Input:
	Background

EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all  aspects of the federal government’s EEO program. EEOC assures  federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations,  provides technical assistance to federal agencies concerning EEO  complaint adjudication, monitors and evaluates federal agencies’  affirmative employment programs, develops and distributes federal sector  educational materials, conducts training for stakeholders, provides  guidance and assistance to Administrative Judges who conduct hearings  on EEO complaints, and adjudicates appeals from administrative  decisions made by federal agencies on EEO complaints.

		EEOC’s MD-715 Reporting Requirements

EEOC’s MD-715 requires agencies to take appropriate steps to establish  a model EEO program and to ensure that all employment decisions are  free from discrimination. It also sets forth the standards by which EEOC  will review the sufficiency of agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act  programs, which include periodic agency self-assessments and the  removal of barriers to free and open workplace competition.
Under MD-715, federal agencies, and any subordinate component that  enjoys autonomy from its parent agency, are required to submit annual  MD-715 EEO program status reports to EEOC. Completed MD-715 reports include:
Part F: Requires designated agency officials to certify that the agency has completed an annual self-assessment (Part G) and established plans to correct any program deficiencies (Part H), as well as conducted comprehensive barrier analyses and established plans to eliminate identified barriers (Part I).
Part G: Contains a self-assessment checklist for an agency to assess its compliance with essential EEO program elements to operate a model EEO program and identify any deficiencies.
Part H: Describes the agency’s plans to address identified deficiencies.
Part I: Shows identified EEO triggers and barriers for race, gender, and national origin; how the agency plans to address them; and who the responsible officials are.
Part J: Contains the agency’s affirmative action plan for individuals  with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities.
Additionally, federal agencies are required to identify and eliminate  barriers that impede free and open competition in their respective  workplaces. EEOC reporting requirements state that a barrier is an  agency policy, procedure, practice, or condition that limits or tends to limit  employment opportunities for members of a particular gender, race, or  ethnic background, or for individuals based on disability status. According  to EEOC’s instructions, many employment barriers are built into the  organizational and operational structures of an agency, and are  embedded in the day-to-day procedures and practices of the agency.
Agencies are also required to identify EEO program deficiencies and  develop plans to address them. According to EEOC’s instructions,  deficiencies are weaknesses in an agency’s EEO program where agency  officials need to provide more attention. For example, a deficiency might  be that the EEO director is not under the direct supervision of the agency  head, or that an EEO Director or Officer lacks a regular, effective means  of informing the agency head and other top management of the  effectiveness, efficiency, and legal compliance of the agency’s EEO  program.
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations instructs agencies on how to  complete their MD-715 reports, provides training and technical  assistance, and offers additional informal assistance, such as sharing  best workplace practices. Based on agency MD-715 reports, EEOC  includes assessments of agency progress in its Annual Report on the  Federal Workforce, and in notice and feedback letters addressed to  individual agencies. In addition, according to EEOC officials, EEOC  meets with each agency every 3 years to review the status of its  compliance with federal EEO laws, regulations, and management  directives.
If EEOC determines that areas of noncompliance exist in an agency’s  program, it may take compliance actions. Compliance actions include  requiring the agency to provide an update on the status of its plans to  correct deficiencies in its MD-715 submission, or to submit a Compliance  Report to EEOC explaining the agency’s progress in correcting  deficiencies within 6 months of the date of a feedback letter. If agencies  do not comply, EEOC may choose to initiate its noncompliance process,  which could include conducting a program evaluation, issuing a notice to  the Secretary of Homeland Security, or publicly identifying DHS as a  noncompliant agency.
As part of its noncompliance process, EEOC has conducted program  evaluations of DHS components. In 2013, EEOC initiated a program  evaluation at TSA to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the  EEO complaint framework in all offices and directorates within TSA.  EEOC reported in 2014 that TSA’s EEO complaint process was adequate  and complied with its regulations. However, EEOC made eight  recommendations to TSA, including one that called for TSA to modify the  EEO information in its training materials and presentations. In response to  EEOC’s report, TSA submitted a letter to EEOC stating that it planned to  address all of the EEOC recommendations and had already taken steps  to implement several of them. In addition, in 2018, EEOC conducted a  multiagency program evaluation that included U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP). It found that CBP had no women serving in positions  that involve intercepting prohibited commodities or persons, and that  women comprised only 5 percent of its border patrol agents. EEOC  stated that the report’s recommendations may help CBP with its hiring  efforts.

		DHS’s EEO Program

CRCL, through the Deputy Officer for EEO and Diversity, is responsible  for processing complaints of discrimination; establishing and maintaining  EEO programs; fulfilling reporting requirements as required by law,  regulation, or executive order; evaluating the effectiveness of EEO  programs; leading the department’s diversity management program; and  preparing and submitting DHS’s annual MD-715 report to EEOC.
According to EEOC policy, a second-level reporting component is one  that enjoys autonomy from its parent agency, and has 1,000 or more  employees. EEOC instructions require second-level reporting  components submit MD-715 reports to their agency headquarters for  inclusion in the agency-wide report in addition to submitting them directly  to the EEOC. DHS’s Headquarters EEO Office, a part of CRCL,  implements the EEO program for all headquarters employees and  applicants. DHS has nine second-level reporting components, including  DHS Headquarters, that are required to submit individual MD-715 reports  to EEOC. Each component has an office headed by a director charged  with implementing its EEO program.
Figure 1 shows the officials who are primarily responsible for EEO at  DHS.

		DHS’s MD-715 Reporting Process

CRCL develops DHS’s annual MD-715 EEO program status report and  submits it to EEOC. CRCL works with components to gather and analyze  necessary data and information, and to perform the required MD-715  exercises that are ultimately used to complete the overall DHS MD-715  report. CRCL includes components’ identified deficiencies in the DHS- wide MD-715 report. The Secretary of Homeland Security (or its  designee) and CRCL’s Deputy Officer for EEO and Diversity are to certify  DHS’s MD-715 report before CRCL sends the report to EEOC.
Figure 2 illustrates DHS’s MD-715 report development process. This  process includes conducting a self-assessment checklist of DHS’s and its  components’ efforts to achieve a model EEO program and barrier  analysis to eliminate identified EEO barriers.

