State take additional steps to identify diversity issues that could indicate potential barriers to equal opportunity in its workforce. State concurred with this recommendation. For more information, contact Jason Bair at (202) 512-6881 or bairj@gao.gov. Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-648T What GAO Found In May 2019, GAO found that the military services did not collect consistent information about race and ethnicity in their investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. Thus, the military services are limited in their ability to identify disparities (i.e., instances in which a racial or ethnic group was overrepresented) in the military justice system. The military services were not required to, and thus did not, report demographic information that would provide greater visibility into potential disparities in their annual military justice reports. GAO's analysis of available data identified disparities in how likely servicemembers of different races were to be subjects of investigations recorded in military criminal investigative organization databases and tried in general and special courts-martial in particular. For example, in three military services, Black servicemembers were about twice as likely as White servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts-martial. Racial disparities generally were not present in convictions or punishments. These findings show an association for disparities at particular stages of the military justice process, but are inconclusive regarding other stages. However, GAO's findings of racial disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred, as that is a legal determination that would involve other corroborating information and supporting statistics. Likelihood That Servicemembers Were Subjects of Recorded Investigations and Tried in General and Special Courts-Martial, Fiscal Years 2013-2017 Note: These analyses, taken alone, should not be used to make conclusions about the presence of unlawful discrimination. These multivariate regression analysis results estimate whether a racial group is more likely or less likely to be the subject of an investigation or a trial in general or special courts-martial after controlling for race, gender, rank, and education, and in the Air Force, years of service. GAO made all racial comparisons to White servicemembers, and grouped individuals of Hispanic ethnicity together, regardless of race. The Other race category includes individuals who identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and multiple races. The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken some steps to study disparities but has not comprehensively evaluated the causes of racial disparities in the military justice system. Doing so would better position DOD to identify actions to address disparities and to help ensure the military justice system is fair and just. Why GAO Did This Study The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was established to provide a statutory framework that promotes fair administration of military justice. Every active-duty servicemember is subject to the UCMJ, with more than 258,000 individuals disciplined from fiscal years 2013-2017, out of more than 2.3 million unique active-duty servicemembers. A key principle of the UCMJ is that a fair and just system of military law can foster a highly disciplined force. This statement provides information on 1) the collection of race and ethnicity information in the military services' databases, 2) the extent of racial disparities in investigations, disciplinary actions, and case outcomes in the military justice system, and 3) steps taken by DOD to study any identified disparities. This statement is based on GAO -19-344 issued on May 30, 2019. As part of that work, GAO analyzed data from the investigations, military justice, and personnel databases from the military services, including the Coast Guard, from fiscal years 2013-2017 and interviewed agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO made 11 recommendations in prior work, including that the military services develop the capability to present consistent race and ethnicity data, and DOD and the Coast Guard include demographic information in military justice annual reports and evaluate the causes of disparities. DOD and the Coast Guard generally concurred. Progress has been made in addressing some of the recommendations. Continued attention is needed to ensure that the remainder of these recommendations are addressed. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-387 What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has policies to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace, but some aspects of the policies and of the complaint processes may hinder those efforts. Misalignment of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Director position: VA's EEO Director oversees both the EEO complaint process, which includes addressing sexual harassment complaints, and general personnel functions. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), this dual role does not adhere to one of its key directives and creates a potential conflict of interest when handling EEO issues because the EEO process often scrutinizes and challenges the impacts of personnel decisions. Incomplete or outdated policies and information: VA has an overarching policy that outlines its efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment of its employees. However, some additional policies and information documents at the agency and administration levels are not consistent with VA's overarching policy, and are outdated or are missing information. For example, they may not include all options employees have for reporting sexual harassment, which could result in confusion among employees and managers. Delayed finalization of Harassment Prevention Program (HPP): VA has not formally approved the directive or the implementing guidance for the 4-year-old HPP, which is intended to prevent harassment and address it before it becomes unlawful; lack of formal approval could limit the program's effectiveness. VA uses complaint data to understand the extent of sexual harassment and target resources to prevent and address it. However, such data are incomplete. For example, VA compiles information on allegations made through the EEO process and HPP (e.g., 180 sexual harassment cases were filed through the EEO process and HPP in fiscal year 2019), but does not require managers who receive complaints to report them to VA centrally. As a result, VA is not aware of all sexual harassment allegations across the agency. Without these data, VA may miss opportunities to better target its resources and to prevent and address sexual harassment. VA provides training to its employees, but the required training does not have in-depth information on identifying and addressing sexual harassment. These trainings have one or no sexual harassment scenarios to help employees understand prohibited behaviors and do not mention HPP. Some facilities within VA's administrations—which include the Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration, and National Cemetery Administration—supplement the training, but providing additional information is not mandatory. Requiring broader training material, such as with more examples of sexual harassment and information on HPP, could improve VA employees' knowledge of the agency's sexual harassment policies and could help to prevent sexual harassment or ensure that it is properly handled when it does occur. Why GAO Did This Study According to estimates from a recent federal survey, 18 to 27 percent of VA employees experienced some form of sexual harassment at work from mid-2014 through mid-2016. Sexual harassment negatively affects employees and employers and, if severe or pervasive, can constitute unlawful employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. GAO was asked to review VA's efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment of its employees. This report examines (1) the extent to which VA has policies to prevent and address sexual harassment, (2) how available data inform VA about sexual harassment, and (3) the extent to which VA provides training to employees on preventing and addressing sexual harassment. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and policy and program documents; analyzed VA complaint data for fiscal years 2014 through 2019 and data from a 2016 federal survey; and interviewed VA officials at headquarters and select facilities across VA, two union officials, and EEOC officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making seven recommendations, including that VA ensure that its EEO Director position is not responsible for personnel functions; require managers to report sexual harassment centrally; and require additional employee training. VA concurred with all but the EEO Director position recommendation, which GAO continues to believe is warranted. For more information, contact Cindy S. Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-384 What GAO Found Approximately 143,600 persons with disabilities were hired during 2011 through 2015—plus an additional 79,600 hires in 2016 and 2017—across the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, exceeding the stated goal of 100,000 by 2015. The Federal Government Generally Increased Hiring of Persons with Disabilities, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2017 About 39 percent of individuals with disabilities hired during 2011 through 2017 stayed less than 1 year and approximately 60 percent stayed less than 2 years. Of the total individuals without disabilities hired during that same time period, approximately 43 percent stayed less than 1 year and approximately 60 percent stayed less than 2 years. Although targeted data tracking and analyses could help pinpoint root causes contributing to departure rates, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) does not track or report retention data on disabled employees. Doing so, and making such data available to agencies would facilitate more comprehensive analyses of the retention of employees with disabilities and identify needed improvements. Officials at three agencies GAO examined—Department of Justice (DOJ), Small Business Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration (SSA)—used various practices to increase hiring, such as training staff on Schedule A—a commonly used hiring authority to employ individuals with disabilities. However, the agencies neither assess the impact of training nor how it relates to contributing to performance goals of increasing the number of disabled hires. Agencies are expected to track performance related to providing reasonable accommodations. The selected agencies reported having processes in place for receiving reasonable accommodations requests, but only SSA has procedures for obtaining feedback from employees after an accommodation is provided. Without such feedback, DOJ and SBA are limited in their ability to assess the continued effectiveness of reasonable accommodations provided to employees. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies are required to provide equal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of federal employment. GAO was asked to examine agencies' efforts to increase the employment of individuals with disabilities. Among other objectives, this report examines: (1) the extent to which agencies met the 2010 federal goal to hire an additional 100,000 individuals with disabilities by 2015, and the retention rates of those employees between 2011 and 2017; and (2) practices selected agencies used to increase hiring and retention of individuals with disabilities. GAO analyzed data and documents from OPM and interviewed agency officials. GAO interviewed officials from DOJ, SBA, and SSA about their efforts to enhance employment opportunities for disabled persons. GAO selected these three agencies because they represent a range of agency size and relatively high or low percentages of total employees with disabilities. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 6 recommendations: OPM should track and report retention data; DOJ, SBA, and SSA should assess training impacts; and DOJ and SBA should obtain employee feedback on reasonable accommodations. OPM and SSA concurred with GAO's recommendations; SBA concurred with one and partially concurred with one recommendation; DOJ did not agree or disagree with the recommendations. GAO continues to believe all recommendations are warranted. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov. Thu, 11 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-358 What GAO Found Schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide services for eligible students with disabilities, such as learning disabilities or health impairments. Services for these students are listed in individualized education programs (IEP). GAO found that BIE schools did not provide or did not account for 38 percent of special education and related service time for students with disabilities, according to analysis of school documentation for a 4-month review period (see fig.). This included one school that did not provide any services to three students. While BIE has plans to improve documentation of such services, it has not established whether and when missed services should be made up, which has led to inconsistent practices among schools. Establishing consistent requirements for making up missed services could help students receive the special education and related services they need to make academic progress. Percentage of Special Education and Related Service Time Provided by Bureau of Indian Education Schools to Eligible Students (between October 2017 and February 2018) Note: Estimates included in this figure have a margin of error at the 95 percent confidence level of plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer. BIE's limited monitoring and technical assistance have hindered its oversight and support for special education at schools. For example: A division of BIE responsible for overseeing about half of all BIE schools decided to verify the provision of special education services at only one-third of its schools per year, although the Department of the Interior (Interior) requires BIE to annually verify the provision of services at all schools. BIE provided required monitoring reports late and did not provide required technical assistance plans to 14 schools that BIE determined were at high risk of not complying with IDEA and other federal education programs in school year 2018-2019. BIE officials said that the field office staff responsible for working with schools on special education often do not have the requisite expertise, which has hampered their oversight and support to schools. Without verifying special education services at every school annually, following high-risk monitoring and technical assistance requirements, and providing training to its staff, BIE cannot ensure that the schools it funds are meeting their responsibilities under IDEA. Strengthening such oversight and support activities can help BIE as it works to address the unique needs of students with disabilities to help prepare them for future education, employment, and independent living. Why GAO Did This Study BIE funds 185 elementary and secondary schools that serve more than 6,000 Native American students with special needs. The Department of Education has raised concerns about BIE's implementation of IDEA in recent years, including its long-standing noncompliance with IDEA requirements. GAO was asked to examine the provision of special education and related services to eligible BIE students. This report examines the extent to which (1) BIE students with disabilities are provided the special education and related services required by their IEPs, and (2) BIE oversees and supports the provision of special education at its schools. GAO analyzed data on special education and related services for a generalizable sample of 138 BIE students with IEPs at 30 schools over a 4-month period in school year 2017-2018 (the most recent complete school year at the time of our analysis); compared BIE special education practices with its policies and Interior and IDEA requirements; visited schools in two states selected for their large numbers of BIE schools; and interviewed school and agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making seven recommendations, including that BIE establish consistent requirements for schools on making up missed services, annually verify special education services at all schools, comply with high-risk monitoring and technical assistance requirements, and ensure that BIE staff receive needed training. Interior agreed with the recommendations. For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-61 What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) experienced slight increases in the overall percentage of female active-duty servicemembers from fiscal year 2004 through 2018 (15.1 percent in fiscal year 2004 to 16.5 percent in fiscal year 2018), with those percentages varying by pay grade category (see figure). During that period, female enlisted and commissioned officers had higher annual attrition rates than corresponding males. However, the gaps between male and female attrition rates have narrowed. For example, in fiscal years 2004 and 2018, female enlisted servicemembers' annual attrition rates were 33.1 and 8.6 percent, respectively, and enlisted males' annual attrition rates were 22.7 and 6.1 percent respectively. GAO's statistical model found that the likelihood of separation for female servicemembers is 28 percent higher than that of males. GAO's literature review of selected studies on reasons why females separate from the military identifed six themes, including family planning, sexual assualt, and dependent care, as influencing separations. Gender Representation in the U.S. Military by Pay Grade, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2018 GAO's analysis of fiscal year 2004 through 2018 data estimated that promotion rates were slightly lower for female enlisted in most years, but higher for officers as compared to their male counterparts. Specifically, female enlisted promotion rates ranged from 0.1 to 2.5 percentage points lower than male enlisted promotion rates during much of that period. However, from fiscal year 2004 through 2018, female commissioned officer promotion rates ranged from 3.3 to 5.3 percentage points higher than the rates of their male counterparts. GAO's statistical model also estimated that the likelihood of promotion outcomes varies by certain characteristics, such as gender and pay grade. For example, GAO estimated that the likelihood of promotion for female enlisted in the Navy may be lower than male enlisted, and the evidence is mixed for the other services. DOD has identified female recruitment and retention as important to diversity in the military, but the services do not have plans that include goals, performance measures, and timeframes to guide and monitor current or future efforts to recruit and retain females. According to officials, DOD is currently updating its diversity and inclusion strategic plan; however, neither its prior plan nor the updated plan include goals, such as recruitment or retention goals, performance measures, and timelines for any one particular demographic group. DOD officials stated that retention goals have, in the past, been misconstrued as quotas and, as such, the department does not set goals or targets for gender. However, goals are not quotas and can help guide continued improvement. Without DOD guidance and service plans with goals, performance measures, and timeframes to monitor female recruitment and retention efforts, DOD may continue to miss opportunities to recruit and retain a valuable segment for its active-duty force. Why GAO Did This Study The role of female servicemembers in the military has expanded in the last half century as restrictions on female servicemembers serving on active duty, including in combat, have been eliminated. DOD has also stated that recruiting and retaining women is important in order to reflect the nation's population and ensure strong military leadership. House Report 115-676 includes a provision that GAO review female retention and promotion in the military. This report examines (1) trends in the percentage of female active-duty servicemembers in the military and their attrition rates, including reported factors leading to attrition; (2) how female active-duty servicemember promotion rates compare with those of males and among females with differing characteristics, and what factors influence these rates; and (3) the extent to which DOD and the military services have plans to guide and monitor female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention. GAO analyzed fiscal year 2004 through 2018 personnel data to identify attrition and promotion rates and conducted statistical modeling to determine the likelihood of separation and promotion, reviewed DOD reports and other literature on servicemember attrition, and interviewed officials from DOD and other military organizations. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOD provide the services with guidance to develop plans with goals, performance measures, and timelines to address female recruitment and retention efforts, and for the services to develop such plans. DOD concurred with the recommendations. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-345 What GAO Found The Department of Education's (Education) quality control processes for data it collects from public school districts on incidents of restraint and seclusion are largely ineffective or do not exist, according to GAO's analysis of school year 2015-16 federal restraint and seclusion data—the most recent available. Specifically, Education's data quality control processes were insufficient to detect problematic data in its Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)—data Education uses in its efforts to enforce federal civil rights laws (see figure). For example, one rule Education used to check the quality of data submitted only applied to very large school districts, although GAO and Education's own analyses found erroneous reporting in districts of all sizes. Education also had no rules that flagged outliers that might warrant further exploration, such as districts reporting relatively low or high rates of restraint or seclusion. GAO tested for these outliers and found patterns in some school districts of relatively low and high rates of restraint or seclusion. Absent more effective rules to improve data quality, determining the frequency and prevalence of restraint and seclusion will remain difficult. Further, Education will continue to lack information that could help it enforce various federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination. Data Quality Issues GAO Identified in Department of Education 2015-16 CRDC Restraint and Seclusion Data Note: All analyses used public-use file, except illogical data, which used a restricted-use file. Officials in the nine school districts GAO visited lacked a common understanding of the CRDC's restraint and seclusion definitions. Similarly, officials GAO interviewed in all three state educational agencies (Kentucky, Washington, and Wisconsin) and all seven stakeholder groups expressed similar concerns about the clarity of these definitions. For example, officials inconsistently interpreted the word alone in the definition of seclusion and, therefore, on whether to count an incident if a teacher was in the room. Absent clearer definitions, Education will continue to lack quality information on restraint and seclusion in public schools. Officials in school districts GAO visited identified several benefits to collecting these data, including identifying patterns in student behavior and developing interventions that can reduce the need for restraint and seclusion. Officials also said that analyzing their data helped them identify needs for additional staff training and student support services. Why GAO Did This Study Every 2 years, Education requires nearly all school districts to report incidents of restraint and seclusion. Generally, restraint is restricting a student's ability to move, and seclusion is confining them alone in a space they cannot leave. The House Committee on Appropriations' explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 included a provision for GAO to evaluate the CRDC's restraint and seclusion data. This report examines (1) the effectiveness of CRDC data quality control procedures, (2) selected districts' interpretation of CRDC's restraint and seclusion definitions, and (3) selected districts' use of data. GAO analyzed CRDC's quality control processes for school year 2015-16, and interviewed officials from seven stakeholder groups and over 50 school and district officials in three states. GAO selected states, districts, and schools to obtain a range of perspectives on using restraint and seclusion data and interpreting CRDC definitions of restraint and seclusion. Selection criteria included changes in reported incidents year to year and laws requiring districts to report incidents to states. What GAO Recommends GAO made six recommendations, including that Education expand its CRDC business rules to cover all districts, develop additional quality controls to address misreporting, address factors underlying misreporting, and refine and clarify its definitions. Education agreed with these recommendations. For more information, contact Jacqueline Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-308 What GAO Found The Department of the Interior's (Interior) Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) does not have key information to manage the Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) program which provides supplemental education services to meet the specialized and unique needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students. For example, BIE does not maintain a complete and accurate list of all its JOM contractors, who provide services including targeted academic supports, Native language classes, and cultural activities. In May 2019, BIE began to identify all the contractors, but officials acknowledged that their list is still incomplete, and GAO found problems with the list, such as duplicate entries. Federal internal control standards state that an agency should have relevant, reliable information to run its operations. Maintaining a complete list of contractors would improve BIE's administration of the JOM program. BIE does not provide any training for JOM contractors. For example, BIE does not provide training to contractors on how to effectively manage their JOM programs or meet program requirements. By providing training for contractors, BIE could ensure that contractors understand the program and are equipped to provide services to meet the educational needs of their students. In addition, BIE has not clearly defined the roles and responsibilities or identified the staff needed to effectively administer the JOM program (see figure). For example, when BIE closed a field office in California, staff were not identified to administer the office's contracts, including helping contractors renew their contracts when they expired. Also, BIE has not identified a role for Interior's attorneys in reviewing the contracts and some contractors have types of contracts for which they are not eligible. Further, BIE has not identified staff to conduct consistent program oversight, which is important to mitigating the risk of misuse and abuse of JOM funds. Until all JOM roles and responsibilities have been defined and identified, challenges may persist. Why GAO Did This Study American Indian and Alaska Native students enrolled in public schools have performed consistently below other students on national assessments from 2005-2019. The JOM program provides academic and cultural supports, through contracts, to meet the specialized and unique educational needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students enrolled in public schools and select private schools. In fiscal year 2019, Interior allocated about $23 million for the JOM program, according to Interior's budget documentation. GAO was asked to review issues related to Interior's JOM program, administered by BIE. This report examines the extent to which BIE (1) has key program information, (2) provides training to JOM contractors, and (3) clearly defines and identifies JOM roles and responsibilities. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and both BIE and JOM contractor documents; analyzed existing data and information on JOM; and interviewed agency officials, five JOM contractors of different types, and two nonprofit organizations selected for their knowledge of the JOM program. What GAO Recommends GAO is making five recommendations, including that the Director of BIE should maintain an accurate and complete list of JOM contractors, develop JOM training, and clearly define roles and responsibilities and identify staff for carrying out JOM functions. Interior agreed with the recommendations. For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or EmreyArrasM@gao.gov. Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-414R What GAO Found The Smithsonian Institution is the world's largest museum, education, and research complex. It has several thousand employees and supports or funds thousands of affiliated persons—a term Smithsonian officials use to cover all personnel working with the Smithsonian who are not employees, including contractors and volunteers. The Smithsonian provides two non-mutually exclusive processes for addressing allegations of sexual harassment for both affiliated persons and employees, according to officials (see table). The first process, developed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and implemented by the Smithsonian's Office of Equal Employment and Minority Affairs, addresses formal complaints made to this office. The second, known as the management process, addresses complaints made to unit supervisors. Use of one or both processes for resolving a complaint is up to the preference of the employee or affiliated person filing the complaint. While the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission establishes guidance on the first process, the Smithsonian does not provide specific written guidance to supervisors on how to address complaints of sexual harassment under the second process, which is inconsistent with federal internal control standards. Supervisors might be better prepared for addressing and responding to sexual harassment complaints with specific written guidance. Nor are there procedures or processes for tracking complaints raised through that process, inconsistent with the institution's strategic plan. The Smithsonian's 2022 Strategic Plan calls for greater collaboration and coordination between central administration and other parts of the institution, and tracking could help central administration monitor trends and ensure that complaints are addressed. Smithsonian Processes for Addressing Allegations of Sexual Harassment Equal Employment Opportunity process Management process   Implemented by the Smithsonian Office of Equal Employment and Minority Affairs Follows the process outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission per federal law Can address formal complaints made under Title VII Implemented by Smithsonian supervisors within the units— such as museums and research institutes Focuses on matching discipline to the level of offense Complaints are not considered formal, nor are they tracked Source: GAO analysis of Smithsonian Institution documentation and interviews. I GAO-20-414R The Smithsonian has hiring, appointment, and training policies for employees and affiliated persons—specifically, academic appointees such as interns, fellows, and research associates—to help prevent sexual harassment. According to officials, all Smithsonian units are required to follow policies for hiring employees that encourage managers to check references at a candidate's prior workplace. Policies for appointees typically also require reference checks. In addition, academic appointees and employees receive information regarding the Smithsonian's prevention policies primarily through mandatory workplace harassment training, new personnel paperwork, and agency-wide directives. Why GAO Did This Study Increasingly, studies and news reports are highlighting the pervasiveness of sexual misconduct in the scientific community, particularly in academic and research settings. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex—including sexual harassment. The Smithsonian, while not a federal grant-making agency, was established by Congress and supports a wide variety of scientific research and programs across a multitude of museums, research institutes, and research offices. GAO was asked to review how the institution responds to allegations of sexual harassment and the agency's sexual harassment prevention efforts through hiring and training policies. This report examines: (1) the extent to which the Smithsonian has processes in place to respond to allegations of sexual harassment by employees and affiliated persons, and (2) the extent to which the Smithsonian has hiring, appointment, and training policies in place to prevent sexual harassment for employees and affiliated persons—particularly academic appointees. GAO reviewed agencies' relevant regulations and documentation and interviewed Smithsonian officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making three recommendations to the Smithsonian, including updating guidance for supervisors on how to address sexual harassment complaints and establishing a tracking mechanism for sexual harassment complaints filed with supervisors. The Smithsonian agreed with all three recommendations and created and staffed a position to coordinate its future actions to implement them. For more information, contact John Neumann at (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov. Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-310 Why This Matters States use their accountability systems to identify low-performing schools, which can receive added support and are expected to improve. Alternative schools serve students whose needs are not met in a regular school. They often serve at-risk students who are struggling academically or behaviorally. Given this unique population, we looked at how states hold alternative schools accountable. Key Takeaways Our review of 15 selected state accountability systems—used to assess all types of schools—found that all 15 include at least one indicator that research organizations and relevant studies considered useful in capturing alternative school achievement. For example: Eleven of the fifteen states use college and career readiness indicators. These indicators may capture achievements (e.g., industry-recognized certifications, internships) that prepare high school students for a career rather than higher education. Alternative schools commonly have a career focus. Ten of the fifteen states use extended-year graduation rates. Students at alternative schools may be behind on credits or face trauma and other challenges that can hinder learning. We found that alternative high schools have substantially lower 4-year graduation rates. So, some states’ practice of measuring graduation rates past the standard 4years may capture additional alternative school performance. We also found a few states that, as part of their accountability system, adopted approaches to differentiate alternative schools when identifying them for support and improvement. For example, when identifying the lowest performing 5 percent of schools, Idaho groups alternative schools separately from nonalternative ones. Distribution of Alternative K-12 Public Schools How GAO Did This Study We analyzed the Department of Education’s most recent alternative school data; reviewed federal laws and accountability systems from 15 states with the most alternative schools; and interviewed federal and selected state, school district, and school officials in three states. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Fri, 27 Mar 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-187 What GAO Found The five agencies GAO reviewed provided approximately 80 percent of federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research grants since fiscal year 2015. From fiscal year 2015 through 2019, four of the five agencies received few complaints—including sexual harassment—under Title IX from individuals at universities. Inconsistent with federal regulations implementing Title IX, two of the agencies—the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA)—lack finalized procedures for complaints and thus cannot ensure they are consistently handling complaints. Sex-discrimination concerns—including sexual harassment—can also be raised by individuals outside of the Title IX complaint process (see table). However, only two agencies—the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—publicly communicate the option to notify them of concerns. The other three—DOE, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and USDA—received no concerns in fiscal year 2019 and may be missing opportunities to obtain information for Title IX oversight. Number of Title IX Complaints and Sex Discrimination Concerns Received by Agencies Agency DOE HHS NASA NSF USDA Total Title IX Complaints, FY 2015-2019 2 1 3 33 1 40 Sex Discrimination Concerns, FY 2019a 0 93b 0c 47 0 140 Source: GAO analysis of information for fiscal years (FY) 2015 through 2019 from Department of Energy (DOE); Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); NASA; National Science Foundation (NSF); and Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as interviews with agency officials. I GAO-20-187 Note: In fiscal years 2018 and 2019, three agencies received the same complaint. GAO counted it as a complaint for all three agencies. aAgencies receive sex-discrimination concerns—including sexual harassment—outside of the Title IX complaint process. bHHS's National Institutes of Health receives sex discrimination concerns—information not processed or investigated under Title IX—including sexual harassment concerns. cOfficials stated that NASA received one concern in FY 2019; however, it did not involve a university. All five agencies have established grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts beyond those required by Title IX. However, none of the agencies have goals and plans for all of their efforts, and thus they lack clear ways to evaluate how well these efforts are working and to identify any needed improvements. They may also be missing opportunities to coordinate and integrate prevention activities. Additionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reconstituted an interagency discussion group on Title IX in 2016, where all five agencies share information about their activities. However, DOJ has not fully adopted two leading practices for collaboration: agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report collaborative efforts. Officials at one agency said clarifying agencies' roles and responsibilities would improve the group. Adopting leading practices would help enhance and sustain collaboration. Why GAO Did This Study Sexual harassment is degrading and illegal. Studies show it has a negative effect on the ability of women to engage in research at the same level as men. Title IX prohibits sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding, and federal agencies are required to enforce the law at universities they fund. In fiscal year 2018, the most recent year for which data were available during GAO's review, U.S. universities were awarded about $27 billion in federal grants for STEM research. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to help prevent sexual harassment at universities that receive such grants. This report examines, among other things, (1) how selected federal agencies receive, investigate, and resolve Title IX complaints; (2) the extent to which selected agencies have established an overall plan for their sexual harassment prevention efforts for university grantees, including for communicating and evaluating these efforts and (3) the extent to which selected agencies collaborate on efforts to prevent sexual harassment at universities they fund for STEM research. GAO reviewed agencies' relevant regulations and documentation and interviewed agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 17 recommendations to the five agencies funding STEM research and DOJ, including to finalize and publish complaint procedures, establish goals and an overall plan for prevention efforts, and fully adopt two collaboration leading practices. The agencies agreed with GAO's recommendations and identified actions they plan to take to address them. For more information, contact John Neumann at (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov. Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-475T What GAO Found The Department of Transportation's (DOT) data show that airlines' operational performance—as measured by rates of denied boardings, mishandled baggage, and flight delays—generally improved from 2008 through 2017, the latest available data at the time of GAO's review. Nevertheless, in 2018, GAO found that passenger complaints to DOT across all complaint categories increased about 10 percent from 2008 through 2017 for 12 airlines that GAO selected for review. Complaints about airlines' operational performance accounted for around 50 percent of the total. Passenger disability complaints submitted to airlines—which vastly outnumber such complaints submitted directly to DOT—have steadily increased since 2011. Unlike all other categories of passenger complaints, airlines are required to annually report the number of disability-related complaints they receive to DOT. Passenger disability complaints submitted directly to DOT also increased in 2019, accounting for the second highest level in the past 10 years. Complaints to airlines and DOT in 2017—the most recent year data were available—were most commonly about failure of airline staff to provide assistance, seating accommodation issues, and issues related to service animals. Passenger complaints submitted to DOT related to discrimination also rose in 2019, with 96 complaints filed. From 2010 through 2019, DOT received, on average, 80 complaints a year from passengers alleging discrimination, most commonly about racial discrimination. Disability Complaints Reported to U.S. Airlines and the Department of Transportation (DOT) by Passengers, 2010 through 2019 Year Disability complaints to U.S. airlines Disability complaints to DOT 2010 19,347 572 2011 18,953 628 2012 20,584 741 2013 21,965 683 2014 24,044 784 2015 26,401 944 2016 27,842 865 2017 29,662 840 2018 Not available 826 2019 Not available 904 Source: GAO presentation of DOT data. | GAO-20-475T DOT requires that airlines provide training on accessibility issues and encourages non-discrimination training for its staff. In 2017, GAO found that 12 selected airlines had accessibility-related training requirements for their staff and contractors, with some variations in the content and format. In 2019, GAO reported that representatives from six selected U.S. airlines provide non-discrimination training to employees, although not all contractor staff receive that training. Airlines have taken initial actions in other areas. More recently, in 2020, GAO found that only about 4.5 percent of the eight largest U.S. airlines' fleet of aircraft with single aisles were designed to accommodate airplane onboard wheelchairs. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, hundreds of millions of passengers rely on airlines to get them to their destination without incident—including some of the 57 million Americans with a disability. While airlines maintain their performance and service have improved, passengers may still experience a range of inconveniences. A number of consumer protections are in place at the federal level. These protections have addressed long tarmac delays and increased compensation for passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding. Some protections are specific to passengers with disabilities, requiring that airlines provide (1) help enplaning and deplaning, and (2) compensation for lost or damaged wheelchairs. DOT enforces these protections. This statement discusses (1) DOT's data on airline operational performance from 2008 through 2017, and (2) what is known about passenger complaints and airlines' practices related to accessibility and non-discrimination issues. This statement is based on six prior GAO reports issued in the past 3 years. For that work, GAO analyzed relevant DOT data and passenger complaints; reviewed DOT documents and regulations; and interviewed DOT officials and representatives from selected airlines and consumer advocate organizations. For this statement, GAO updated prior analyses on passenger complaints for accessibility and discrimination issues and reviewed recent DOT rulemakings. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-450T What GAO Found The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses multiple information sources to identify potential barriers to equal employment opportunity (EEO), but lacks performance metrics for tracking its progress towards eliminating identified barriers. DHS generally uses the information sources that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance recommends, such as employee survey results, to help identify potential barriers. While DHS reports some improvements in employee engagement and representation of minorities and women from fiscal years 2014 through 2018, it does not have complete performance metrics, such as the retention rate of women in law enforcement positions. Using performance metrics could help DHS assess its progress in eliminating barriers. DHS and its components have identified various deficiencies in their EEO programs, but lack policies and procedures for developing action plans and formal staffing models to address deficiencies. For example, in each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2018, DHS reported that senior managers at DHS components did not successfully implement EEO action plans and incorporate EEO action plan objectives into agency strategic plans. Further, DHS components lacked action plans to address nearly half (179 out of 369) of the deficiencies self-reported by all components from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. For example, in fiscal year 2017, four DHS components did not have action plans to ensure that their EEO directors report directly to their agency heads, as required by EEOC guidance. Developing policies and procedures to help ensure components' EEO programs have action plans for addressing deficiencies could help DHS components better comply with EEOC requirements. In addition, developing and using formal staffing models—a tool to determine the number of staff required—for their EEO programs could help DHS and its components to identify, request, and obtain the staff they need. For example, DHS and its components reported that staffing challenges contributed to some of their program deficiencies, and acknowledged they did not have formal staffing models for their EEO programs. DHS has plans to address nine areas of noncompliance in its EEO program identified by EEOC. In its July 2017 review of DHS compliance with EEOC requirements, EEOC found that DHS did not provide complete demographic data on new hires and promotions in its fiscal year 2016 report to EEOC. DHS reported to EEOC that it had collected and analyzed such demographic data beginning in fiscal year 2019. DHS's EEO and human capital offices assist and support DHS components in identifying and addressing EEO barriers. However, DHS's EEO office lacks policies and procedures to ensure components respond timely and completely to areas of noncompliance identified in EEOC feedback letters. Additionally, DHS EEO officials said they lack authority to ensure components' compliance with EEOC requirements. Without addressing these issues, DHS may not be effectively positioned to manage its EEO program. Why GAO Did This Study EEOC's Management Directive 715 requires that, to attract and retain top talent, federal agencies are to identify EEO barriers in their workforces and deficiencies in their EEO programs, execute plans to address them, and report annually to EEOC. GAO reported in 2009 on DHS's opportunities to address barriers to EEO in its workforce and in 2019 on DHS's challenges to ensuring EEO in its workforce. GAO was asked to testify on the steps DHS has taken to (1) identify and address barriers to EEO in its workforce, (2) identify and address EEO program deficiencies, (3) address areas of noncompliance in its EEO program identified by EEOC, and (4) oversee and support components' EEO programs. To do so, GAO summarized the findings discussed in its July 2019 report on DHS's EEO efforts and reported on DHS's actions taken to address recommendations. To obtain updates on actions taken by DHS, GAO reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed DHS EEO officials. What GAO Recommends In its July 2019 report, GAO recommended that DHS take six actions, including develop performance metrics for the department's EEO program; develop DHS and component formal staffing models; and analyze options for granting additional authorities to the most senior official for EEO and Diversity. DHS concurred with the six recommendations and described actions the department plans to take to address them. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov, or Christopher P. Currie at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-206 What GAO Found Federal data provide an incomplete picture of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-certificated aviation maintenance workforce. A sufficient supply of certificated workers is critical for safety and to meet the growing demand for air travel. However, supply and demand data for certificated workers are limited. FAA maintains data on the number of individuals newly certificated each year (see figure), but less is known about how many certificated individuals exit the aviation industry each year and the extent of growing demand. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data provide some information on pay and demand for aviation maintenance workers more broadly, but do not differentiate between FAA-certificated and non-certificated workers due to data collection challenges. Demographic data may also be useful for workforce analysis and planning. FAA data provide some demographic information on certificated mechanics and repairmen, such as age and sex, but the agency lacks data on race and ethnicity. According to GAO analysis of FAA data, over half of the roughly 330,000 mechanics and repairmen FAA had certificated as of December 2018 were between 50 and 70 years old and 97 percent were men. Number of Mechanics and Repairmen Newly Certificated by FAA Each Year, 2014-2018 Government agencies, educational institutions, and businesses coordinate to some extent in support of this workforce, but FAA lacks certain information—including information maintained by other agencies that administer related programs—that could advance its workforce development efforts. One of FAA's strategic objectives includes promoting the development of a robust, skilled aviation workforce, and the agency established a committee, in part, to explore ways to diversify this workforce; however, FAA is not currently positioned to understand whether its efforts are optimally targeted or effective. Without routinely analyzing its own data or leveraging others' data, FAA may not have certain information it needs to track or ensure progress toward its workforce development goals. FAA has acknowledged that curriculum requirements for Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT) Schools and mechanic testing standards are outdated. Efforts to revise the curriculum requirements for AMT Schools are ongoing and FAA officials told GAO that a final rule will be published some time toward the end of 2020. FAA officials indicated that the revised mechanic testing standards would likely be finalized after. Why GAO Did This Study FAA requires that only mechanics who are “certificated” by the FAA approve aircraft for return to service. The required training to become a certificated mechanic can take between 1 and 3 years. FAA also oversees the certification of repairmen who work on aircraft parts. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that retirements and attrition could adversely affect the capacity of this workforce to meet the growing demand for air travel, and that mechanic curriculum is outdated. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included provisions for GAO to examine the aviation workforce. This report examines (1) what available federal data reveal about the FAA-certificated aviation maintenance workforce; (2) how selected government agencies, educational institutions, and businesses provide support and coordinate to develop the aviation maintenance workforce; and (3) the progress FAA has made in updating its curriculum and testing standards for mechanics. GAO analyzed FAA data on certificate holders as of December 2018; reviewed BLS employment data for 2013 through 2018; reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; and interviewed selected federal agency, industry, and AMT School officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that FAA use its existing data and coordinate with other federal agencies to identify and gather information to measure progress and target resources toward its goal of promoting a robust, qualified, and diverse aviation maintenance workforce. FAA agreed with the recommendation. For more information, contact Chelsa Gurkin at (202) 512-7215 or gurkinc@gao.gov. Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-237 What GAO Found The overall proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in the Department of State’s (State) full-time, permanent, career workforce increased from 28 to 32 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018. The direction of change for specific groups varied. For instance, the proportion of Hispanics increased from 5 percent to 7 percent, while the proportion of African Americans decreased from 17 to 15 percent. Also, the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities and women was lowest at management and executive levels. GAO’s analyses of State data for fiscal years 2002 through 2018 found differences in promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities and whites. These differences existed in both descriptive analyses, which calculated simple averages, and in adjusted analyses, which controlled for certain individual and occupational factors that could influence promotion. Compared with the descriptive analyses, the adjusted analyses found smaller percentage differences between promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities and whites in State’s Civil Service and some evidence of smaller percentage differences in State’s Foreign Service. GAO found generally lower promotion rates for racial or ethnic minorities than for whites. For example, controlling for factors such as education, years of service, and occupation, racial or ethnic minorities in the Civil Service had lower rates and odds of promotion than whites at each rank from early career through senior management. Also, both types of analysis found promotion outcomes for women compared with men were lower in the Civil Service and generally higher in the Foreign Service. For example, women in the Foreign Service were more likely than men to be promoted in early to mid career. State has identified some barriers to equal opportunity but should consider other issues that could indicate potential barriers to diversity. In its annual reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), State has identified issues such as underrepresentation of Hispanic employees. However, other State analysis, GAO’s analysis, and GAO’s interviews with State employee groups highlighted additional issues that could indicate barriers. For example, State’s reports have not identified discrepancies in midcareer promotion of racial or ethnic minorities relative to whites, which GAO found in its analysis. Taking additional steps to identify diversity issues could enhance State’s ability to detect and remove barriers to equal participation in its workforce. Why GAO Did This Study State has expressed a commitment to maintaining a workforce that reflects the diverse composition of the United States and has undertaken efforts to increase representation of diverse groups in its Civil and Foreign Services. EEOC requires some federal agencies, including State, to systematically identify, examine, and remove barriers to equal participation at all levels of their workforce and to report on such barriers annually. GAO was asked to review issues related to the diversity of State’s workforce. This report examines (1) the demographic composition of State's workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018; (2) any differences in promotion outcomes for various demographic groups in State’s workforce; and (3) the extent to which State has identified barriers to diversity in its workforce. GAO analyzed State’s personnel data for its full-time, permanent, career workforce for fiscal years 2002 through 2018. GAO analyzed the number of years until promotion from early career ranks to the executive rank in both the Civil and Foreign Services. GAO’s analyses do not completely explain the reasons for differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from various unobservable factors. Thus, GAO’s analyses do not establish a causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion outcomes. GAO also reviewed State documents and interviewed State officials and members of 11 employee groups. What GAO Recommends GAO recommended that State take additional steps to identify diversity issues that could indicate potential barriers to equal opportunity in its workforce. State concurred with this recommendation. For more information, contact Jason Bair at (202)512-6881 or bairj@gao.gov. Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-258 What GAO Found Aircraft manufacturers offer lavatories that carriers can provide and that are designed to accommodate users of onboard wheelchairs, but carriers do not choose to acquire this option for their single-aisle aircraft. We found designs for lavatories that enable a passenger in an onboard wheelchair to use them, to varying degrees. In recent years, both Airbus and Boeing—makers of single-aisle aircraft—began offering similarly designed lavatories to provide greater access for these passengers. For example, one design consists of two adjacent lavatories located in the rear galley area with a connecting retractable wall to allow for a wheelchair-bound passenger to enter one lavatory and transfer or be transferred to the toilet in the other lavatory. Another design is a single lavatory large enough to accommodate a passenger using an onboard wheelchair. Four of the eight U.S. carriers—and only one of the four with the largest fleets—GAO interviewed have Airbus aircraft with an adjacent lavatory design (Space Flex version 1) or the single lavatory design found on the A220 aircraft, constituting about 4.5 percent of the carriers' combined single-aisle fleet (see figure). None of the eight U.S. carriers have purchased a similar lavatory for their Boeing's single-aisle aircraft. Carrier officials told GAO that they consider many factors when ordering lavatories, including financial and service tradeoffs such as the potential to lose seating spaces, or reduced food and beverage service for passengers. Lavatories Designed for Persons with Reduced Mobility on Selected U.S. Carriers' Single-Aisle Aircraft, as of November 2019 While the Department of Transportation (DOT) receives few complaints on lavatory inaccessibility, consumer groups told GAO that the lack of an accessible lavatory on single-aisle aircraft presents challenges for persons with reduced mobility. For example, some passengers take precautionary measures to avoid the need to use the aircraft lavatory and others avoid flying altogether. Additionally, although some aircraft have wheelchair-accommodating lavatories, they are not well advertised to passengers, making it difficult for passengers to know whether their flight may have such a lavatory. To address such challenges and the findings of its 2016 advisory committee, DOT issued, on December 16, 2019, a notice of proposed rulemaking to require carriers to install accessibility features without changing the size of the lavatories. DOT also expressed intent to study the costs and benefits of enlarging single-aisle aircraft lavatories to enable use by passengers using the onboard wheelchair. Why GAO Did This Study Flying can pose significant challenges for persons who rely on wheelchairs, including the lack of wheelchair accessible lavatories on most flights. In 1990, DOT required wheelchair accessible lavatories on twin-aisle aircraft used mainly for long flights. It did not require them for single-aisle aircraft, although DOT continued to study the issue. Since 1990, technological advances have enabled single-aisle aircraft to fly longer distances, and these aircraft now make 99 percent of domestic flights. In 2016, a DOT advisory committee recommended that DOT require accessible lavatories in certain single-aisle aircraft in the future. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018 included a provision that GAO examine the availability and designs of lavatories on commercial aircraft and the ability of passengers with disabilities to access them. This report describes (1) what is known about lavatory designs and accessibility for persons with reduced mobility and (2) the challenges wheelchair-bound passengers and others face while traveling on single-aisle aircraft without accessible or functional lavatories. GAO reviewed DOT's guidance and rulemaking and analyzed DOT's aircraft complaint data and fleet data for the eight largest U.S. air carriers. GAO interviewed officials from the eight largest mainline carriers and reviewed their fleet and lavatory data. GAO also interviewed officials from Airbus and Boeing and subsidiary lavatory manufacturers, as well as representatives from cabin crew labor associations and consumer groups representing persons with disabilities. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-41 What GAO Found The Small Business Administration (SBA) worked with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) to foster entrepreneurship, primarily through its Small Business Development Center program (which provides counseling and training), strategic alliance memorandums, and co-sponsorship agreements. Two HBCUs—Howard University and the University of the Virgin Islands—have hosted SBDC “lead centers” since the 1980s. SBA also signed at least 35 strategic alliance memorandums with HBCUs and at least 16 co-sponsorship agreements in 2013–2018. States with Historically Black Colleges and Universities In 2018, SBA developed a plan to support HBCUs (including goals and measures) for the White House Initiative on HBCUs. However, SBA headquarters did not communicate this plan or its goals to key Small Business Development Centers or SBA district offices (those with HBCUs in their service areas). As a result, SBA may have missed opportunities to collaborate with HBCUs and help achieve the goals of its plan. SBA has collected limited information about its programs and activities with HBCUs. SBA could not establish a baseline for performance measures developed in its 2018 plan because SBA district offices and the Small Business Development Centers are not required to collect or report information about their HBCU-related outreach and other activities. For example, while representatives from the nine Small Business Development Centers with whom GAO spoke said they conducted outreach to HBCUs, this information was not reported to SBA headquarters. Without collecting relevant information about its HBCU-related efforts, including data for performance measures, SBA cannot assess the extent or effectiveness of its efforts to support HBCUs. Why GAO Did This Study The 101 HBCUs play an important role in higher education and in their local and regional economies. Among African Americans who obtained a doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics in 2005–2010, more than one-third earned their undergraduate degrees from an HBCU. SBA is part of a long-standing White House initiative to strengthen the capacity of HBCUs, including their ability to access and participate in federal programs. SBA's mission includes business development, and SBA also works with colleges and universities to provide entrepreneurial training and counseling. GAO was asked to review SBA's entrepreneurship-related efforts with HBCUs. This report examines (1) SBA efforts to foster entrepreneurship with HBCUs in recent years, (2) SBA's plans for the White House Initiative on HBCUs, and (3) the extent to which SBA collected information specific to HBCUs. GAO analyzed SBA information on HBCU participation in programs and activities for fostering entrepreneurship and reviewed related standard operating procedures. GAO also interviewed officials at SBA headquarters and eight SBA district offices, and representatives of nine Small Business Development Centers (selected for a high number of agreements with HBCUs and other factors). What GAO Recommends GAO is making three recommendations, including that SBA communicate planned efforts to support HBCUs to key Small Business Development Centers or district offices, and collect additional information on its efforts to support HBCUs. SBA agreed with GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at (202) 512-8678 or OrtizA@gao.gov. Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-22 What GAO Found In school year 2016-17, 35,142 special education disputes were filed nationwide, and in five selected states GAO reviewed, dispute resolution options varied across school districts with different socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides parents several ways to file and resolve disputes about plans and services that school districts provide to students with disabilities. A greater proportion of very high-income school districts had dispute resolution activity as well as higher rates of dispute activity than very low-income districts in most of the five states GAO reviewed. GAO also found that in most of these states, a smaller proportion of predominately Black and/or Hispanic districts had dispute resolution activity compared to districts with fewer minority students; however, predominately Black and/or Hispanic districts generally had higher rates of such activity. Technical assistance providers and others told GAO that parents used dispute resolution most often for issues related to school decisions about evaluations, placement, services and supports, and discipline of their children. Percentage of School Districts with Dispute Resolution Activity and Rates of Activity in Five Selected States, by School District Income Level, School Year 2017-18 Note: “Very high-income” districts are those in which 10 percent or fewer of students are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (FRPL). In “Very low-income” districts, 90 percent or more of students are eligible for FRPL. Parents may face a variety of challenges in using IDEA dispute resolution, and the Department of Education and states provide several kinds of support that, in part, may address some of these challenges. Stakeholders cited challenges such as paying for attorneys and expert witnesses at a due process hearing, parents' reluctance to initiate disputes because they feel disadvantaged by the school district's knowledge and financial resources, and parents' lack of time off from work to attend due process hearings. Education and state agencies provide technical assistance to support parents' understanding of their rights under IDEA and to facilitate their use of dispute resolution options, for example, by providing informational documents and phone help lines to parents. Why GAO Did This Study Almost 7 million children aged 3 to 21 received special education services under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in school year 2016-17. IDEA contains options parents and school districts may use to address disputes that arise related to the education of a student with a disability. These options include mediation and due process complaints, which can be used by parents and school districts; and state complaints, which can be used by any organization or individual, including the child's parent, alleging an IDEA violation. GAO was asked to review parents' use of IDEA dispute resolution options. This report examines (1) how often IDEA dispute resolution options are used, and whether use in selected states varies across school district-level socioeconomic or demographic characteristics; and (2) what challenges parents face in using IDEA dispute resolution options and how Education and selected states help facilitate parents' use of these options. GAO reviewed publicly available data on dispute resolution at the state level and collected data at the school district level from five states—Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—selected based on the number of disputes initiated and school district characteristics, among other factors. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and Education and state documents; and interviewed Education officials, state officials, staff from organizations providing technical assistance in these five states, and other national advocacy organizations. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-6 What GAO Found Data from the Departments of Education (Education) and Justice (DOJ) show an increasing number of reported religious-based hate crimes on college campuses during the past decade. While these agencies collect slightly different data, crimes reported to Education have increased from 103 in 2009 to 189 in 2017, and crimes reported to DOJ increased from 24 to 59. These trends were largely driven by increased reports of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim crimes, according to DOJ data. However, DOJ officials and some stakeholders GAO interviewed said DOJ data likely undercount these crimes due to underreporting. Although no federal agencies collect data on the frequency of religious bias incidents—non-criminal acts motivated by bias against a religious group—representatives of eight of the sixteen stakeholder groups GAO interviewed said the prevalence of these incidents on college campuses is also increasing. Incident Reported to Education and DOJ as a Religious-based Hate Crime To prevent and respond to religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents on campuses, stakeholders GAO interviewed said some colleges have encouraged reporting, implemented new policies, and educated students and staff about their effects. Such efforts must be informed by First Amendment considerations at public colleges. Some colleges have also worked to promote religious tolerance, communicate publicly about crimes, and build relationships with religious groups. Education and DOJ provide information and other resources to help colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders monitor and address religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents, but key DOJ information does not reflect new trends—such as changes in technology—and is difficult to find. For example, DOJ's publication most relevant to religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents on campuses and college practices to combat them was published in 2001 and does not reflect new trends or evolving college practices to address them. Further, colleges wishing to learn about DOJ resources must review almost 80 linked webpages or be routed to the homepages of five DOJ offices. DOJ officials said they share information about agency resources with colleges via newsletters, presentations, or the agency's website, but 10 out of 16 stakeholder groups GAO interviewed said they or their college members were unaware of DOJ's resources. Until DOJ makes up-to-date information easy to find and shares this information with colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders, these groups may miss opportunities to effectively use the resources to address these crimes and bias incidents. Why GAO Did This Study On average, 205,000 U.S. residents report being victims of hate crimes every year, according to DOJ officials. Hate crimes, including those motivated by bias against an actual or perceived religion, can have a broader effect than other kinds of violent crimes because they target both the victim and the group the victim represents. GAO was asked to review religious-based hate crimes on college campuses. This report reviews 1) the prevalence of religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents on college campuses; 2) what steps colleges are taking to address them; and 3) the extent to which Education and DOJ help colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders monitor and address these crimes and bias incidents. GAO analyzed DOJ and Education hate crime data from 2009 through 2017, the years for which all relevant data are available. GAO reviewed studies to identify college practices to address this issue as well as Education and DOJ policies, programs, and resources that could help colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders monitor and address these crimes and bias incidents, and how the information is shared. GAO also interviewed representatives of 16 stakeholder groups, including college associations, campus and public safety organizations, and religious groups. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOJ update, centralize, and share more information about its resources to help address religious-based hate crimes on college campuses. DOJ agreed with GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-69R What GAO Found State child welfare agencies receive federal funding to help cover the costs of operating their foster care programs from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. States participating in title IV-E are required to ensure that their programs comply with various program-specific requirements established by the statute and regulations. In addition, as recipients of HHS funding, these states and any subrecipients of these funds, including private child welfare agencies, are also required to comply with HHS's general administrative grant regulations. The regulations also provide that HHS may authorize certain exceptions from its administrative grant requirements on a case-by-case basis. HHS has approved one exception from its administrative grant regulations, in response to a request from the state of South Carolina. Specifically, HHS granted an exception from a regulatory provision that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, with respect to private, faith-based child welfare agencies that work with the state's foster care program. South Carolina addressed the request to HHS's Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). ACF officials determined which HHS offices should be involved in considering whether to grant the exception. ACF's Children's Bureau reviewed the request because of its role in providing support and guidance to state child welfare programs, and ultimately determined the request posed no issues from a programmatic perspective. Officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources reviewed the request because of its role in overseeing the grant regulations from which South Carolina sought an exception. These officials determined that approving the request was not in direct conflict with policies and regulations and that approval would not have long-term implications. Officials from the Office for Civil Rights reviewed the request because the request alleged that the regulation from which South Carolina was seeking an exception infringed upon the free exercise of religion by faith-based private child welfare agencies. This office concluded that in this case, requiring faith-based private child welfare agencies to comply with the religious nondiscrimination requirement would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and therefore recommended approval of the exception. HHS's Office of the General Counsel provided legal counsel throughout the review and approval process. Why GAO Did This Study In February 2018, on behalf of the private, faith-based child welfare agencies that assist in recruiting foster families for the state, the South Carolina governor requested an exception from an HHS administrative grant requirement that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, among other characteristics. This report describes HHS's process for reviewing and approving requests for exceptions from its administrative grant regulations, including nondiscrimination requirements. GAO focused this review on any requests for exceptions that would apply to programs operated under the Children's Bureau, the specific office within HHS that oversees the federal foster care program, from 2014, the year the exception provision took effect, through 2019. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, agency documents, and both the letter from South Carolina requesting the exception and HHS's response letter granting it. GAO also interviewed HHS officials representing the range of offices involved in reviewing and approving requests for exceptions from administrative requirements. For more information, contact Kathy Larin at 202-512-7215 or larink@gao.gov. Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-719T What GAO Found The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) face challenges in overseeing compliance by employers and federal contractors with applicable federal equal employment opportunity requirements. In its 2016 report, GAO made six recommendations to OFCCP and in its 2017 report made five additional recommendations to OFCCP and one to EEOC to strengthen program oversight. OFCCP has implemented four recommendations, but seven require additional agency action to be fully implemented, as does the one to EEOC. For example: In 2016, GAO found that OFCCP's oversight was limited by reliance on contractors' voluntary compliance with affirmative action plan requirements. OFCCP has taken steps to develop a new web portal for collecting those plans annually, but has not yet obtained Office of Management and Budget approval for the collection or launched the portal. GAO also found OFCCP's oversight was limited by a lack of timely staff training. OFCCP has taken steps to implement a new training curriculum, but has not yet implemented its new learning management system that will help ensure timely and regular training. In 2017, GAO found that EEOC had not consistently captured information on industry codes, which limits EEOC's ability to identify trends by industry sector and conduct sector-related analyses. EEOC has not yet completed development of its Employer Master List that will include industry codes. GAO also found that OFCCP's methodology for identifying equal employment disparities by industry might not accurately identify industries at greatest risk of noncompliance with affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements. OFCCP has taken steps to develop a new methodology, but needs to further refine it to ensure that it will identify industries at greatest risk. From fiscal years 2007 through 2015, few faith-based grantees sought an exemption from nondiscrimination laws related to religious-based hiring under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. In October 2017, GAO found that the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL) had awarded funding to at least 2,586 grantees through at least 53 grant programs that restricted grantees from making employment decisions based on religion. The number of relevant grant programs could be higher because GAO could not identify all such programs due to data limitations. Across the three agencies, GAO identified 117 grantees that were potentially faith-based organizations (FBO). Of the 117 potential FBOs, nine DOJ grantees were FBOs certified as being exempt from statutory restrictions on religious-based hiring. All three agencies required grantees seeking an exemption to self-certify that they were eligible for the exemption, but the agencies' processes for reviewing and approving exemption requests varied. In August 2019, OFCCP issued a proposed rule to clarify the scope and application of the religious exemption to help organizations with federal contracts and subcontracts and federally assisted construction contracts and subcontracts better understand their obligations. Why GAO Did This Study Several federal laws, executive orders, and regulations seek to promote equal employment opportunity by prohibiting employers from discriminating in employment on the basis of race and gender, among other things, and generally require companies contracting with the federal government to comply with affirmative action and other equal employment opportunity provisions. The EEOC and OFCCP are the primary federal agencies that enforce these requirements. Although federal law also generally prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, faith-based organizations may hire based on religion. Some federal grant programs contain statutory restrictions prohibiting this practice; however, since a 2007 DOJ legal opinion, federal agencies have allowed faith-based grantees to use RFRA as a basis for seeking an exemption to allow religious-based hiring. GAO has issued three reports since September 2016 that address equal employment opportunity (GAO-16-750, GAO-18-69, and GAO-18-164). This testimony is based on these three reports and discusses 1) OFCCP and EEOC's progress in addressing prior GAO recommendations and 2) equal employment opportunity exemptions for faith-based organizations. To update the status of prior recommendations, GAO reviewed agency guidance and documentation and interviewed agency officials. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-543 What GAO Found Most of the 16 agencies that are members of the interagency working group on environmental justice—created by Executive Order 12898 in 1994—reported taking some actions to identify and address environmental justice issues, such as creating data tools, developing policies or guidance, and building community capacity through small grants and training. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a mapping tool that can help identify low-income and minority communities exposed to health or environmental risks. Several agencies, such as EPA and the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Interior, also developed policies or guidance to analyze environmental justice issues during environmental reviews or enforcement activities. Most of the agencies supported their efforts with funds and staff from related programs, but EPA and the Department of Energy provided funds ($8.3 million in fiscal year 2018) and staff specifically for environmental justice. Agencies' progress toward environmental justice is difficult to gauge, however, because most do not have updated strategic plans and have not reported annually on their progress or developed methods to assess progress. As they agreed to do in a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), most of the agencies developed environmental justice strategic plans, but only six have updated them more recently. Few agencies have measures or methods for assessing progress, and the working group has not provided guidance to help agencies with such assessments. The number of agencies issuing annual progress reports has declined (see fig.). Updated strategic plans and annual progress reports, along with guidance on performance measures and methods, would help agencies provide essential information to assess their progress. The working group, chaired by EPA, has developed committees and written agreements to carry out its responsibilities to coordinate agencies' environmental justice efforts, but it is not carrying out several functions in the 1994 Executive Order. GAO has found that collaborative mechanisms, such as the working group, benefit from clear goals, but the working group's organizational documents do not contain clear strategic goals aligned to address the order. Clear strategic goals to carry out the executive order could enhance the group's strategic direction for intergovernmental environmental justice efforts. Why GAO Did This Study Environmental justice seeks to address the disproportionately high distribution of health and environmental risks among low-income and minority communities by seeking their fair treatment and meaningful involvement in environmental policy. In 1994, Executive Order 12898 directed 11 federal agencies to identify and address environmental justice issues related to their activities and tasked an interagency working group to coordinate federal environmental justice efforts. In 2011, 16 agencies, including the 11 original agencies, recommitted to planning and reporting on environmental justice efforts by signing an MOU. GAO was asked to review federal environmental justice efforts. This report examines agencies' environmental justice actions, strategic plans and progress reports, and working group collaboration. GAO reviewed agency environmental justice plans, reports, and funding data; interviewed agency officials; and compared working group collaboration to leading collaborative practices. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 24 recommendations, including that agencies update environmental justice strategic plans and report on progress annually, and that EPA consult with other working group members to provide guidance on assessing progress and to set strategic goals. Of the 15 agencies with recommendations, eight agreed. Other agencies' responses included partial agreement, disagreement, and no comment. GAO continues to support its recommendations. For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Mon, 16 Sep 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-654R What GAO Found Representatives from all six U.S. airlines GAO selected stated that they provide non-discrimination training to employees; representatives from four said they provide the same training to contractor staff who work directly for the airline. Specifically, all selected airline representatives told GAO they provide initial non-discrimination training to newly hired employees who interact with passengers—including, for example, pilots, flight attendants, and customer service representatives. Airline representatives provided high-level examples describing the content of their trainings, but with one exception, they declined to provide more specific information, citing the sensitive or business proprietary nature of such materials. Airlines have no legal requirement to provide GAO with their non-discrimination training materials. Representatives generally stated that trainings emphasize treating all individuals fairly and without bias, regardless of race, ancestry, or religion, among other things. Representatives from four selected airlines also said that their non-discrimination trainings cover implicit bias—a term that refers to attitudes or stereotypes about groups of people that unconsciously affect a person's understanding, actions, and decisions. Non-discrimination trainings are typically embedded in larger training programs and delivered using a combination of in-person and web-based modules, according to airline representatives. Five selected airline representatives also told GAO they use available data (e.g., passenger complaints) to evaluate the effectiveness of their non-discrimination trainings and make updates as needed. The Department of Transportation (DOT) does not require airlines to provide non-discrimination training to employees and contractors; however, officials told GAO that most larger airlines generally provide such training. DOT officials also stated that they receive few discrimination complaints relative to the millions of passenger boardings each year. Further, DOT officials said that if they were to identify an issue when reviewing passenger complaints, among various other monitoring activities, they could initiate an investigation of an airline's non-discrimination training and take enforcement action if warranted. However, representatives from non-discrimination advocacy organizations GAO interviewed identified additional actions that DOT and airlines could take to help ensure the non-discriminatory treatment of passengers, actions such as sharing non-discrimination trainings with such organizations for their input and feedback. Why GAO Did This Study Federal law prohibits airlines from discriminating against passengers on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry. Nevertheless, recent high-profile events reported in the media have led some non-discrimination advocacy organizations to question whether airlines treat all passengers equally and without bias. For example, in 2017 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People issued a travel advisory (lifted in 2018) against one airline, citing "disrespectful, discriminatory or unsafe conditions" for African-American passengers. DOT is responsible for ensuring that airlines adhere to federal non-discrimination laws. DOT encourages airlines to implement comprehensive non-discrimination training to help prevent and reduce incidents of unlawful discrimination. DOT has also developed and issued guidance to help airline employees and contractors understand their legal obligations not to discriminate against passengers. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included provisions for GAO to examine airlines' training programs on racial, ethnic, and religious non-discrimination for their employees and contractors, including how frequently airlines train new employees and contractors. This report describes selected airlines' programs for training employees and contractors on racial, ethnic, and religious non-discrimination. To understand airlines' non-discrimination training programs, GAO requested interviews and documentation from six airlines generally selected to include those with the highest number of passenger boardings and complaints of discrimination submitted directly to DOT. Representatives from five of the six selected airlines agreed to be interviewed, and one airline provided a written statement describing its non-discrimination training. Additionally, representatives from five airlines declined to provide GAO with their non-discrimination training materials, stating that their materials are business proprietary. While representatives from the remaining airline allowed GAO to attend its training, they asked GAO not to include a summary of the training in the report because it is business proprietary. To understand DOT's oversight responsibilities, GAO conducted interviews with DOT officials and reviewed relevant documents and passenger complaint data. GAO also met with representatives from four non-discrimination advocacy organizations to gain their perspectives on airlines' non-discrimination training programs. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah, at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-589 What GAO Found From 2011 to 2017, the share of women in senior management in Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBank) increased from about 21 percent (35 individuals) to 28 percent (47 individuals). The share of minority senior management remained the same at about 14 percent (23 individuals). The overall share of women employees slightly decreased and minority employees slightly increased during this period, but gender and minority representation varied by individual bank. FHLBanks identified challenges to maintaining and increasing workforce diversity, such as limited hiring opportunities due to low turnover. FHLBanks have been taking steps to promote workforce diversity, such as outreach to organizations that represent women or minorities and incorporation of diversity and inclusion in incentive compensation goals or performance competencies. Share of Women and Minorities in Senior Management in Federal Home Loan Banks, 2011 and 2017 Note: Federal Home Loan Bank staff said that banks classified senior management differently, and some cut or added positions between 2011 and 2017, which affected overall percentages. In 2018, use of minority- and women-owned suppliers (for goods and services) and broker-dealers varied among individual FHLBanks. Overall, minority- and women-owned suppliers accounted for 8 percent and 13 percent of procurement expenditures, respectively. Minority- and women-owned broker-dealers accounted for about 3 percent and less than 1 percent of the debt issuance amount, respectively. FHLBanks and the Office of Finance (which issues debts on behalf of the banks) have been taking steps to increase diversity in these business activities, such as conducting outreach to diverse entities. However, external stakeholders said such suppliers and broker-dealers may continue to face some barriers—for example, capital requirements that limit participation by diverse broker-dealers, which generally have fewer resources. In 2017, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) started reviewing the diversity and inclusion efforts of FHLBanks in its annual bank examinations. In the 2017 and 2018 examinations, FHFA found the banks generally took steps to promote diversity and inclusion but also identified areas for improvement, such as improving goals for workforce and supplier diversity. In 2018, FHFA issued a manual and templates for reporting of quarterly and annual diversity data to help ensure consistent reporting of the data. FHFA also began using the quarterly data for ongoing monitoring of the banks' diversity and inclusion efforts. Why GAO Did This Study The FHLBank System consists of 11 regionally based banks that are cooperatively owned by member institutions (such as community banks and credit unions) and of the Office of Finance. The banks, which are regulated by FHFA, provide liquidity for their member institutions to use in support of housing finance and community lending. GAO was asked to review FHLBanks' implementation of diversity and inclusion matters in workforce and business activities (including the use of suppliers and broker-dealers). This report examines (1) trends in gender, race, and ethnicity in FHLBank workforces, and challenges faced and practices used to maintain and increase a diverse workforce; (2) use of minority- and women-owned suppliers and broker-dealers in 2018, and challenges faced and practices used to increase and maintain their use; and (3) FHFA oversight of FHLBank diversity and inclusion efforts. GAO analyzed FHLBank and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data on the banks' workforce, suppliers, and broker-dealers. GAO also reviewed FHFA and FHLBank policies and regulations and previous GAO work on these issues. GAO interviewed FHFA and FHLBank staff and a nongeneralizable sample of external stakeholders knowledgeable about supplier and broker-dealer diversity. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at (202) 512-8678 or ortiza@gao.gov. Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-573 What GAO Found The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified barriers to equal employment opportunity (EEO) and has plans to address them, but lacks performance metrics for tracking its progress towards eliminating these barriers. DHS identified three barriers from fiscal years 2014 through 2017: (1) problems with supervision/management, lack of advancement opportunities, and lack of alternate work schedules, among other things, causing higher-than-expected nonretirement separations for white females and several ethnic and racial groups; (2) the geographic location of jobs, which has contributed to low hiring rates of racial groups in certain major occupations; and (3) the medical and physical requirements of various law enforcement positions, such as the ability to engage in moderate to arduous physical exertion, which limit the eligibility of some applicants with targeted disabilities. While DHS reports some improvements in employee engagement and representation of minorities and women, it does not have complete performance metrics, such as the retention rate of women in law enforcement positions. Implementing performance metrics could help DHS better assess its progress in eliminating barriers. DHS and its components have identified various deficiencies in their EEO programs, but lack policies and procedures for developing action plans and formal staffing models to address some deficiencies. DHS components did not have action plans to address nearly half (179 out of 369) of the deficiencies self-reported by all components from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. For example, in fiscal year 2017, four DHS components did not have action plans to ensure that their EEO directors report directly to their agency heads. Developing policies and procedures to help ensure components' EEO programs have action plans for addressing deficiencies could help DHS components better comply with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirements. Developing and utilizing formal staffing models for their EEO programs could help DHS and its components to better identify, request, and obtain the staff they need. For example, DHS and its components reported that staffing challenges contributed to some of their EEO program deficiencies, and acknowledged they lack formal models to use their existing staffing to address the deficiencies. DHS has plans to address the nine areas of noncompliance in its EEO program identified by EEOC. For example, in its most recent review of DHS compliance with EEOC requirements, EEOC identified that DHS did not provide complete demographic data on new hires and promotions in its report to EEOC in fiscal year 2016. DHS officials told us that the department plans to report the data by collecting complete data from DHS components in fiscal year 2019. DHS's EEO and human capital offices assist and support DHS components in identifying and addressing EEO barriers. However, the EEO office lacks policies and procedures to ensure components respond timely and completely to areas of noncompliance identified in EEOC feedback letters. Additionally, DHS EEO officials said they lack authority to ensure components' compliance with EEOC requirements. Without addressing these issues, DHS may not be effectively positioned to manage its EEO program. Why GAO Did This Study EEOC's Management Directive 715 requires that, to attract and retain top talent, federal agencies are to identify EEO barriers in their workforces and deficiencies in their EEO programs, execute plans to address them, and report annually to EEOC. In 2009, GAO reported that DHS had opportunities to better identify and address barriers to EEO in its workforce, and made recommendations which DHS has taken action to address. GAO was asked to provide an update on DHS's efforts to identify and address barriers to EEO in its workforce. This report examines the steps DHS has taken to (1) identify and address barriers to EEO in its workforce, (2) identify and address EEO program deficiencies, (3) address areas of noncompliance in its EEO program identified by EEOC, and (4) oversee and support component EEO programs. GAO reviewed DHS's and its components' policies, procedures, practices, and reports for their EEO programs for fiscal years 2014 through 2018, interviewed DHS and its component EEO officials, and assessed DHS employee survey results. GAO also reviewed EEOC's feedback on DHS's and its components' EEO programs, and interviewed EEOC officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making six recommendations, including: develop performance metrics for the department's EEO program; develop DHS and component formal staffing models; and analyze options for granting additional authorities to the most senior official for EEO and Diversity. DHS concurred with our six recommendations and described actions the department plans to take to address them. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov, or Christopher P. Currie at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-637T What GAO Found Prior GAO reports found limited diversity on both publicly-traded company boards (corporate boards) of directors and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) boards. For example, GAO's 2019 report on FHLBank boards found women's board representation was at 23 percent in 2018; in 2015 it had been 18 percent. In a 2015 report on corporate boards, GAO projected the representation of women into the future—assuming that women join boards in equal proportion to men—and estimated it could take more than 40 years for the number of women directors to match the number of men directors. GAO's report on FHLBank boards also showed an increase in FHLBank directors from some minority groups, including African-American, Hispanic, and Asian since 2015, but they still reflected a small portion of these boards. The size of the increases in minority directors on FHLBank boards was less clear than for women directors due to incomplete board member demographic data. Similar factors may limit corporate and FHLBank boards' efforts to increase diversity, according to stakeholders, board members, and others GAO interviewed. These factors include not prioritizing diversity in board recruitment efforts, limitations of the traditional board candidate pipeline, and low turnover of board seats. GAO identified a number of strategies for increasing the representation of women and minorities on corporate and FHLBank boards based on a review of relevant literature and discussions with researchers and corporate and government officials (see figure). Barriers and Corresponding Strategies for Increasing Representation of Women and Minorities on Corporate and Federal Home Loan Bank Boards Why GAO Did This Study Corporate boards take actions and make decisions that not only affect the lives of millions of employees and consumers, but also influence the policies and practices of the global marketplace. Many organizations and businesses have recognized the importance of recruiting and retaining women and minorities for key positions to improve performance and better meet the needs of a diverse customer base. Academic researchers and others have highlighted how diversity among board directors increases the range of perspectives for better decision making, among other benefits. Prior GAO reports have found challenges to increasing diversity on boards and underscored the need to identify strategies that can improve or accelerate efforts to boost representation of women and minorities. These include reports examining the diversity of publicly-traded company boards and the boards of federally chartered banks, such as the FHLBanks. This statement is based on two GAO reports, issued in December 2015 and February 2019, on the representation of women on corporate boards and the representation of women and minorities on the boards of FHLBanks, respectively. Information about the scope and methodologies used can be found in the original reports. This statement focuses on (1) the extent of diversity on such boards (2) factors that hinder diversity on these boards, and (3) strategies to promote board diversity on corporate and FHLBank boards. For more information, contact Chelsa Gurkin at (202) 512-7215 or GurkinC@gao.gov. Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-583T What GAO Found Based on preliminary information, the availability of agency staff and budget varies across the five selected agencies for efforts to address sexual harassment complaints at universities that use federal funds for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) research. While four of the five agencies received three or fewer sexual harassment complaints from individuals at grantee universities from 2015 through 2019, changes to agency grantee policies or requirements could impact the number of complaints an agency receives and the amount of resources an agency needs to address them. The five selected agencies have established and communicated sexual harassment prevention policies to university grantees to varying degrees. Agencies vary in how they have: Provided detailed policies to grantees on sexual harassment. Three agencies—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Health and Human Services (HHS) National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—have communicated relatively detailed policies on sexual harassment by issuing multiple forms of guidance, such as grantee policy manuals and best practices documents. In contrast, the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) communicated through more general documents, including policy statements that do not specifically address grantees. Modified grant terms and conditions. Two agencies are modifying the terms and conditions of grants to require grantees to report sexual harassment. NSF now requires grantees to increase transparency by reporting findings of sexual harassment to NSF, and NASA plans to implement the same requirement. Evaluated effectiveness of grantee policies. To date, the five agencies have not evaluated the effectiveness of their grantee policies and procedures to prevent sexual harassment, although two agencies are in the process of planning such evaluations. Based on our preliminary analysis and interviews, all five selected agencies have taken some steps to promote information sharing and collaboration among agencies on the prevention of sexual harassment. But they also noted challenges to these efforts, such as the lack of information on sexual harassment cases. These challenges may increase the risk that universities or agencies are unknowingly funding researchers with a history of past sexual harassment findings. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy has taken steps to create an interagency working group by establishing a joint committee in May 2019 under the National Science and Technology Council with NIH, NSF, DOE, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Directors. The committee plans to address challenges in the research environment, including the lack of uniform federal sexual harassment policies. Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2017, U.S. universities were awarded over $15 billion in federal grant funding for STEM research. Federal agencies are required to enforce Title IX—a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs receiving federal financial assistance—including at universities they fund. Sexual harassment is not only degrading and illegal, it has a negative effect on the ability of women to engage in research at the same level as men. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to help prevent sexual harassment by STEM research grantees. This testimony is based on ongoing GAO work and provides preliminary observations on selected agencies: (1) availability of staff and budget to address sexual harassment complaints at universities they fund for STEM research; (2) efforts to establish and communicate policies and procedures for university grantees on preventing sexual harassment; and (3) steps taken to promote information sharing and collaboration among agencies to prevent sexual harassment at universities they fund for STEM research. GAO selected five federal agencies that together funded approximately 80 percent of STEM research from fiscal year 2015 through 2017, the latest data available. GAO reviewed these agencies' relevant regulations and documentation. GAO also interviewed agency officials as part of GAO's ongoing work. What GAO Recommends GAO is not making recommendations at this time but will consider making them, as appropriate, as it finalizes its work. For more information, contact John Neumann at (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov. Wed, 12 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-490T What GAO Found Transportation Security Administration (TSA) policy requires managers to ensure behavior detection is conducted without regard to race or ethnicity, among other factors. TSA uses seven oversight checklists to assess whether behavior detection activities are conducted in accordance with TSA policy, such as monitoring whether screeners trained in behavior detection observe and engage passengers correctly. However, these checklists do not instruct supervisors to monitor for indications of profiling. TSA officials stated that the training screeners receive, adherence to operating procedures, and general supervisory oversight are sufficient to alert supervisors to situations when unlawful profiling may occur. However, developing a specific mechanism to monitor behavior detection activities for compliance with policies prohibiting unlawful profiling would provide TSA with greater assurance that screeners are adhering to such policies. From October 2015 through February 2018, TSA received about 3,700 complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations related to passenger screening. These complaints are not specific to behavior detection activities. The TSA Contact Center (TCC), the office that initially receives these complaints, reported that about half of the complaints did not have complete information from passengers necessary for further review, such as the airport and date of the incident. According to TCC officials, they attempt to obtain the additional information from passengers, but often the complaint does not include the correct contact information or the passenger does not respond to the TCC’s request for additional information. The TCC complaint data show that the remaining 51 percent (about 1,900) of complaints were referred to the TSA Multicultural Branch, the office responsible for reviewing complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations. The Multicultural Branch reported reviewing 2,059 complaints, including approximately 1,900 complaints from TCC, as well as complaints referred from other TSA offices. For about half of the complaints (1,066) the Multicultural Branch reviewed, it found indications of potential discrimination and unprofessional conduct that involved race or other factors and recommended a range of refresher training across airports or for screeners at individual airports identified in the complaints. TSA’s Multicultural Branch Reviewed 2,059 Complaints Alleging Violations of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from October 2015 through February 2018 a Training is recommended when screening procedures are not followed or as a proactive measure. Why GAO Did This Study This testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's April 2019 report, entitled Aviation Security: TSA Has Policies that Prohibit Unlawful Profiling But Should Improve Its Oversight of Behavior Detection Activities (GAO-19-268). For questions about this statement, please contact William Russell at (202) 512-8777 or RussellW@gao.gov. Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-344 What GAO Found The military services collect gender information, but they do not collect and maintain consistent information about race and ethnicity in their investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. This limits their ability to collectively or comparatively assess these data to identify any disparities (i.e., instances in which a racial, ethnic, or gender group was overrepresented) in the military justice system within and across the services. For example, the number of potential responses for race and ethnicity across the military services' databases ranges from five to 32 options for race and two to 25 options for ethnicity, which can complicate cross-service assessments. The services also are not required to and, thus, do not report demographic information in their annual military justice reports—information that would provide greater visibility into potential disparities. GAO's analysis of available data found that Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female members to be the subjects of investigations recorded in databases used by the military criminal investigative organizations, and to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all of the military services when controlling for attributes such as rank and education. GAO also found that race and gender were not statistically significant factors in the likelihood of conviction in general and special courts-martial for most services, and minority servicemembers were either less likely to receive a more severe punishment than White servicemembers or there was no difference among racial groups; thus, disparities may be limited to particular stages of the process. The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken some steps to study disparities, but has not comprehensively evaluated the causes of racial or gender disparities in the military justice system. Doing so would better position DOD to identify actions to address disparities and help ensure the military justice system is fair and just. Likelihood that Servicemembers Were Subjects of Recorded Investigations and Tried in General and Special Courts-Martial, Fiscal Years 2013-2017 Note: These analyses, taken alone, should not be used to make conclusions about the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination. These multivariate regression analysis results estimate whether a racial or gender group is more likely or less likely to be the subject of an investigation or a trial in general or special courts-martial after controlling for race, gender, rank, and education, and in the Air Force, years of service. GAO made all racial comparisons to White servicemembers and all gender comparisons to females. GAO grouped individuals of Hispanic ethnicity together, regardless of race. Why GAO Did This Study The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was established to provide a statutory framework that promotes fair administration of military justice. Every active-duty servicemember is subject to the UCMJ, with more than 258,000 individuals disciplined from fiscal years 2013-2017, out of more than 2.3 million unique active-duty servicemembers. A key principle of the UCMJ is that a fair and just system of military law can foster a highly disciplined force. House Report 115-200, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, included a provision for GAO to assess the extent that disparities may exist in the military justice system. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the military services collect and maintain consistent race, ethnicity, and gender information for servicemembers investigated and disciplined for UCMJ violations that can be used to assess disparities, and (2) there are racial and gender disparities in the military justice system, and whether disparities have been studied by DOD. GAO analyzed data from the investigations, military justice, and personnel databases from the military services, including the Coast Guard, from fiscal years 2013-2017 and interviewed agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 11 recommendations, including that the services develop the capability to present consistent race and ethnicity data, and DOD include demographic information in military justice annual reports and evaluates the causes of disparities in the military justice system. DOD and the Coast Guard generally concurred with GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Thu, 30 May 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-318 What GAO Found A range of officials from entities that partner with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—including states, territories, localities, and nonprofits)—reported challenges providing assistance to individuals who are older or have disabilities following the 2017 hurricanes. For example, officials said that many of these individuals required specialized assistance obtaining food, water, medicine, and oxygen, but aid was sometimes difficult to provide. Officials in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands cited particular difficulties providing this assistance due to damaged roads and communication systems, as well as a lack of documentation of nursing home locations. Based on GAO's analysis of FEMA data and interviews with FEMA officials and stakeholders, aspects of the process to apply for assistance from FEMA after the 2017 hurricanes were challenging for older individuals and those with disabilities. According to stakeholders and FEMA officials, disability-related questions in the registration materials are confusing and easily misinterpreted. For example, FEMA's registration process does not include an initial question that directly asks individuals if they have a disability or if they would like to request an accommodation for completing the application process (see figure below). While FEMA has made efforts to help registrants interpret the questions, it has not yet changed the language of the questions to improve clarity. As a result, individuals with disabilities may not have requested accommodations or reported having disabilities, which may have hindered FEMA's ability to identify and assist them. Sequence of Disability-Related Questions in FEMA's Registration Process FEMA did not establish objectives before implementing its new approach to disability integration, which includes adding new disability integration staff in the regions and decreasing the number of disability integration advisors deployed to disaster sites. Without documented objectives for the new approach, regional leadership across the nation may implement changes inconsistently. In addition, the new approach shifts the responsibility for directly assisting individuals with disabilities to all FEMA staff. FEMA has taken some initial steps to provide training on the changes; however, it has not established a plan for delivering comprehensive disability-related training to all staff who will be directly interacting with individuals with disabilities. Developing a plan to train all staff would better position FEMA to achieve its intended goals and better equip deployed staff to identify and assist these survivors. Why GAO Did This Study Three sequential hurricanes—Harvey, Irma, and Maria—affected more than 28 million people in 2017, according to FEMA. Hurricane survivors aged 65 and older and those with disabilities faced particular challenges evacuating to safe shelter, accessing medicine, and obtaining recovery assistance. In June 2018, FEMA began implementing a new approach to assist individuals with disabilities. GAO was asked to review disaster assistance for individuals who are older or have disabilities. This report addresses (1) challenges FEMA partners reported in providing assistance to such individuals, (2) challenges such individuals faced accessing assistance from FEMA and actions FEMA took to address these challenges, and (3) the extent to which FEMA has implemented its new approach to disability integration. GAO analyzed FEMA data and reviewed relevant federal laws, agency policy, and federal frameworks. GAO also interviewed state, territorial, local, and nonprofit officials in Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; FEMA officials at headquarters, in regional offices, and deployed to disaster sites; and officials at relevant nonprofit organizations. What GAO Recommends GAO is making seven recommendations to FEMA, including that it establish new registration questions, objectives for its new disability integration approach, and a training plan for FEMA staff. The agency concurred with all but one of the recommendations. For more information, contact Elizabeth Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov. Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-515T What GAO Found Small Business Administration (SBA) programs and activities that foster entrepreneurship have included, but do not specifically target, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). SBA funds 63 Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) that are generally hosted by colleges or universities. Two of the 63 SBDCs are hosted by HBCUs—Howard University and the University of the Virgin Islands—and at least 16 of the more than 900 SBDC satellite locations have been at HBCUs. SBA's district offices also can initiate and oversee outreach activities to foster entrepreneurship. While these activities are not targeted to HBCUs, some district offices have worked with HBCUs. For example, district offices co-sponsored 10 counseling and training activities in 2013–2018 with six HBCUs and signed memorandums with at least 27 HBCUs to strengthen local small business development in 2008–2018. Business Workshop at the Small Business Development Center at the University of the Virgin Islands GAO's preliminary observations indicate SBA has limited data on entrepreneurship-related efforts at HBCUs. In 2018, SBA established two goals for working with HBCUs: (1) to raise awareness and provide information to help raise the capacity of HBCUs to participate in federally funded programs, and (2) to promote collaboration among HBCUs, SBA resource partners, and SBA district offices. GAO's ongoing work identified that HBCU-specific data (such as the number of outreach events involving HBCUs or the number of HBCU students or alumni who participated) are incomplete at an agency-wide level. Moreover, SBA does not systematically collect written feedback from event participants, including for events involving HBCUs. GAO's preliminary observations also indicate that SBA resource partners, such as SBDCs, have established relationships with some HBCUs. GAO will continue to examine the extent of SBA efforts to foster entrepreneurship with HBCUs. Why GAO Did This Study Historically Black Colleges and Universities play an important and unique role in the higher education system and in their local and regional economies. SBA works with many colleges and universities to provide entrepreneurial training and counseling on campuses. SBA is also part of a long-standing White House Initiative to expand the capacity of HBCUs, including their ability to participate in federal programs. However, little is known about the extent to which SBA has worked with the 101 HBCUs to foster entrepreneurship among students and others. This statement is based on (1) GAO's March 2019 report (GAO-19-328R) on SBA's plans and programs for working with HBCUs and (2) preliminary observations from GAO's ongoing review of any HBCU-specific information SBA collects and reports and collaboration of selected HBCUs and SBA. GAO reviewed recent executive orders related to enhancing HBCU capacities; agency documents, including SBA's 2018 agency plan for supporting HBCUs; and statutes and regulations for key programs and activities. GAO also interviewed SBA headquarters and selected district officials based on criteria including (1) the number of HBCUs in the state, and (2) agreements, if any, between HBCUs and SBA. GAO also interviewed six HBCUs based on their relationship with SBA. What GAO Recommends GAO is not making recommendations in this testimony, but will consider them, as appropriate, as it finalizes its work. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at (202) 512-8678 or OrtizA@gao.gov. Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-268 What GAO Found Transportation Security Administration (TSA) policy requires managers to ensure behavior detection is conducted without regard to race or ethnicity, among other factors. TSA uses seven oversight checklists to assess whether behavior detection activities are conducted in accordance with TSA policy, such as monitoring whether screeners trained in behavior detection observe and engage passengers correctly. However, these checklists do not instruct supervisors to monitor for indications of profiling. TSA officials stated that the training screeners receive, adherence to operating procedures, and general supervisory oversight are sufficient to alert supervisors to situations when unlawful profiling may occur. However, developing a specific mechanism to monitor behavior detection activities for compliance with policies prohibiting unlawful profiling would provide TSA with greater assurance that screeners are adhering to such policies. From October 2015 through February 2018, TSA received about 3,700 complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations related to passenger screening. These complaints are not specific to behavior detection activities. The TSA Contact Center (TCC), the office that initially receives these complaints, reported that about half of the complaints did not have complete information from passengers necessary for further review, such as the airport and date of the incident. According to TCC officials, they attempt to obtain the additional information from passengers, but often the complaint does not include the correct contact information or the passenger does not respond to the TCC's request for additional information. The TCC complaint data show that the remaining 51 percent (about 1,900) of complaints were referred to the TSA Multicultural Branch, the office responsible for reviewing complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations. The Multicultural Branch reported reviewing 2,059 complaints, including approximately 1,900 complaints from TCC, as well as complaints referred from other TSA offices. For about half of the complaints (1,066) the Multicultural Branch reviewed, it found indications of potential discrimination and unprofessional conduct that involved race or other factors and recommended a range of refresher training across airports or for screeners at individual airports identified in the complaints. TSA's Multicultural Branch Reviewed 2,059 Complaints Alleging Violations of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from October 2015 through February 2018 a Training is recommended when screening procedures are not followed or as a proactive measure. Why GAO Did This Study In 2016, TSA began using behavior detection in a more limited way to identify potentially high-risk passengers who exhibit certain behaviors it asserts are indicative of stress, fear, or deception, and refer them for additional screening or, when warranted, to law enforcement. TSA's policies and procedures prohibit unlawful profiling, i.e., screeners are prohibited from selecting passengers for additional screening based on race, ethnicity, or other factors. Allegations of racial profiling have raised questions about TSA's use of behavior detection. GAO was asked to review TSA's measures to prevent behavior detection activities from resulting in unlawful profiling. This report examines, among other things, (1) TSA's oversight of behavior detection activities and (2) the number of complaints alleging violations of civil rights and civil liberties related to passenger screening and actions taken by TSA to address them. GAO reviewed TSA policies and procedures; analyzed passenger complaint data received by TSA from October 2015 through February 2018 and actions taken to address them; and interviewed TSA officials. Complaint data we analyzed alleged conduct that occurred at the screening checkpoint and was not specific to behavior detection activities. What GAO Recommends TSA should develop a specific oversight mechanism to monitor behavior detection activities for compliance with policies that prohibit unlawful profiling. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact William Russell at (202) 512-8777 or RussellW@gao.gov. Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-168 What GAO Found The Small Business Administration (SBA) has implemented one of the three changes to the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) program authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 (2015 NDAA). Specifically, in September 2015 SBA published a final rule to implement sole-source authority, effective October 2015. As of February 2019, SBA had not eliminated the option for program participants to self-certify that they are eligible to participate, as required by 2015 NDAA. SBA officials stated that this requirement would be addressed as part of the new certification process for the WOSB program, which they expect to implement by January 1, 2020. SBA has not addressed WOSB program oversight deficiencies identified in GAO's 2014 review (GAO-15-54). For example, GAO previously recommended that SBA establish procedures to assess the performance of four third-party certifiers—private entities approved by SBA to certify the eligibility of WOSB firms. While SBA conducted a compliance review of the certifiers in 2016, it has no plans to regularly monitor them. By not improving its oversight of the WOSB program, SBA is limiting its ability to ensure third-party certifiers are following program requirements. In addition, the implementation of sole-source authority in light of these continued oversight deficiencies can increase program risk. Consequently, GAO maintains that its prior recommendations should be addressed. In addition, similar to previous findings from SBA's Office of Inspector General, GAO found that about 3.5 percent of contracts using a WOSB set-aside were awarded for ineligible goods or services from April 2011 through June 2018. SBA does not review contracting data that could identify this problem and inform SBA which agencies making awards may need targeted outreach or training. As a result, SBA cannot provide reasonable assurance that WOSB program requirements are being met and that the program is meeting its goals. While federal contract obligations to all women-owned small businesses and WOSB program set-asides have increased since fiscal year 2012, WOSB program set-asides remain a small percentage (see figure). Obligations for the Women-Owned Small Business Program and to All Women-Owned Small Businesses in Similar Industries, Fiscal Years 2012–2017 Note: Obligations to women-owned small businesses represent contract obligations to women-owned small businesses under WOSB-program-eligible North American Industry Classification System codes. FPDS-NG obligation amounts have been adjusted for inflation. Why GAO Did This Study In 2000, Congress authorized the WOSB program, allowing contracting officers to set aside procurements to women-owned small businesses in industries in which they are substantially underrepresented. To be eligible to participate in the WOSB program, firms have the option to self-certify or be certified by a third-party certifier. However, the 2015 NDAA changed the WOSB program by (1) authorizing SBA to implement sole-source authority, (2) eliminating the option for firms to self-certify as being eligible for the program and (3) allowing SBA to implement a new certification process. GAO was asked to review the WOSB program. This report discusses (1) the extent to which SBA has addressed the 2015 NDAA changes, (2) SBA's efforts to address previously identified deficiencies, and (3) use of the WOSB program. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and program documents; analyzed federal contracting data from April 2011 through June 2018; and interviewed SBA officials, officials from contracting agencies selected to obtain a range of experience with the WOSB program, and three of the four private third-party certifiers. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that SBA develop a process for periodically reviewing the extent to which WOSB program set-asides are awarded for ineligible goods or services and use the results to address identified issues, such as through targeted outreach or training on the WOSB program. SBA agreed with the recommendation. For more information, contact William Shear at (202) 512-8678 or ShearW@gao.gov. Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-445T What GAO Found GAO designated the federal management of programs that serve tribes and their members as high risk in 2017. Officials from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs), the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS) have expressed their commitment to addressing the issues that led to the designation. Since GAO last testified before this committee on June 13, 2018, Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS have demonstrated progress to partially meet each of the five criteria for removing a high-risk designation (leadership commitment, capacity, action plan, monitoring, and demonstrated progress). Improving Federal Management of Programs That Serve Tribes and Their Members However, additional progress is needed to fully address management weaknesses—particularly in the areas of retaining permanent leadership and a sufficient workforce. For example, to meet the capacity criterion, an agency needs to demonstrate that it has the capacity (i.e., people and other resources) to resolve its management weaknesses. While Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS each made progress identifying capacity and resources to partially meet this criterion, BIE and IHS continue to face significant workforce challenges. Specifically, although BIE has conducted hiring in recent years as part of an effort to reorganize the bureau, about 50 percent of all BIE positions have not been filled according to recent BIE documentation. IHS also faces workforce challenges—GAO's August 2018 report found that IHS's overall vacancy rate for clinical care providers was 25 percent. GAO has identified varying levels of progress at the agencies in understanding what they need to do to be removed from the list and will continue to closely monitor their progress. Why GAO Did This Study GAO's High-Risk List identifies federal program areas that are high risk due to their vulnerability to mismanagement, among other things. GAO added the federal management of programs that serve Indian tribes and their members to its February 2017 biennial update of high-risk areas in response to management weaknesses at Interior and HHS. GAO's recommendations identified in this high-risk area are neither reflective of the performance of programs administered by tribes nor directed at any tribally operated programs and activities. This testimony, which is based on GAO's March 2019 High Risk report, provides examples of actions taken and progress made by these agencies to address the five criteria GAO uses for determining whether to remove a high-risk designation. For this statement, GAO also drew on findings from its reports issued from September 2011 through August 2018 and updated that work by reviewing agency documentation and interviewing agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO has made more than 50 recommendations related to this high-risk area to improve management weaknesses at some Interior and HHS agencies—specifically BIE, BIA, and IHS—of which 31 recommendations are still open. Sustained focus by Interior and HHS in fully implementing these recommendations and continued oversight by Congress are essential to achieving progress in these areas. For more information, contact Jessica Farb at (202) 512-7114 or farbj@gao.gov. . Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-328R What GAO Found Federal priorities for working with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), as expressed in Executive Order 13779 (2017), include helping young adults by strengthening HBCU participation in federal programs. In response to the Executive Order, the Small Business Administration (SBA) identified two priorities in its 2018 agency plan to help increase HBCU participation and capacity in relation to its programs: (1) provide HBCUs with information on accessing and competing for federal grants and contracts, and (2) enhance HBCUs' capabilities in helping young adults. SBA's key programs and outreach activities that foster entrepreneurship do not specifically target HBCUs, but collaboration exists with some HBCUs. For example, some HBCUs host Small Business Development Centers (SBDC), have co-sponsored activities, and signed strategic alliance memorandums. SBDCs provide technical assistance to small business and aspiring entrepreneurs and 18 HBCUs are in the SBDC network. Several HBCUs signed co-sponsorship agreements with SBA to organize activities to foster entrepreneurship. Twenty-four HBCUs have strategic alliance memorandums with SBA to facilitate working relationships. Why GAO Did This Study Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) play an important and unique role in the higher education system. For example, more than one-third of African-Americans who received a doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics in 2016 obtained their undergraduate degrees from an HBCU, and many also received their doctorates from an HBCU. The White House Initiative on HBCUs was established in 1980 as a government-wide effort to strengthen the capacity of HBCUs, including their ability to participate in federal programs. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) mission is to help Americans start, build, and grow businesses. SBA also works with public- and private-sector partners, including colleges and universities, to strengthen or expand businesses development and foster entrepreneurship. However, little is known about the extent of SBA's activities and partnership programs with the 101 HBCUs, as of December 2018. This report examines (1) federal priorities and SBA goals related to working with HBCUs, and (2) SBA's key programs and outreach activities for fostering entrepreneurship, particularly with HBCUs, and what is known about HBCU participation in these programs and activities. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at (202) 512-8678 or OrtizA@gao.gov. Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-398T What GAO Found In November 2017, GAO reported that overall management representation in the financial services industry increased marginally for minorities and remained unchanged for women from 2007 to 2015. Similar trends also occurred at the senior-level management of these firms. For example, women represented about 29 percent of senior-level managers throughout this time period. As shown below, representation of minorities in senior management increased slightly, but each racial/ethnic group changed by less than 1 percentage point. The diversity of overall management also varied across the different sectors of the financial services industry. For example, the banking sector consistently had the greatest representation of minorities in overall management, whereas the insurance sector consistently had the highest proportion of women in overall management. Senior-Level Management Representation of Minorities in the Financial Services Industry, 2007 and 2015 Note: The “Other” category includes Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaska Native, and “two or more races.” As GAO reported in November 2017, potential employees for the financial services industry, including those that could become managers, come from external and internal pools that are diverse. For example, the external pool included those with undergraduate or graduate degrees, such as a Master of Business Administration. In 2015, one-third of the external pool were minorities and around 60 percent were women. The internal talent pool for potential managers included those already in professional positions. In 2015, about 28 percent of professional positions in financial services were held by minorities and just over half were held by women. Representatives of financial services firms and other stakeholders GAO spoke to for its November 2017 report described challenges to recruiting and retaining members of racial/ethnic minority groups and women. They also identified practices that could help address those challenges. For example, representatives from several firms noted that an effective practice is to recruit and hire students from a broad group of schools and academic disciplines. Some firms also described establishing management-level accountability to achieve workforce diversity goals. Firm representatives and other stakeholders agreed that it is important for firms to assess data on the diversity of their employees but varied in their views on whether such information should be shared publicly. Why GAO Did This Study The financial services industry is a major source of employment that affects the economic well-being of its customers and the country as a whole. As the makeup of the U.S. workforce continues to diversify, many private sector organizations, including those in the financial services industry, have recognized the importance of recruiting and retaining minorities and women in key positions to improve business or organizational performance and better meet the needs of a diverse customer base. However, questions remain about the diversity of the workforce in the financial services industry. This statement is based on GAO's November 2017 report on changes in management-level diversity and diversity practices in the financial services industry. This statement summarizes (1) trends in management-level diversity in the financial services industry, (2) trends in diversity among potential talent pools, and (3) challenges financial services firms identified in trying to increase workforce diversity and practices they have used to address those challenges. For more information, contact Daniel Garcia-Diaz at (202) 512-8678 or GarciaDiazD@gao.gov. Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-502 What GAO Found Of the 74 state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies that responded to GAO's survey, most reported expanding services to help students with disabilities transition from school to work as required under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), enacted in July 2014. Most state agencies reported serving more students and providing work-based learning experiences and other activities, referred to as pre-employment transition services (see figure). Number of Agencies That Reported Serving More Students Since July 2014 Note: There were 74 respondents. Totals do not sum to 74 because for each service one respondent reported decreases in the number of students served and the remainder either did not answer the question or responded “don't know.” State VR agencies reported two key challenges with implementing pre-employment transition services for students as required by WIOA. Spending reserved funds: States reported spending about $357 million out of the $465 million reserved for these services in fiscal year 2016. Education officials said that states had difficulty determining what expenditures were allowable, and some state officials said they would like more detailed information from Education. Education officials said they plan to clarify guidance but have no timeframe for providing further information, which would help states to better plan their use of reserved funds. Finalizing interagency agreements: Fewer than half the state VR agencies that responded to GAO's survey (34 of 74) reported updating their interagency agreement with their state's educational agency. Interagency agreements can help promote collaboration by, for example, establishing roles and responsibilities of each agency. Although Education offers technical assistance on interagency agreements, without increased efforts to raise awareness about the importance of these agreements and provide assistance to states where needed, Education may miss opportunities to help state VR and educational agencies efficiently and effectively coordinate services. In addition, WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices, and most VR agencies responding to GAO's survey (63 of 74) reported this would be useful. Education does not have a written plan or timeframe for identifying and disseminating best practices. As a result, Education may miss opportunities to help more students with disabilities successfully transition from school to work. Why GAO Did This Study WIOA requires states to reserve at least 15 percent of their total State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program funds to provide pre-employment transition services to help students with disabilities transition from school to work. GAO was asked to review how states were implementing these services. This report examines (1) steps states reported taking to implement pre-employment transition services, and (2) implementation challenges states reported and how Education has addressed them. GAO reviewed documents and funding data from Education, and federal laws and regulations; surveyed all 79 state VR agencies (74 responded); held discussion groups with representatives of 29 state VR agencies; and interviewed officials from Education and three states (Idaho, Illinois, and Maryland) GAO selected for variety in size and type of agencies, among other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO is recommending that Education (1) establish timeframes for providing additional information on allowable expenditures, (2) take additional steps to assist states that have not updated and finalized their interagency agreements, and (3) develop a written plan with specific timeframes and activities for identifying and disseminating best practices. Education agreed with the first recommendation and disagreed with the other two. GAO revised the second recommendation and maintains that specific information is needed for the third, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Elizabeth H. Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov. Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-577 What GAO Found State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies reported expanding services for employers in order to promote hiring individuals with disabilities in mainstream employment (where they are integrated with employees without disabilities and earn competitive wages), but the Department of Education (Education) has not fully addressed related challenges. Most VR agencies in GAO's survey reported providing specific employer services under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (see figure). However, many agencies reported challenges meeting employers' needs and promoting mainstream employment. For example, some did not fully understand when they are allowed to help employed individuals with career advancement. Education has provided related guidance, including disseminating information at conferences. However, officials at two of three VR agencies GAO spoke with said more information would be helpful. Increasing access to this information may help more VR agencies understand when they have the option of using VR funds for such services. Types of Employer Services Provided by Most State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies Most VR agencies GAO surveyed reported increasing coordination with other workforce agencies, but some gaps exist in federal guidance intended to enhance coordination. Employers GAO spoke with cited challenges navigating workforce programs, yet few agencies reported documenting roles and responsibilities of the agencies they partner with to work with employers. While Education and the Department of Labor (DOL) have provided some related technical assistance, they have not provided examples of documentation of roles and responsibilities. GAO's prior work has found that such documentation can help improve coordination by clarifying who does what in a partnership. Education and DOL are piloting three measures of the effectiveness of workforce programs in serving employers: employer penetration (i.e., percentage of employers receiving a service), retention with the same employer, and repeat business customers. However, some VR agencies cited concerns with piloted measures, such as the employer penetration measure not being sufficiently linked to VR core program activities. Taking such concerns into account when finalizing performance measures may result in performance metrics and targets that encourage VR agencies to more effectively serve employers. Why GAO Did This Study The VR program, administered by Education and state VR agencies, helps people with disabilities obtain employment. In 2014, WIOA made changes to the VR program, increasing its focus on serving employers, promoting career advancement as part of the broader goal of mainstream employment, and coordinating with other workforce programs. GAO was asked to review the VR program under WIOA. This report examines (1) the steps VR agencies have taken under WIOA to work with employers and place individuals in mainstream employment, and the extent Education has addressed any challenges; (2) how VR agencies have coordinated with other workforce programs and the extent federal agencies have addressed any challenges; and (3) how federal agencies have measured state VR agencies' efforts to serve employers. GAO surveyed all 79 VR agencies (74 responded); conducted three discussion groups with 36 state VR officials and four with 29 employers that worked with VR; interviewed VR and other workforce officials in three states, selected for geographic dispersion, among other factors; and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. What GAO Recommends GAO is making seven recommendations, including improving information on career advancement and partnerships, and aligning performance measures with activities. DOL agreed, while Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations, but said it will consider taking steps in response. For more information, contact Elizabeth H. Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov. Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-545 What GAO Found The National Institutes of Health (NIH), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), plays a prominent role in the nation's biomedical research. While it employs investigators in its intramural research program, over 80 percent of its budget supports its extramural program, primarily through grant funding to investigators at other research institutions. Given this, NIH has a vested interest in supporting a robust national biomedical workforce, but the agency has acknowledged that the environment is highly competitive and many investigators find that it takes years to obtain the type and amount of funding that typically spurs research independence. GAO's analysis found that extramural investigators who had received at least one large NIH research grant during fiscal years 2013 through 2017 were more likely to receive such grants in subsequent application cycles than investigators who had not yet received such grants. In response to the 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, NIH introduced an initiative to prioritize these grants for (1) early stage investigators, who are beginning their careers and have never received a large research grant, and (2) intermediate stage investigators, who are within 10 years of receiving their first large grant as an early stage investigator. However, it is too early to assess this new initiative, which was introduced in August 2017. NIH is currently considering revising the program to include investigators whose careers are more advanced. NIH implemented recommendations made by internal advisory bodies to support investigators from racial and ethnic groups considered by NIH to be underrepresented in biomedical research. GAO's analysis shows disparities for underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and for female investigators, from 2013 through 2017. For example, in 2017, about 17 percent of investigators from underrepresented racial groups—African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders combined—who applied for large grants received them. In contrast, about 24 percent of Hispanic or Latino applicants, an underrepresented ethnic group, received such grants. Asians and whites—well represented groups—were successful in receiving large grants about 24 and 27 percent of the time, respectively. Though women represent about half of all doctorates in biological science, GAO found that women investigators employed by NIH in its intramural program comprised about one-quarter of tenured investigators. NIH has taken positive steps such as establishing the position of Chief Officer of Scientific Workforce Diversity, who in turn created a strategic workforce diversity plan, which applies to both extramural and intramural investigators. The plan includes five broad goals for expanding and supporting these investigators. However, NIH has not developed quantitative metrics, evaluation details, or specific time frames by which it could measure the agency's progress against these goals. Why GAO Did This Study NIH's success depends on its ability to attract, retain, develop, and otherwise support biomedical investigators—including those employed in its intramural research program as well as those working in its extramural program at universities, academic health centers, and other research institutions. For decades, the agency has faced challenges in supporting early career investigators and those from underrepresented groups, including ethnic and racial minorities and women. The 21st Century Cures Act included provisions that NIH coordinate policies and programs to promote early research independence and enhance the diversity of the scientific workforce. The act also contained a provision that GAO examine NIH's efforts. GAO reviewed the actions NIH has taken to support (1) investigators beginning their biomedical careers; and (2) investigators from underrepresented groups and women. GAO analyzed NIH data from fiscal years 2013 through 2017 on grant funding for investigators by career phase and demographic status. GAO also reviewed relevant laws and NIH policies, programs, and initiatives, and interviewed NIH officials and stakeholders from the scientific research community. What GAO Recommends The Director of NIH should develop quantitative metrics, evaluation details, and time frames to assess NIH's efforts to diversify its scientific workforce against its diversity strategic plan goals, and take action as needed. HHS agreed with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact Marcia Crosse at (202) 512-7114 or crossem@gao.gov. Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-500 What GAO Found Firms differentiate many consumer products to appeal separately to men and women by slightly altering product attributes like color or scent. Products differentiated by gender may sell for different prices if men and women have different demands or willingness to pay for these product attributes. Of 10 personal care product categories (e.g., deodorants and shaving products) that GAO analyzed, average retail prices paid were significantly higher for women's products than for men's in 5 categories. In 2 categories—shaving gel and nondisposable razors—men's versions sold at a significantly higher price. One category—razor blades--had mixed results based on two price measures analyzed, and two others—disposable razors and mass-market perfumes—showed no significant gender price differences. GAO found that the target gender for a product is a significant factor contributing to price differences identified, but GAO did not have sufficient information to determine the extent to which these gender-related price differences were due to gender bias as opposed to other factors, such as different advertising costs. Though the analysis controlled for several observable product attributes, such as product size and packaging type, all underlying differences in costs and demand for products targeted to different genders could not be fully observed. Studies GAO reviewed found limited evidence of gender price differences for four products or services not differentiated by gender—mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs. For example, with regard to mortgages, women as a group paid higher average mortgage rates than men, in part due to weaker credit characteristics, such as lower average income. However, after controlling for borrower credit characteristics and other factors, three studies did not find statistically significant differences in borrowing costs between men and women, while one found women paid higher rates for certain subprime loans. In addition, one study found that female borrowers defaulted less frequently than male borrowers with similar credit characteristics, and the study suggested that women may pay higher mortgage rates than men relative to their default risk. While these studies controlled for factors other than gender that could affect borrowing costs, several lacked important data on certain borrower risk characteristics, such as credit scores, which could affect analysis of gender disparities. Also, several studies analyzed small samples of subprime loans that were originated in 2005 or earlier, which limits the generalizability of the results. In their oversight of federal antidiscrimination statutes, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Housing and Urban Development have identified limited consumer concerns based on gender-related pricing differences. GAO's analysis of complaint data received by the three agencies from 2012–2017 found that they had received limited consumer complaints about gender-related price differences. The agencies provide general consumer education resources on discrimination and consumer awareness. However, given the limited consumer concern, they have not identified a need to incorporate additional materials specific to gender-related price differences into their existing consumer education resources. Why GAO Did This Study Gender-related price differences occur when consumers are charged different prices for the same or similar goods and services because of factors related to gender. While variation in costs and consumer demand may give rise to such price differences, some policymakers have raised concerns that gender bias may also be a factor. While the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act prohibit discrimination based on sex in credit and housing transactions, no federal law prohibits businesses from charging consumers different prices for the same or similar goods targeted to different genders. GAO was asked to review gender-related price differences for consumer goods and services sold in the United States. This report examines, among other things, (1) how prices compared for selected goods and services marketed to men and women, and potential reasons for any price differences; (2) what is known about price differences for men and women for products not differentiated by gender, such as mortgages; and (3) the extent to which federal agencies have identified and addressed any concerns about gender-related price differences. To examine these issues, GAO analyzed retail price data, reviewed relevant academic studies, analyzed federal consumer complaint data, and interviewed federal agency officials, industry experts, and academics. For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-554 What GAO Found Federal advertising contract obligations to small disadvantaged businesses (SDB) and businesses of all sizes owned by minorities and women (specified businesses) generally increased from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, and constituted 13 percent of all advertising obligations over this period. This figure is consistent with the percentage of all federal contract obligations to these businesses over this period. Overall, advertising contract obligations to all three categories of businesses increased between fiscal years 2013 and 2017, as shown in the figure below. Within the minority-owned business category, which includes businesses owned by Asian-Pacific-, Subcontinent-Asian-, Black-, Hispanic-, and Native-Americans, over half of the obligations went to those owned by Hispanic-Americans. Federal Advertising Contract Obligations to Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Those Owned by Minorities and Women, Fiscal Years 2013 – 2017 Notes: Businesses may be counted under more than one category. For example, a small disadvantaged business may also be women-owned. When calculating the amount going to all three categories combined, GAO only counted each business' obligations once. Therefore, the amounts in the line showing all three categories combined are less than the sums of the individual categories. Data reflect obligations made on contracts classified under the “support: management – advertising” or “support: management – public relations” product service codes in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation database. Changes from year to year may be associated with a small number of contracts. Three agencies—the departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security—were responsible for nearly three-quarters of advertising contract obligations to the three categories of businesses from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. These agencies were associated with much of the increase in these obligations to specified businesses over the 5-year period. Although some agencies obligated higher shares of their advertising contract obligations to these businesses, they generally obligated fewer dollars than DOD and the two other agencies. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration directed 98 percent of its obligations to these businesses, but the agency's total advertising contract obligations were $21 million over the 5-year period. DOD obligated $2.6 billion for these contracts over the same period. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government spends close to $1 billion annually for advertising activities that, among other things, inform the public about programs and services. The government seeks to provide procurement opportunities for these services to businesses such as SDBs and those owned by minorities and women. SDBs are those primarily owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. GAO was asked to analyze federal advertising obligations to these types of businesses. This report discusses (1) the amount federal agencies have obligated towards advertising contracts over the most recent 5 fiscal years (2013 through 2017) and the amount going to SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women; and (2) the agencies that have directed the most advertising contract obligations to these businesses and how this has changed over time. GAO analyzed data on advertising contracts from the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation database for fiscal years 2013 through 2017. GAO also interviewed Small Business Administration officials. The Small Business Administration provided technical comments on this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Tranchau (Kris) T. Nguyen at (202) 512-6806 or NguyenTT@gao.gov. Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-455 What GAO Found Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), stakeholders, and planning documents identified extensive and diverse capital project needs at HBCUs and GAO found HBCUs rely on a few funding sources—such as state appropriations and tuition and fees—to address those needs. HBCUs responding to GAO's survey reported that 46 percent of their building space, on average, needs repair or replacement. Based on a review of master plans—which assess the condition of HBCU facilities—and visits to nine HBCUs, GAO identified significant capital project needs in the areas of deferred maintenance, facilities modernization, and preservation of historic buildings. The Department of Education's (Education) HBCU Capital Financing Program has provided access to needed funding for some HBCUs and has helped modernize their facilities to improve student recruitment. However, fewer than half of HBCUs have used the program, according to Education data, which was specifically designed to help them address capital project needs (see figure). Capital Projects at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Note: The Department of Education's HBCU Capital Financing program provides low-cost loans to eligible HBCUs. Education has undertaken several efforts to help HBCUs access and participate in the HBCU Capital Financing Program. For example, Education conducts outreach through attending conferences. However, some HBCUs in GAO's survey and interviews were unaware of the program. Moreover, public HBCUs in four states reported facing participation challenges due to state laws or policies that conflict with program requirements. For example, participants are required to provide collateral, but public HBCUs in two states reported they cannot use state property for that purpose. In March 2018, a federal law was enacted requiring Education to develop an outreach plan to improve program participation. An outreach plan that includes direct outreach to individual HBCUs and states to help address these issues could help increase participation. Without direct outreach, HBCUs may continue to face participation challenges. In addition, two HBCUs recently defaulted on their program loans and 29 percent of loan payments were delinquent in 2017. Education modified a few loans in 2013 and was recently authorized to offer loan deferment, but has no plans to analyze the potential benefits to HBCUs and the program's cost of offering such modifications in the future. Until Education conducts such analyses, policymakers will lack key information on potential options to assist HBCUs. Why GAO Did This Study HBCUs play a prominent role in our nation's higher education system. For example, about one-third of African-Americans receiving a doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics received undergraduate degrees from HBCUs. To help HBCUs facing challenges accessing funding for capital projects, in 1992, federal law created the HBCU Capital Financing Program, administered by Education, to provide HBCUs with access to low-cost loans. GAO was asked to review the program. This report examines HBCUs' capital project needs and their funding sources, and Education's efforts to help HBCUs access and participate in the HBCU Capital Financing Program. GAO surveyed all 101 accredited HBCUs and 79 responded, representing a substantial, but nongeneralizable, portion of HBCUs. GAO analyzed the most recent program participation data (1996-2017) and finance data (2015-16 school year); reviewed available HBCU master plans; visited nine HBCUs of different sizes and sectors (public and private); and interviewed Education officials and other stakeholders. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends Education (1) include direct outreach to individual HBCUs and steps to address participation challenges for some public HBCUs in its outreach plan, and (2) analyze the potential benefits and costs of offering loan modifications in the program. Education outlined plans to address the first recommendation, and partially agreed with the second. GAO continues to believe both recommendations are warranted. For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-425 What GAO Found According to GAO's nationally generalizable survey of athletics administrators, public high schools recently took various measures to encourage equal opportunities for boys and girls in sports. For example, a majority assessed resources such as equipment, travel opportunities, and facilities that they provided to girls' and boys' teams and some schools took steps to gauge student interest in specific sports as a means of encouraging equal opportunities, according to GAO's survey. Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) guidance indicates that Title IX coordinators—which school districts are required to designate and make visible per regulations for Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments (Title IX)—should work closely with athletics administrators to determine whether action is needed to address any underrepresentation, or to otherwise encourage equal athletic opportunities. However, GAO estimates that 51 percent of athletics administrators either were unaware of or unsupported by their Title IX coordinator, according to the survey (see figure). These findings raise questions as to whether Title IX coordinators are familiar with and using Education's guidance. Officials from an association for Title IX coordinators said this lack of communication with athletics administrators may be related to some Title IX coordinators' limited understanding of Title IX and athletics. OCR officials said that they did not know the extent to which Title IX coordinators are working with their athletics administrators to encourage equal athletic opportunities because Education generally does not collect this information. Better information on Title IX coordinators could help Education support school districts' efforts to encourage equal sports opportunities for girls and boys. School Athletics Administrators' Awareness of and Support by Title IX Coordinators, 2017 Note: All estimates in this figure have a margin of error of plus or minus 6.4 percent or less, at the 95 percent confidence level. The percentage who were either unaware of or unsupported by their Title IX coordinators (51 percent) appears higher in this graphic (52 percent) due to rounding. The factors that most affect boys' and girls' participation in public high school sports are the number of, and interest in, participation opportunities offered, according to GAO's survey and interviews with nine subject matter specialists. Though the survey provided no clear consensus on factors that discourage students from participating in sports, athletics administrators most often perceived students' competing responsibilities as discouraging participation. Why GAO Did This Study Research has found that sports participation yields many benefits for youth. Girls' participation in sports has increased dramatically since the passage of Title IX in 1972, but is still lower than for boys. Further, investigations by OCR, which enforces and implements Title IX, have highlighted instances of disparities in the resources provided to girls' and boys' teams. GAO was asked to review how public high schools encourage equal athletic opportunities. This report examines (1) measures public high schools and athletics administrators have taken to encourage equal athletic opportunities for boys and girls, and (2) factors that affect boys' and girls' participation levels in public high school sports programs. GAO conducted a nationally generalizable probability survey of athletics administrators at 784 public high schools. GAO interviewed nine subject matter specialists selected to provide a range of perspectives. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance and interviewed OCR officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is recommending that OCR determine the extent of K-12 Title IX coordinators' knowledge and use of tools in its existing guidance and use this information in its efforts to encourage them to work with athletics administrators to help ensure equal athletic opportunities. Education partially concurred, stating it would consider GAO's recommendation in its complaint investigations, technical assistance activities, and communication practice reviews. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki, 617-788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258 What GAO Found Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disproportionately disciplined (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) in K-12 public schools, according to GAO's analysis of Department of Education (Education) national civil rights data for school year 2013-14, the most recent available. These disparities were widespread and persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school attended. For example, Black students accounted for 15.5 percent of all public school students, but represented about 39 percent of students suspended from school—an overrepresentation of about 23 percentage points (see figure). Students Suspended from School Compared to Student Population, by Race, Sex, and Disability Status, School Year 2013-14 Note: Disparities in student discipline such as those presented in this figure may support a finding of discrimination, but taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. Officials GAO interviewed in all five school districts in the five states GAO visited reported various challenges with addressing student behavior, and said they were considering new approaches to school discipline. They described a range of issues, some complex—such as the effects of poverty and mental health issues. For example, officials in four school districts described a growing trend of behavioral challenges related to mental health and trauma. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the issues that influence student behavior, officials from all five school districts GAO visited were implementing alternatives to disciplinary actions that remove children from the classroom, such as initiatives that promote positive behavioral expectations for students. Education and the Department of Justice (Justice) documented several actions taken to identify and address school discipline issues. For example, both agencies investigated cases alleging discrimination. Further, to help identify persistent disparities among the nation's schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through its Civil Rights Data Collection effort. Why GAO Did This Study Research has shown that students who experience discipline that removes them from the classroom are more likely to repeat a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in the juvenile justice system. Studies have shown this can result in decreased earning potential and added costs to society, such as incarceration and lost tax revenue. Education and Justice are responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in the administration of discipline in public schools. GAO was asked to review the use of discipline in schools. To provide insight into these issues, this report examines (1) patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) actions Education and Justice have taken to identify and address disparities or discrimination in school discipline. GAO analyzed discipline data from nearly all public schools for school year 2013-14 from Education's Civil Rights Data Collection; interviewed federal and state officials, as well as officials from a total of 5 districts and 19 schools in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas. We selected these districts based on disparities in suspensions for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities, and diversity in size and location. We also reviewed federal laws and a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved federal school discipline investigations (selected in part based on the type of alleged discrimination). We incorporated technical comments from the agencies as appropriate. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 -0400