Although responsibility for the EEO framework policies is generally  assigned to either EEOC or OPM, similarities in implementation  requirements for federal agencies and the fact that both EEOC and OPM  have jurisdiction over the agencies can result in overlap between programs  and in EEOC’s and OPM’s oversight responsibilities. As we reported in  our April 2005 report on the EEO framework, both EEOC, under MD-715,  and OPM, under FEORP and Executive Order No. A majority of agency EEO and human capital officials responding to our  survey said that guidance and feedback from EEOC was useful or very  useful, while less than half said that about guidance and feedback from  OPM. With regard to feedback on their agencies’ performance or on the contents  of reports submitted under the EEO framework, from 45 to 60 percent of  respondents who had at least some interaction with EEOC said that  feedback from EEOC was useful or very useful, while less than 34 percent  of those respondents who had at least some interaction with OPM said that  of feedback from OPM. A lack of a mutual understanding of one another’s authority,  roles, and responsibilities contributes to this limited coordination, which in  turn can result in lost opportunity to realize consistency, efficiency, and  value in EEO policy making and oversight and in making EEO integral to  human capital management. OMB indicated that although  EEOC has the statutory responsibility to coordinate EEO efforts, OPM  should seek opportunities for collaboration with EEOC in order to improve  overall government efficiency in the area of compliance reviews. EEOC officials acknowledged a need for better coordination between the  two agencies. OPM officials, on the other hand, did not think that a formal coordination  mechanism was necessary. Examples of how these recommendations could be implemented include  (but are not limited to) the following:  regularly exchanging data from reports submitted by agencies to  EEOC and OPM;  adopting a common format for reports to EEOC under MD-715 and  reports to OPM under FEORP;  resolving policy disagreements regarding the collection and use of   collaborating to help ensure that EHRI can support agencies in  meeting both EEOC and OPM reporting requirements;   regularly meeting and exchanging information between EEOC and  OPM staff performing oversight of the same agency;  identifying opportunities for joint reviews of an agency’s EEO and   establishing an “e-diversity” Web page created and maintained jointly  by EEOC and OPM; and  meeting jointly with federal agency EEO and human capital  managers during on-site visits. OMB made a similar recommendation to OPM in 2005 with  respect to those programs where it shares oversight responsibility with  EEOC. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) obtain federal agency equal employment  opportunity (EEO) and human capital managers’ views of the requirements  dealing with EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity and  the extent to which the requirements contribute to ensuring EEO,  affirmative employment, and diversity in the workplace; (2) obtain EEO  and human capital managers’ views on the guidance and feedback given  them by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the  Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on EEO, affirmative employment,  and workforce diversity issues; and (3) determine how and to what extent  EEOC and OPM coordinate with each other in developing policy, providing  guidance, and exercising oversight of line agencies, as well as obtaining  EEO and human capital managers’ views on EEOC and OPM coordination  and how it affects their work. The act required that executive agencies  conduct a continuing program for recruiting minorities to address  underrepresentation of minorities in the federal workplace. We clarified this in the report.
Why GAO Did This Study

In April 2005 GAO reported on the EEO policy framework in the federal workplace and the roles of EEOC and OPM. This report, in response to a congressional request, provides information on (1) federal agency EEO and human capital managers' views of the EEO framework requirements; (2) their views on the usefulness of guidance and feedback from EEOC and OPM concerning these requirements; and (3) how and to what extent EEOC and OPM coordinate in developing policy, providing guidance, and exercising oversight.

What GAO Found

EEO and human capital officials in federal agencies we surveyed said that some requirements of the EEO framework contribute more than others to achieving EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity, and in influencing human capital policies, practices, and strategic planning. They also said that some requirements are very similar or redundant, such as EEOC's affirmative employment program and OPM's program for recruiting minorities and women. This creates duplication of effort as agencies sometimes have to submit the same information in different reports to EEOC and OPM. Further, the officials said they experienced added administrative burden because of inconsistent requirements. The officials also said that guidance from EEOC on EEO, affirmative employment, and workforce diversity issues was more frequent and more useful than that from OPM. Some officials questioned the usefulness of feedback from EEOC and OPM on their agencies' performance or submitted reports. Less than half reported that the feedback was useful or very useful and a substantial number of respondents reported that they received no feedback from OPM. In addition, EEO and human capital officials expressed the strong view that both OPM and EEOC could be doing more to help their agencies. We found little evidence of coordination at the operating level between EEOC and OPM in developing policy, providing guidance, and exercising oversight, despite overlapping responsibilities in federal workplace EEO. For example, EEOC and OPM officials do not routinely review reports that the other agency receives from federal agencies, even though those reports deal with similar matters. In addition, EEOC and OPM officials do not coordinate with each other when conducting on-site reviews of EEO-related matters at agencies. Good management practice as well as federal statute and executive order call for coordination, and not doing so results in lost opportunity to realize consistency, efficiency, and public value in EEO policy making and oversight. The Office of Management and Budget made a recommendation to OPM in 2005 that it develop a regular/formal working relationship with EEOC with respect to those programs where it shares oversight responsibility with EEOC in order to improve overall government efficiency. Although EEOC officials acknowledged a need to coordinate at the operating level and to develop an institutional coordination process, OPM officials suggested that coordination need not be institutionalized.