	DHS Has Plans to Address the EEO Barriers It Identified, but Could Better Measure Its Progress toward Eliminating the Barriers

		DHS Has Taken Steps to Follow EEOC Guidance to Identify and Address EEO Barriers

DHS has taken steps to follow EEOC’s guidance by using and analyzing  various information sources, investigating possible causes of potential  barriers or triggers, and planning activities to address and eliminate  barriers. EEOC MD-715 guidance calls for federal agencies to continually  work towards preventing all forms of discrimination and eliminating  barriers that may impede free and open competition in the workplace.  Figure 3 shows the barrier identification and elimination steps under MD- 715.
DHS generally uses the information sources that EEOC guidance  recommends in addition to workforce data to help identify potential  barriers. As directed by EEOC guidance, DHS analyzes its workforce  data to help identify triggers or indicators of potential EEO barriers by  comparing the racial, national origin, gender, and disability profiles of its  total workforce, and for various occupational categories to relevant civilian  labor workforce data. In fiscal year 2017, DHS analyzed all available  workforce data including:
Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and
Participation Rates by Major Occupations – Distribution by  Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Disability, and
Applicants and Hires by Major Occupations – Distribution by  Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Disability.
In addition to analyzing workforce data, in each of the fiscal years 2014  through 2017, DHS utilized the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s  Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and DHS’s employee exit  survey results to help identify and address barriers. For example,  CRCL, in DHS’s fiscal year 2017 MD-715 report, used FEVS and exit  survey results to help investigate the possible causes of higher-than- expected nonretirement separations for white females and several other  ethnic and racial groups. According to the report, possible causes  included the lack of advancement opportunities, insufficient work/life  programs, and the lack of alternate work schedules.
During our small group discussions, DHS employee groups told us that  through the MD-715 report development process, they helped identify and  address triggers and barriers. For example, Special Emphasis Program  Managers we spoke with told us that DHS components conduct climate  surveys to obtain input from employees on workforce practices every 1 or  2 years. Further, several DHS components’ MD-715 reports referenced  soliciting employee input, such as obtaining Disability Employment  Program Managers’ input via quarterly disability employment advisory  council meetings where they share best practices and discuss issues and  topics including barriers.

			DHS Has Identified Workforce Demographics Data Anomalies That Indicate Potential EEO Barriers

Our review of DHS’s MD-715 reports showed that DHS identified three  department-wide triggers in fiscal years 2014 through 2017. The three  triggers were (1) high rate of nonretirement separations for certain  groups, particularly white women; (2) low participation rates of women  and various ethnic and racial groups in the permanent workforce; and (3)  low participation rates of individuals with disabilities and targeted  disabilities.

			While Investigating Various EEO Anomalies, DHS Identified Three Barriers

Subsequent to its trigger identification and department-wide barrier  analysis, from fiscal years 2014 through 2017, DHS identified three  barriers: (1) problems with supervision/management, lack of  advancement opportunities, lack of alternate work schedules, insufficient  work/life programs, and personal/family related reasons 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 the low hiring rates of racial groups in certain major  occupations; and (3) medical and physical requirements of law  enforcement positons, such as the ability to engage in moderate to  arduous physical exertion, which limit the eligibility of some applicants  with targeted disabilities. DHS identified these barriers by analyzing  component and DHS level workforce data and reviewing DHS FEVS and  exit survey results. DHS identified barriers in its MD-715 reports for fiscal  years 2014 through 2017. However, EEOC noted that for fiscal years  2015 to 2017, DHS had not identified any policies, procedures, practices,  or conditions causing (1) low hiring rates for women in certain major  occupations, and (2) the high separation rate of employees with  disabilities.

			DHS’s Planned Activities to Address the Identified EEO Barriers

As stated in EEOC’s guidance, barrier elimination is a vital step to  addressing identified barriers and working towards the goal of making the  federal government a model employer. To address and eliminate  identified barriers, EEOC’s instructions direct agencies to include in their  MD-715 reports measurable objectives, an action plan that includes  planned activities and completion dates, as well as officials responsible  for overseeing the plan, and a summary of accomplishments.
Since our 2009 recommendations, DHS has included interim milestones  in its MD-715 reports. Our 2009 report showed that DHS had modified  nearly all of its target completion dates. We recommended that DHS  identify essential activities and establish interim milestones necessary for  the completion of all planned activities to address identified barriers to  EEO. In its fiscal year 2011 MD-715 report to EEOC, DHS identified  essential activities and established interim milestones. Based on its MD- 715 reporting for fiscal years 2014 through 2017, DHS has continued to  identify planned activities and establish interim milestones.
Our review of DHS’s MD-715 reports from fiscal years 2014 through 2017  also shows that DHS has planned activities and targeted completion  dates to address each identified barrier, and each trigger for a potential  barrier. For example, to address the low participation rates of women  and several ethnic and racial groups in DHS’s overall workforce, DHS’s  planned activities included researching where to conduct outreach for the  identified groups, and producing a plan to integrate data from the multiple  applicant data-tracking systems used across DHS. DHS’s outreach  activities included identifying colleges and universities with large  populations of underrepresented groups, identifying relevant job fairs in  selected service areas, and conducting focus group meetings with  employees from underrepresented groups to determine how to improve  recruitment and retention, among other events. These events were  initiated in 2011, but are to be reviewed and updated annually. For  example, DHS reported that it develops a “Top 25” list of annual outreach  and recruitment activities that include law enforcement focused events.  DHS also reported developing a framework in 2016 for applicant flow data  analysis—important for identifying and addressing potential recruitment  and outreach barriers. In 2017, activities included conducting more robust  department-wide analysis of applicant data. Many of the activities were  initiated in prior years and target dates for completion were met. To  address the high nonretirement separation rate of certain groups, notably  white women, DHS’s planned activities included updating and  augmenting previously instituted exit survey methods, and identifying and  implementing retention interventions.
Further, in its fiscal year 2014-2017 reports, DHS has identified essential  activities, established interim milestones, and met recurring interim  milestones for its planned activities. For example, DHS reported that it  planned to research where to conduct outreach for groups in occupations  with underrepresentation. DHS components completed this outreach  activity in 2012, and components and facilities are to annually identify (1)  colleges with substantial populations of underrepresented groups, (2)  relevant job fairs in the service area, and (3) relevant local affinity groups  and community groups, among other outreach activities. Additionally,  DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) has lead  responsibility for implementing a multiyear plan for targeted recruitment of  applicants from identified underrepresented groups. OCHCO completed  its initial multiyear plan in 2012 and is to annually update its established  goals for intern programs, job fairs, and local advertising.

