Sexual Harassment in STEM Research: Preliminary Observations on Policies for University Grantees and Information Sharing among Selected Agencies

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.

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.

GAO is not making recommendations at this time but will consider making them, as appropriate, as it finalizes its work.

I am pleased to be here to discuss our ongoing work on preventing sexual  harassment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics  (STEM) research.

Prominent members of the academic community who receive federal  STEM grant funding have engaged in or been accused of sexual  harassment, according to a number of recent media reports. Sexual  harassment is not only 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 of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the  primary federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex,  including sexual harassment, in education programs and activities  receiving any federal financial assistance. In fiscal year 2017, U.S.  universities were awarded over $15 billion in federal grant funding for  STEM research. Federal agencies are responsible for enforcing Title IX  compliance at the universities they fund.

In 2015, we reported on six federal agencies’ grant making to women in  STEM research, including Title IX compliance. We found that the  Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services (HHS) were not  conducting required Title IX compliance reviews at universities they  funded and recommended that the two agencies periodically do so. We  also found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had no formal  information-sharing process for federal agencies to exchange best practices on Title IX compliance activities, and we recommended that it  establish such a process. In 2016, DOJ established the STEM Title IX  working group, which meets quarterly with the six major STEM grant- making federal agencies.

My statement today addresses preliminary observations from our ongoing  work and describes: (1) the availability of staff and budget at selected  federal agencies to address sexual harassment complaints at universities  they fund for STEM research, (2) efforts at these selected federal  agencies to establish and communicate policies and procedures for  university grantees on preventing sexual harassment, and (3) steps these  selected federal agencies have taken to promote information sharing and  collaboration among agencies to prevent sexual harassment at  universities they fund for STEM research.

For all three objectives, we selected five federal research grant-making  agencies—three agencies from cabinet-level departments and two  independent agencies—that together funded approximately 80 percent of  the federal government’s basic and applied extramural research in STEM  fields from fiscal year 2015 through 2017. The five federal agencies are:

Department of Agriculture, including the National Institute of Food and  Agriculture (USDA-NIFA);

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an

National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of HHS; and

National Science Foundation (NSF), an independent agency.

As part of our ongoing work, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and  documentation (e.g. selected federal agencies’ policies and procedures  on preventing sexual harassment, grant requirements as outlined in terms  and conditions, and interagency meeting agendas). We also reviewed  prior GAO work and interviewed officials from selected federal agencies.  Our preliminary observations will not be generalizable to all agencies that  provide federal STEM grants. We shared the information in this statement  with DOE, HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA, and these agencies provided  technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate. We will  complete our ongoing work that will include examining selected agencies’  efforts to conduct Title IX compliance reviews and to address sexual  harassment complaints. We plan to complete this work by the end of  2019.

We are conducting the work upon which this statement is based in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Selected agencies’ funding for university STEM research. The five  federal agencies included in our preliminary analysis provide billions of  dollars annually for university research in STEM fields, with NIH providing  more than the other four agencies combined. Table 1 details the total  amount of research funding provided to universities by each agency in  fiscal year 2017.

Sexual harassment. As defined in the National Academies of Sciences,  Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2018 report, sexual harassment  encompasses three types of behavior:

Sexual coercion: Favorable treatment conditioned on sexual activity.

Unwanted sexual attention: Verbal or physical unwelcome sexual  advances, which can include assault.

Gender harassment: Sexist hostility and crude behavior.

The most common form of sexual harassment is gender harassment,  which generally involves hostility, exclusion, or other discrimination based  on a person’s gender. The 2018 report found that sexual harassment in  academia is significantly more common among female students in  engineering and medical majors than in non-STEM fields. According to  the report, at least five factors create the conditions under which sexual  harassment is likely to occur in STEM programs and departments in  academia:

Perceived tolerance for sexual harassment

Environments where men outnumber women and leadership is male

Environments in which the power structure of an organization is  hierarchical with strong dependencies on those at higher levels or in  which people are geographically isolated  Increased focus on symbolic compliance with Title IX

Uninformed leadership on campus  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX of the  Education Amendments of 1972 is the primary federal law that addresses  sex discrimination in all federally funded grant programs at educational  institutions. Under Title IX, federal agencies that award grants to  educational institutions have enforcement responsibilities to ensure such  institutions do not discriminate based on sex. Enforcement  responsibilities include issuing regulations, conducting periodic  compliance reviews of funding recipients, and investigating timely written  complaints of sex discrimination against recipients. DOJ and the Department of Education have other responsibilities for administering  Title IX. DOJ is designated by Executive Order No. 12250 to coordinate  Title IX compliance across federal agencies, including information  sharing.

