Litigation History

In February 1981, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled  on a class action lawsuit, commonly known as the Segar case, finding that  DEA had discriminated against African American special agents. At the time of our review, DEA, working with the plaintiff class and other  employees, had developed a recommendation process. (See table 2.) DEA’s hiring procedures appear job related and  consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection  Procedures in that they are based on criteria in regulations, professional  standards, or standards established by subject matter experts. In fact, African American applicants had a  significantly lower passing rate under BA-20-00, as table 9 shows. DEA officials had not studied physical task test trends and did not know  which test tasks accounted for lower pass rates. To come to a determination  about an applicant’s suitability, the three panel members must be in  agreement. However, we found that  minorities met DEA’s hiring standards at lower rates than white applicants,  with African American and Hispanic applicants meeting the standards and  being selected at substantially lower rates. Our analysis showed that although African American and Hispanic special  agents received promotion recommendations at lower rates than white  agents, particularly for promotions to GS-14, there were no statistically  significant differences in promotion rates among the various race, ethnic,  and gender groups. Higher Proportion of African American, Hispanic, and Women Special Agents Disciplined

Our analysis of disciplinary data for fiscal years 1997 to 2001 showed that  the proportion of African American, Hispanic, and women special agents  disciplined was substantially higher than their representation in the DEA  special agent workforce and that this difference was statistically  significant. During the 1997-2002 time frame, the board had a  similar makeup. Our work showed that African American, Hispanic, and  women special agents had a proportionately higher number of allegations  of misconduct lodged against them and that a higher proportion of these  allegations were substantiated by investigations and resulted in  disciplinary actions. However, the results of two studies by outside  contractors, approved by an oversight group and which we found  methodologically sound, found DEA’s disciplinary process to be fair and  nondiscriminatory. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Administrator of DEA direct that  a process be initiated to monitor the results of decisions at the various  steps in the hiring process to identify differences in selection rates  among groups, and where substantial differences are found, determine  why they occur and what, if anything, can be done to reduce the  differences while maintaining the high standards necessary for the job  of special agent;  a workforce analysis be done, which takes into account retirement  eligibility, expected retirements, and other attrition, to guide the  development of DEA’s recruiting and hiring plans and strategies;   the plans to monitor the results of the SAC/office head recommendation  process by race and ethnicity be expanded to include monitoring by  gender;   steps be taken to develop, maintain, and ensure the reliability of a  discipline database and that the study of disciplinary actions taken  against African American and white special agents be expanded to  analyze disciplinary actions against all racial, ethnic, and gender groups  of special agents; and  appropriate, aggregate statistical data on the outcomes of the promotion  and discipline processes for all racial, ethnic, and gender groups are  available to its special agent workforce to help special agents formulate  informed views about the fairness and equity of the agency’s promotion  and discipline processes. Rather, they were designed to provide information  about race, ethnicity, and gender differences in DEA’s hiring, promotion,  and disciplinary actions.
Why GAO Did This Study

A 1981 U.S. District Court decision found that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had discriminated against African American special agents in a number of personnel practices. Over the years, the plaintiffs and DEA had agreed to remedies in many of these areas. However, minority representatives continued to raise issues in three areas--hiring, promotion, and discipline. GAO was asked to examine DEA's current processes for hiring, promoting, and disciplining special agents, and provide information about racial, ethnicity, and gender differences in these three areas.

What GAO Found

During the October 1997 through March 2002 period, African American, Hispanic, and white applicants to be special agents passed DEA's medical requirements and interview process at about the same rates. However, African American and Hispanic applicants had lower passing rates on (1) the test of an applicant's ability to recall and write about a video of a drug-related enforcement action and (2) suitability requirements measured through a background investigation and other tests. DEA's hiring procedures are based on criteria in federal regulations, professional standards, and standards established by subject matter experts. However, DEA had not studied its hiring requirements to see why its procedures resulted in different selection rates and whether they could be modified to reduce differences while maintaining the high standards necessary for special agents. There were no statistically significant differences in promotion rates among the various racial, ethnic, and gender groups during fiscal years 1997 through 2001. DEA has a rigorous and validated competency-based process that uses job simulations to assess capabilities at the target grade level. However, the job-relatedness of a key step involving recommending special agents for promotion had not been established and our analysis showed that African American and Hispanic special agents were recommended for promotion at significantly lower rates. Despite differences in recommendation rates, DEA's promotion decisions mirrored the race, ethnic, and gender makeup of the agency's special agent workforce. Additionally, the agency, working with a diverse panel of special agents, subsequently developed a revised recommendation process. At the time of GAO's review, DEA and the African American representatives were involved in mediation to reach final agreement. Disciplinary data for fiscal years 1997 to 2001 showed that the proportion of African American, Hispanic, and women special agents disciplined for misconduct was significantly higher than their representation in the DEA special agent workforce. These higher rates reflect that African Americans, Hispanics, and women had a significantly higher percentage of allegations of misconduct lodged against them and that a significantly higher percentage of these allegations were substantiated by investigations and resulted in disciplinary action. A recent study by an outside contractor found DEA's disciplinary process to be fair and nondiscriminatory, but that study only considered African Americans and whites and not women or other minority groups.