		Selected DHS Components Took Steps to Conduct Barrier Analyses

All four selected DHS components have taken steps to follow EEOC  guidance to conduct barrier analyses. Of the components, Federal Law  Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), the U.S. Secret Service (Secret  Service), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and U.S.  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), only one, TSA, identified  any EEO barriers. However, each of the components identified triggers  and analyzed potential barriers by  reviewing workforce data (i.e., data on total workforce, new hires, and  mission critical occupations) and comparing the data to relevant  benchmarks,  reviewing various information sources to help identify possible barriers  that may be resulting in the current condition highlighted by the  analysis of workforce data, and  reporting action plans and time frames for addressing potential or  actual barriers.
The Secret Service’s fiscal year 2017 MD-715 report showed that after  analyzing demographic data to identify triggers, the Secret Service used  FEVS data to identify potential barriers to the employment of individuals  with disabilities in occupations where the triggers were identified. In  addition, USCIS stated in its fiscal year 2017 MD-715 report that its  review of exit survey data provided reasons that men, Hispanics, and  whites left the agency, but data were inconclusive regarding the  continuing underrepresentation of those groups. USCIS also reported that  it would continue analyzing exit data in fiscal year 2018.
In fiscal year 2017, TSA identified two barriers in its MD-715 report—(1)  medical and physical restrictions limit opportunities for individuals with  disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities in Transportation  Security Officer and Federal Air Marshal occupations, and (2) women are  not applying to Transportation Security Officer or Federal Air Marshal  positions at the same rate as men. TSA reported that it analyzed  workforce data and policies, procedures, and practices related to  recruiting, hiring, and promotions to try to determine what may be  contributing to low participation rates for women and individuals with  disabilities. TSA also interviewed employees involved in those processes,  and conducted focus groups with supervisors and leadership at airports  and field offices. TSA’s plans to address barriers include developing a  communication plan to promote TSA programs that support persons with  disabilities and with targeted disabilities; making sure training modules  are accessible; conducting training to increase awareness of unconscious  bias towards working with individuals with disabilities; and working with its  human capital office and others to assist with recruiting and hiring to more  effectively target women.
Although FLETC, Secret Service, and USCIS did not identify EEO  barriers in fiscal year 2017, they each developed action plans that  identified activities designed to help address and correct undesired  conditions, identified responsible officials, and set time frames for  addressing the conditions. Examples of selected components’ plans and  activities include:
FLETC. To address low participation rates of persons with targeted  disabilities in the permanent workforce, FLETC-planned activities  include working with human resource specialists to identify data and  timelines needed to create reports in its applicant data flow system  that would help identify any barriers in the selection process, and  working to resolve issues concerning applicant flow data in the  applicant pool.
Secret Service. To address low participation rates of certain groups  in the general workforce and new hires, planned activities include  quarterly tracking and reporting ethnicity, race, and gender data net  changes, hires, resignations, and retirements. Other activities would  involve working closely with the Office of Human Resources Talent  and Employee Acquisition Management Division in recruitment  activities.
USCIS. To address the lower-than-expected participation rate of  certain groups in the permanent workforce—for example, white males  and females and Hispanic males—planned activities include  conducting comprehensive applicant flow data analysis of the top five  major occupational categorizes, and administering and analyzing a bi- annual EEO and Diversity Climate Survey.
DHS has provided training for its components on how to conduct EEO  barrier analysis. In 2016 and 2018, DHS trained DHS component EEO  officials on methods for identifying the root of specific triggers in the  workplace, as well as steps for eliminating identified barriers. According to  DHS’s analysis of participant training evaluations, the majority of  participants believed they would be able to apply what they learned from  the training. In 2017, DHS provided a 2-day barrier analysis training to  agency and component affirmative employment practitioners that  introduced various barrier analysis methods. It included an exercise  involving a hypothetical federal agency. Based on our review of  participant evaluations, participants were satisfied with the training.

		DHS Reports Some Improvements in Employee Engagement and Representation of Minorities and Women, but Lacks Performance Metrics for Tracking Progress

DHS reported improvements in EEO indicators in its MD-715 reports from  fiscal years 2014 through 2017. DHS cited its higher FEVS scores under  employee engagement. For example, although DHS’s employee  engagement remained 7 percent below the government-wide average, it  increased from 54 percent in 2014 to 60 percent in 2017. According to  DHS, this score was largely driven by TSA and U.S. Customs and Border  Protection employees, who accounted for 46.8 percent of DHS’s  completed surveys.
Our review of DHS’s workforce data from fiscal years 2014 through 2017  showed that every minority group as well as individuals with disabilities  and individuals with targeted disabilities had been trending in a positive  direction since fiscal year 2014. Further, DHS officials told us that  minority representation was up 3 percent and female representation was  up 2 percent since 2015.
In addition, DHS has produced barrier analysis reports that address  underrepresentation of women and various ethnic and racial groups. In  2018, DHS completed a barrier analysis report on Hispanic employment  in General Schedule pay scale grades 12 and higher, as required by  EEOC and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The report  identified several potential triggers, such as Hispanic women separating  from DHS, and related barriers, such as possible harassment of Hispanic  employees and women, and glass walls. DHS also developed action  plans focused on enhancing elder and family care programs, offering  training on preventing harassment in the workforce, increasing  recruitment into job series with substantial promotion opportunities, and  ensuring interview panels were diverse and interviewers properly trained.
Although DHS has reported positive trending in various underrepresented  groups, DHS officials said they were unable to fully identify the barriers  contributing to the underrepresentation of women in its workforce despite  conducting the required barrier analysis. In 2014, DHS conducted a  barrier analysis of women in law enforcement to help identify any barriers.  While specific barriers were not identified, DHS’s report, Women in Law  Enforcement Study, provided insight into why DHS employed lower rates  of female law enforcement officers than federal government-wide. For  example, study participants shared anecdotal instances of where they or  their colleagues did not pursue promotional opportunities because they  perceived their work environment made them choose between the job  and family. The study also highlighted steps DHS could take to help  address its underrepresentation of women, such as being more creative  in its approach to attracting qualified women through use of social media,  and by creating more family-friendly environments.
According to EEOC, one important tool in examining the fairness and  inclusiveness of the federal government’s recruitment efforts is applicant  flow data. By reviewing the yield of an agency’s recruitment effort, the  organization can reassess and improve its effort to reach all segments of  the population. EEOC guidance states that having department-wide  applicant flow data could aid in analyzing differences in selection rates  among different groups for a particular job. In July 2017, EEOC informed  DHS that the agency’s applicant flow data were incomplete. DHS has  reported challenges in collecting department-wide data that could help  identify potential barriers. EEOC found that DHS’s workforce data tables  do not always contain all of the agency’s applicant flow data. According to  EEOC, without such data, it becomes much more difficult to pinpoint the  specific policies, procedures, or practices in which barriers might be  embedded.
DHS does not have a consolidated applicant flow data system. According  to DHS, four of its components use one system (USA Staffing), while five  other components use a different system (Monster Government  Solutions). Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) officials told  us DHS is developing a new system to integrate applicant flow data  department-wide. However, the officials could not give us a time frame for  when the system is expected to be completed. As a work-around, DHS  explained that it obtains these data directly from each component that  uses Monster Government Solutions. CRCL officials said they will report  complete applicant flow data in fiscal year 2019.
In addition to creating a model EEO environment, progress in eliminating  EEO barriers can help DHS avoid costs related to workplace disputes.  According to EEOC guidance, the elimination of barriers may help an  agency avoid expensive costs, such as back pay awards, compensatory  damages, and attorney’s fees, from findings of discrimination. EEOC  found 81 instances of discrimination from fiscal years 2014 through 2017  resulting in DHS paying nearly $30 million to cover judgments, awards,  and settlements for these EEO cases, or an average of $7.4 million per  year. These expenses were nearly equal to the average annual cost of  DHS’s EEO program, which DHS estimated at about $7.63 million in  fiscal year 2019.

			DHS Lacks Metrics for Tracking Progress towards Eliminating Identified EEO Barriers

DHS does not have complete performance metrics or mechanisms for  tracking progress towards eliminating its identified EEO barriers. For  example, CRCL does not maintain numerical objectives or goals for  eliminating barriers involving certain EEO groups, such as workplace  satisfaction of white females or the retention rate of women in law  enforcement positions. According to CRCL officials, they are not required  to establish performance metrics or mechanisms for tracking progress  towards eliminating barriers beyond what is included in the department- wide MD-715 report. DHS reported one performance measure for its EEO  program—the percent of timely merit Final Agency Decisions (FADs).
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should establish specific and measureable objectives, and  ways to assess progress including performance metrics and milestones. It  also states that management should design control activities to achieve  objectives and respond to risks. Such control activities may include the  establishment and review of performance metrics. Further, EEOC  guidance states that agencies are not prevented from establishing  additional practices that exceed its requirements. DHS officials  acknowledged that their EEO program performance measurement does  not reflect all the work that they do.
According to CRCL officials, CRCL has proposed additional performance  measures for its MD-715 activities, but they were rejected by DHS’s  Office for Policy because they were not directly related to national  security or public safety. DHS’s Office for Policy is responsible for  approving new performance measures. CRCL officials told us that  adopting hiring goals for individuals with disabilities and individuals with  targeted disabilities—which had previously been identified as potential  barriers—has been beneficial in garnering support and commitment  towards meeting them. They said that DHS incorporated these goals into  its efforts and initiatives to increase the recruitment, hiring, advancement,  and retention of individuals with disabilities. Implementing performance  metrics could help DHS better assess its progress in eliminating EEO  program barriers.

	DHS and Its Components Have Taken Steps to Identify EEO Program Deficiencies, but Lack Action to Fully Address Them

		DHS and Its Components Have Identified Various Deficiencies in Their EEO Programs

As shown in table 1, our analysis of DHS’s MD-715 reports found that  DHS did not meet about a quarter of the compliance measures for a  model EEO program for each fiscal year from 2014 through 2017.  Specifically, over this 4-year period, DHS did not meet 26 percent of its  compliance measures (128 out of 487). The largest percentage of unmet  measures occurred under the model EEO essential element D—which  focuses on proactive steps taken by an agency to prevent unlawful  discrimination—where about 53 percent or 21 of 40 measures were  unmet. According to DHS officials, in Part G of its MD-715 report, DHS  includes deficiencies identified and reported at the component level as  well as deficiencies directly attributable to the department. For example,  in each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2017, DHS reported that it did not  meet a compliance measure under element D that senior managers  successfully implement EEO action plans and incorporate EEO action  plan objectives into agency strategic plans. Specifically, in fiscal years  2015 through 2017, DHS noted that USCIS had not met this measure,  and in fiscal year 2017, the Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA) and DHS Headquarters did not meet this measure.
Our analysis of components’ MD-715 reports showed that components  did not meet 9 percent of the compliance measures for a model EEO  program from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. Specifically, over this 4- year time frame, components had a combined total of 369 program  deficiencies out of a total of 4,229 compliance measures. DHS  Headquarters, one of the nine second-level reporting components,  accounted for 36 percent of deficient measures (134 of 369), while the  other eight components accounted for 64 percent (235 of 369) of deficient  measures. Examples of DHS’s deficient measures included EEO  directors not under the direct supervision of the agency head, and the  lack of established timetables or schedules for the agency to review its  employee development and training programs for systemic barriers that  may be impeding full participation in training opportunities by all groups.

		DHS and Its Components Lack Action Plans to Address Some EEO Program Deficiencies

DHS and its components did not have action plans to address some of  their self-identified deficiencies from fiscal years 2014 through 2017.  Specifically, DHS did not have action plans to address 56 percent, or 72  of the 128 reported deficiencies, and components did not have action  plans to address nearly half, or about 179 of the 369 deficiencies reported  by all of the components during the four year period. For example, in  fiscal year 2017, four out of nine DHS components—U.S. Customs and  Border Protection (CBP), DHS Headquarters, FEMA, and Federal Law  Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC)—did not have action plans to  ensure that their EEO directors report directly to their agency heads.
EEOC guidance requires agencies to demonstrate meaningful progress  toward the removal of deficiencies, and to develop action plans for how  agencies will attain the essential elements of a model EEO program.  Specifically, for each deficient measure, agencies are to develop an  action plan for correcting the deficiency. The plan should  identify and briefly describe the deficiency; provide a measurable objective, including the reason for the  deficiency, and target date for completion;  identify officials responsible for overseeing implementation of planned  activities to accomplish the objective; and provide for a yearly update on status of activities until objective is  completed (i.e., the deficiency is removed).
In addition, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  states that management should design control activities to achieve  objectives. Control activities, such as policies or procedures to enforce  directives, can help identify if a required activity is not being achieved  (e.g., action plan completion) or implemented.
The four selected DHS components told us that they do not have  standard operating procedures for completing their MD-715 reports,  including review and assessment of deficiencies and action plans, but  have various processes in place to review their reports for accuracy and  completeness. For example, according to USCIS, its process for the  preparation and review of its MD-715 report includes providing a self- assessment checklist to each of its subcomponents; a review of their  responses for accuracy; and follow-up with subcomponents to address  any questions. In addition, USCIS stated that its MD-715 report  undergoes multiple levels of reviews by subject matter experts and  managers that include collaboration with human capital and chief counsel,  and obtaining review and approval from the Director and other agency  officials. The other three components—FLETC, TSA, and Secret  Service—also reported having MD-715 review processes in place,  including report review and approval by senior management; however,  none specifically cited a review and approval of action plans to address  reported deficiencies.
CRCL officials told us that DHS and its components’ MD-715 reports met  EEOC requirements for action plans for fiscal years 2014 through 2017  by providing explanations for, or briefly stating plans to address, the  majority of their deficiencies rather than developing action plans  identifying how each deficiency would be addressed. During our review of  the MD-715, we noted that the Part G self-assessment checklist form  gave respondents the option of providing a brief explanation in a  comment box on the form or completing an action plan for each  deficiency in Part H of the MD-715 report. For fiscal year 2018, EEOC  revised its MD-715 report form and instructions to clarify that a plan is  required for each identified program deficiency.
For example, one component responded to a measure that asks whether  an agency implemented an adequate data collection and analysis system  that permits tracking of the information required by MD-715 and these  instructions by stating “selected offices were currently working on the  initiative.” The same component responded to a measure that asks  whether an agency tracked recruitment efforts and analyzed efforts to  identify potential barriers in accordance with MD-715 standards by  stating, “The inconsistencies with the reporting of applicant flow data will  need to be addressed to help identify potential barriers.” Another  component responded to this measure by stating that, while its  participation in various events are tracked, a clear, concise, and efficient  system to track and analyze recruitment efforts according to MD-715  standards is currently not in place. Neither component provided a plan for  how these deficient measures would be addressed.
EEOC continues to identify areas of noncompliance in DHS component  EEO programs. For example, in fiscal year 2017, EEOC noted that three  of four selected components had areas of noncompliance. The areas of  noncompliance included (1) failure to timely issue FADs, and (2) not  establishing timetables or schedules to review its merit program policies  and procedures, employee recognition awards programs, and employee  developmental training programs for potential barriers. Developing  policies or procedures, in consultation with the Deputy Officer for EEO  and Diversity, to help ensure component EEO programs have action  plans with measurable objectives for addressing deficiencies could help  DHS components better comply with EEOC requirements.

		DHS and Its Components Lack Adequate Staffing to Address EEO Program Deficiencies

DHS continues to report insufficient staffing to support its EEO program.  In 2009, we reported that, according to CRCL, DHS modified the target  dates for planned activities to address identified barriers primarily  because of staffing shortages in both CRCL and the Office of the Chief  Human Capital Officer. We also reported that DHS had not conducted  barrier analyses of policies, procedures, and practices that were  established or used after fiscal year 2004 because of resource limitations,  such as staffing and limited funding to contract for this activity.  According to CRCL’s MD-715 and Notification and Federal Employee  Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act reports from fiscal years  2014 through 2017, certain aspects of DHS’s EEO program did not have  sufficient staffing. In addition, in fiscal years 2014 through 2017, DHS  reported that staffing shortages contributed to it not meeting its target for  the percent of timely decisions on discrimination complaints. In fiscal year  2017, DHS reported deficiencies for five out of seven staffing measures in  its MD-715 report. In February 2019, CRCL officials told us they lacked  staffing to issue timely decisions on discrimination complaints, to increase  the number of mediators in the alternative dispute resolution program,  and to provide them with training.
From fiscal years 2014 through 2017, DHS and its components reported  funding and staffing challenges in components’ EEO programs. As shown  in table 2, DHS and its components reported that certain aspects of  components’ EEO programs do not have sufficient funding or staffing  from fiscal years 2014 through 2017.
EEOC guidance states that an agency must provide its EEO program with  sufficient budget and staffing to be able to successfully implement various  activities, including (1) conducting a self-assessment of the agency for  possible program deficiencies; (2) conducting a thorough barrier analysis  of its workforce; and (3) ensuring timely, thorough, and fair processing of  EEO complaints.
CRCL and component EEO officials told us that they do not have formal  staffing models to assess appropriate staffing of their EEO program  sections. CRCL officials explained that each component EEO program  section is unique with its own assessments and measures by the leaders  in charge of their funding and staffing resources. Using these informal  processes to identify staffing needs, CRCL and component EEO officials  told us that they have requested additional staffing and funding to  address some of their EEO program deficiencies from their top  leadership. However, they said that additional staffing has not been  granted. Our analysis of DHS’s congressional budget justifications show  that DHS’s EEO program funding requests have decreased each year  from nearly $8 million in fiscal year 2016 to nearly $7 million in fiscal year  2019. CRCL officials told us that DHS’s overall resources for the EEO  program have not significantly increased.
A staffing model could be a computer-based formula that estimates the  number of staff needed to conduct varying numbers of EEO activities,  such as processing a certain number of complaints or providing a certain  number of training courses on an annual or ad hoc basis. As we have  reported, a staffing model is a helpful tool that could better justify requests  for resources to top leadership. Staffing models can identify resources  required to enable program delivery to a sufficient degree and in a timely  manner, or to adapt to changes in program delivery. According to DHS,  the department has contracted support to help components develop  models for Mission Support areas as part of a larger effort to ensure that  all positions are eventually covered by a staffing model. Developing and  utilizing a formal staffing model for its EEO program could help CRCL  better identify, request, and obtain the staff it needs. Further, developing  staffing models, in collaboration with the Deputy Officer for EEO and  Diversity, would help components to better assess the staff they need.

	DHS Has Plans to Address the Nine Areas of EEOC Identified Noncompliance

DHS did not respond timely to EEOC’s findings of noncompliance and  EEOC did not follow up with DHS concerning the untimely response. In  July 2017, in its most recent review of DHS compliance with EEOC  requirements, EEOC reported nine areas of noncompliance in DHS’s  EEO program. For example, EEOC found that DHS lacked resources to  process EEO complaints and to conduct trend analyses of workforce  data. EEOC stated in its feedback letter to DHS that it would initiate its  noncompliance process if DHS did not submit a report explaining the  agency’s progress in correcting its EEO program deficiencies by January  2018. However, according to DHS officials, due to an administrative  oversight, DHS was unaware of EEOC’s July 2017 feedback letter until  October 2018, when we asked about it. In February 2019, DHS submitted  a report to EEOC that responded to each area of noncompliance. EEOC  officials told us that it had not initiated its noncompliance process against  DHS, but that it had placed DHS in its queue for agencies to be held in  noncompliance.
As discussed earlier, DHS Headquarters, a second-level reporting  component, is required by EEOC to submit a separate MD-715 report to  EEOC. However, DHS’s Headquarters EEO Office did not submit a  separate MD-715 report to EEOC during fiscal years 2014 through 2017.  DHS Headquarters EEO Office staff told us that the office had not  submitted the required reports due to staff vacancies, including its EEO  director position. They explained that the component’s EEO data and  information were subsumed in DHS’s department-level MD-715  submission. In October 2018, CRCL filled its Headquarters EEO director  position, which had been vacant for 8 months. DHS officials told us they  plan to submit Headquarters’ fiscal year 2018 MD-715 report to EEOC by  the due date. In February 2019, EEOC officials told us that DHS could  be subject to EEOC’s noncompliance process if the report is not received.

	DHS’s EEO and Human Capital Offices Have Taken Steps to Oversee and Support Components, but Need to Strengthen Oversight over Components

		DHS’s EEO and Human Capital Offices Use a Variety of Means to Oversee and Support Components in Identifying and Addressing EEO Barriers

As shown in figure 4, CRCL and the Strategic, Recruitment, Diversity, and  Inclusion (SRDI) Office support and oversee components in their efforts  to identify and address EEO barriers.
For example, CRCL convenes an EEO council consisting of EEO  directors from each component that meets monthly and, among other  things, shares best practices for identifying and addressing barriers. In  addition, CRCL hosts EEO and Diversity Training Conferences for EEO  staff that includes barrier analysis training.
Further, CRCL provides midyear feedback to component EEO officials on  components’ planned action items and plans for inclusion in their  respective MD-715 reports. For example, based on our review of the  CRCL statistician’s notes, during feedback meetings with components in  2017, he suggested that components consider opportunities for improving  their draft MD-715 reports. The notes show that at least two out of nine  components—CBP and DHS Headquarters—were given feedback to  conduct more robust barrier analyses.
SRDI supports component EEO program efforts to address EEO barriers  related to recruitment, hiring, veterans, and individuals with disabilities.  For example, to increase the participation of women in law enforcement  across the department, SRDI held a joint hiring event in Dallas based on  its analysis that a large number of female veterans live in Texas.  According to SRDI officials, SRDI also assists DHS components with their  evaluations of their human capital policies, procedures, or practices that  may represent EEO barriers, such as awards, promotions, and career  development.
For example, in fiscal year 2016, SRDI analyzed the representation of the  DHS Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program  applicant pool by various ethnic and racial groups, and by actual selectee  participation. When it found that the representation rate of women  decreased from 32.5 percent in the application stage to 23.4 percent in  the selection stage, SRDI stated that the results, among other things,  triggered the need for further analysis. Two cohorts later in 2018, the  representation rate of women increased from 23.3 percent to 41.4 percent  in the selection/participant stage.
Further, CRCL and SRDI officials said they collaborate on a number of  EEO activities to identify and address EEO barriers. For example, SRDI  works together with CRCL to provide input for completing MD-715 report  sections that address human capital-related EEO barriers. In addition,  SRDI and CRCL worked together to conduct a barrier analysis of  Hispanic employee representation.

		DHS Components Are Generally Satisfied with CRCL’s Collaboration Practices to Identify and Address EEO Barriers

DHS components told us that its collaboration practices are generally  working well and provided examples. In our interviews of nine DHS  components, they told us they are generally satisfied that DHS has:  clearly defined its short- and long-term outcomes, bridged the organizational cultures of participating agencies,  clearly defined roles and responsibilities for participating agencies,  included all relevant DHS participants when identifying and  addressing EEO barriers,  funded and staffed its collaborative mechanisms, such as monthly  EEO council meetings, and documented its agreements on how participating agencies will be  collaborating in identifying and addressing barriers.
All nine components told us that CRCL regularly meets with them and  provides guidance on identifying and addressing barriers. Four  components specifically stated that CRCL provided assistance for  reviewing and processing EEO data. For example, USCIS officials said  that CRCL’s statistician provided direction on analyzing workforce data  when conducting barrier analysis. Components also said that they find the  training and technical assistance provided by CRCL helpful, and  specifically commented that DHS’s EEO and Diversity Training  Conferences have helped improve their barrier analyses.
While DHS components are generally satisfied with DHS’s collaboration  practices, some components provided examples of collaboration  practices that could be improved. Three components—CBP, the U.S.  Secret Service (Secret Service), and USCIS—told us that collaboration  on funding or staffing efforts could be improved. For example, USCIS  officials said CRCL lacks sufficient staffing to provide needed training,  tools, and assistance to components to meet new MD-715 reporting  requirements. Three components—CBP, the Transportation Security  Administration, and USCIS—cited the lack of written guidance and  agreements regarding collaboration between CRCL and components as  areas that could be improved. For example, USCIS officials said that its  collaborative efforts with CRCL were guided by informal best practices,  feedback, and guidance, but having formal written guidance and  agreements could clarify roles and responsibilities for identifying and  addressing component EEO triggers and barriers.

		CRCL Does Not Review DHS Components’ EEOC Feedback Reports and DHS’s Organizational Structure Does Not Ensure Its Components Comply with EEOC Requirements

CRCL officials and component EEO officials stated that component EEO  directors report directly to their respective component heads and not to  CRCL. While CRCL requires components to meet to discuss midyear  updates on their EEO efforts, CRCL officials explained that DHS  components are responsible for developing, certifying, and submitting  their own MD-715 reports to EEOC. They also said that if EEOC finds  areas of noncompliance in DHS components’ EEO programs, EEOC  requires DHS components to submit their compliance reports directly to  EEOC.
In fiscal year 2017, EEOC provided notice to six out of eight DHS  components for having areas of noncompliance in their EEO programs.  For five out of six DHS components, EEOC required components to  establish plans to correct deficiencies, submit compliance reports  explaining the agency’s progress in correcting these deficiencies, and  showing meaningful progress in implementing its plans within 6 months.
We found that three out of five DHS components—CBP, FEMA, and  USCIS—did not submit timely compliance reports in response to EEOC’s  feedback letters. Due to an administrative oversight, CBP officials  explained that the component did not submit a compliance report that was  due in February 2018 until we asked about it during our review. Although  CBP submitted the report in March 2019, the report did not include plans  to correct three out of seven areas of noncompliance. As of July 2019,  CBP has taken steps to address the areas of noncompliance but has not  yet responded to EEOC. As a result, CBP remains at risk of EEOC  initiating the noncompliance process against it.
FEMA also did not submit a compliance report that was due in February  2018 until we asked about it during our review. In June 2019, FEMA  responded to EEOC’s feedback letter and included plans to correct three  areas of noncompliance. FEMA’s response stated that the component  would provide another update on its plans to correct these areas to EEOC  in October 2019. FEMA’s response also stated that it would update its  actions on 12 other areas of noncompliance in its fiscal year 2018 MD- 715 report.
EEOC guidance states that an agency’s EEO Director ultimately is  responsible for ensuring equal opportunity throughout the entire agency.  In addition, Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government  states that management should implement control activities through  policies. According to CRCL officials, CRCL does not have policies and  procedures to ensure that components have addressed EEOC’s feedback  letters completely and timely. CRCL officials said CRCL does not have  the authority to ensure components’ responses completely and timely  address EEOC’s feedback letters. They explained that components  interact directly with EEOC and are not required to discuss EEOC’s  feedback with CRCL. CRCL officials further said that components may  address EEOC’s feedback in their MD-715 reports instead of sending  compliance reports to EEOC. For example, in response to the EEOC’s  2017 feedback letter, in its MD-715 report for fiscal year 2017, the U.S.  Coast Guard discussed ways to assist DHS with improving its issuance of  Final Agency Decisions.
CRCL reported in its MD-715 reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2017  that it had authority for components’ EEO programs. A DHS delegation of  authority order states that CRCL can recommend EEO program  improvements to the component head before he or she responds to  EEOC’s feedback letters. In addition, CRCL could use its existing  practices to discuss EEOC’s feedback letter with components, such as  midyear update meetings and monthly council meetings. However, CRCL  officials stated they did not meet to discuss EEOC’s feedback letters with  components in 2018. EEOC officials told us they send component  feedback letters to both the component and CRCL, and invite CRCL  officials to participate in component site visits. They also explained that  DHS could be found noncompliant if a component’s EEO program does  not comply with EEOC guidance. Developing policies and procedures for  responding completely and timely to EEOC’s feedback letters may help  the department comply with EEOC guidance.
While DHS officials told us that ensuring DHS components’ compliance  with MD-715 guidance is EEOC’s responsibility, EEOC officials explained  that DHS’s responsibility equaled the responsibility that EEOC has to  ensure DHS components’ compliance with MD-715 guidance. In addition,  MD-715 guidance states that federal agencies, such as DHS, have the  primary responsibility to ensure nondiscrimination in employment.
Our prior work has found that an agency can benefit from periodically  evaluating its organizational structure. Additionally, Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government states that agency management  should establish an organizational structure to achieve the agency’s  objectives. According to these standards, an effective management  practice for attaining this outcome includes periodically evaluating the  organizational structure to ensure that it meets its objectives.
As we previously discussed, EEOC found areas of noncompliance in the  EEO programs of six out of eight DHS components, and two of the six  components did not have plans to correct all of the areas of  noncompliance until we asked about them during our review. While CRCL  officials told us that they lack authority to certify that components’ MD-715  reports comply with MD-715 guidance, EEOC guidance states that an  agency’s EEO Director ultimately is responsible for ensuring equal  opportunity throughout the entire agency. EEOC guidance allows DHS  components to report to either the Deputy Officer for EEO and Diversity  or the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, DHS has not taken  steps—in consultation with EEOC and other agencies as relevant—to  analyze options to address EEO program management weaknesses,  such as analyzing alternatives for granting additional authorities to the  Deputy Officer for EEO and Diversity to ensure DHS components comply  with MD-715 guidance, and assessing benefits and trade-offs of each  alternative. In the absence of these steps, DHS may not be positioned to  effectively manage its EEO program.

	Conclusions

As the third largest U.S. government department, the challenges DHS  has faced to fully implement effective EEO programs may result in  widespread negative consequences, including monetary expenses borne  by the agency in connection with workplace disputes and decreased  morale and productivity resulting from the ineffective and inefficient use of  human capital resources.
MD-715 requires DHS and its components to report annually on the  status of their EEO activities and include plans that set forth steps they  will take to correct deficiencies or improve EEO efforts. From fiscal years  2014 through 2017, DHS and its components have reported deficiencies  in their EEO programs and identified EEO barriers in their workforces. We  found areas for improvement in DHS and its components’ EEO programs  that could help ensure success and compliance with MD-715.
Specifically, DHS does not have complete performance metrics for the  department’s EEO program, including a mechanism for tracking progress  towards eliminating barriers. Developing performance metrics for the  department’s EEO program could help improve progress in eliminating  identified EEO barriers.
In addition, DHS and its components reported that they lack action plans  for addressing deficiencies in their MD-715 reports. Developing policies  and procedures could help DHS component EEO Directors correct  deficiencies in their EEO programs.
DHS and its components also reported that areas of their EEO programs  do not have sufficient staffing to successfully implement EEO activities.  Developing formal staffing models could help DHS and its components  better assess their resource needs to correct their deficiencies and  eliminate their barriers.
Further, from fiscal years 2014 through 2017, EEOC found areas of  noncompliance in DHS and its component EEO programs. Without  developing policies and procedures for responding completely and timely  to EEOC’s feedback letters, DHS components may not correct areas of  noncompliance and remain at risk of financial penalties and lost employee  potential.
Finally, DHS has not taken steps to address the key EEO program  management weaknesses. Analyzing options for granting additional  authorities to the Deputy Officer for EEO and Diversity can help position  DHS to ensure its components are complying with MD-715 guidance.
The commitment of DHS’s leadership is essential to successfully  addressing these issues. By focusing leadership attention on developing  performance metrics, policies and procedures, and staffing models, DHS  and its components can help improve their EEO programs by making  progress towards eliminating barriers, obtaining sufficient staffing, and  addressing areas of noncompliance.

	Recommendations

We are making the following six recommendations to DHS:  1.  The Secretary of Homeland Security should develop performance  metrics for the department’s EEO program including a mechanism for  tracking progress towards eliminating barriers. (Recommendation 1)  2.  DHS component EEO Directors, in consultation with the Deputy  Officer for EEO and Diversity, should develop policies and procedures  to help ensure that their component EEO programs have action plans  for addressing deficiencies in their MD-715 reports. (Recommendation  2)  3.  The Deputy Officer for EEO and Diversity should develop a formal  staffing model for its EEO program. (Recommendation 3)  4.  DHS component EEO Directors, in collaboration with the Deputy  Officer for EEO and Diversity, should develop component formal  staffing models. (Recommendation 4)  5.  The Deputy Officer for EEO and Diversity should develop policies and  procedures for responding in a complete and timely manner to  EEOC’s feedback letters. (Recommendation 5)  6.  The Secretary of Homeland Security—in consultation with CRCL and  EEOC, and other agencies and components, as relevant—should  analyze options for granting additional authorities to the Deputy  Officer for EEO and Diversity to ensure DHS components comply with  MD-715 guidance, including the authority of the Deputy Officer for  EEO and Diversity to certify components’ MD-715 reports.  (Recommendation 6)

	Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and to EEOC for review and  comment. In its official comments, reproduced in appendix I, DHS agreed  with all six of our recommendations, and DHS and EEOC provided  separate technical comments to the draft of our report, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov, or Christopher P. Currie at  (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contacts

Yvonne D. Jones, (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov.  Christopher P. Currie, (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov.

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Clifton G. Douglas, Jr.  (Assistant Director), Luis E. Rodriguez (Analyst-in-Charge), Adam J.  Brooks, Carla D. Brown, Andrew Howard, Haley Klosky, and Steven  Putansu made key contributions to this report.