Federal grant awards and grant life cycle. In general, federal agencies  administer grants through a common administrative life cycle: pre-award,  award, implementation, and closeout. During the pre-award stage, most  of the agencies we reviewed require grantees to submit an “assurance of  compliance” form as part of their grant application to attest compliance  with anti-discrimination laws, including Title IX. For the award stage, the  federal agency awarding the grant enters into an agreement with  grantees stipulating the terms and conditions for the use of grant funds.  During the implementation stage, among other things, the federal agency  manages and oversees the grant, including any Title IX compliance  reviews. A Title IX compliance review is an agency’s assessment of  whether a grantee is complying with the law. Federal agencies may  conduct these reviews onsite at an institution (grantee) or via a desk  audit. In the closeout stage, the awarding federal agency and grantee  bring the grant to its conclusion, once all the work associated with the  grant agreement is complete, the grant end date has arrived, or both.

Among the federal agencies we reviewed, different offices handle various  aspects of grant compliance. Generally, each agency’s civil rights or  diversity office conducts Title IX compliance reviews, develops policies  and procedures for grantees, and investigates allegations and complaints  involving university researchers supported by their agency’s federal  STEM grants. The office that awards grants generally creates and  modifies grant terms and conditions.

Resources to Address Sexual Harassment Complaints Vary

Our preliminary analysis indicates that the selected federal agencies’ staff  and budget available to address sexual harassment complaints from  individuals at grantee universities varies according to the duties and  funding for the primary agency offices responsible for addressing the  complaints, as well as with the number of complaints received from  grantees.

Duties and funding for offices responsible for addressing  complaints. Our preliminary analysis shows that all five agencies (DOE,  HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA-NIFA) primarily address sexual  harassment complaints through their civil rights or diversity offices.  However, these offices are responsible for more than just addressing  complaints and preventing sexual harassment at grantee universities;  they also oversee a number of civil rights, diversity and inclusion efforts  for the entire agency. Moreover, most of these offices also address  internal employee sexual harassment complaints and other discrimination  issues. For example, HHS officials described how staff in their Office for  Civil Rights at headquarters and eight regional offices conduct  compliance reviews and investigate all complaints alleging sexual  harassment and other forms of discrimination against recipients of HHS  federal financial assistance, including recipients of NIH grants. USDA- NIFA said their civil rights and diversity office staff are not always  available when sexual harassment issues arise because they have other  duties and also cover other discrimination issues. In addition, some  agencies noted challenges in ensuring adequate staffing levels. For  example, USDA-NIFA officials cited the need to fill vacant positions in  their civil rights office, and NSF officials described a need to find staff with  expertise in this complicated, specialized area.

All five agencies fund their civil rights and diversity offices separately from  their STEM research funding, and there is little relationship between the  two budgets. For more information on selected agencies’ civil rights and diversity office staffing and budgets planned for fiscal year 2019, see  table 2.

Number of complaints received. Our preliminary analysis of sexual  harassment complaint information indicates that four of the five selected  agencies received three or fewer complaints from individuals at grantee  universities from fiscal year 2015 through 2019. See table 3.

Officials from DOE told us that because they receive so few sexual  harassment complaints from individuals at grantee universities, they have  enough resources to address those that are reported to their civil rights or  diversity offices. In addition, officials from HHS told us that because they  receive so few complaints, their civil rights office has used other oversight  mechanisms, like Title IX compliance reviews, to examine whether sexual  harassment is occurring at universities receiving HHS funds, including  funds from NIH. However, as agencies continue to strengthen grantee  policies or requirements, it may affect the number of complaints an  agency receives from individuals at grantee universities, as well as the  amount of resources an agency needs to address them. For example,  NSF officials described how the number of sexual harassment complaints  they receive has increased since the agency implemented new grant  terms and conditions that require university grantees to report any sexual  harassment findings involving a Principal Investigator or co-Principal  Investigator for NSF-funded research. NSF officials also described an  increased number of questions and calls about how to report incidents,  requests for training and presentations, and meetings with program  officers, awardee representatives and other stakeholders, among other  items.

Agencies Have Different Sexual Harassment Prevention Policies and Mechanisms for Communicating Them to Grantees

Based on our preliminary review, all five of the selected agencies have  established and communicated their own sexual harassment prevention  policies to grantees within the last 2 fiscal years, but agency  communication mechanisms and the content of these grantee policies  vary.

Specifically, our preliminary analysis shows that NASA, NIH, and NSF  communicate their policies on sexual harassment in multiple forms, such  as grantee policy manuals, best practices documents, and online FAQs.  The result is that grantees receive a relatively high level of detail about  preventing sexual harassment and mechanisms for reporting complaints.  In contrast, Cabinet agencies DOE and USDA-NIFA provide fewer forms  of guidance, either through their website or agency director and  Secretary-level policy statements and documents, which focus more  generally on the broader category of sex discrimination or provide  different levels of information on sexual harassment prevention policies  for grantees. See table 4 for more information.

Regarding the content of the policies, our preliminary analysis shows that  DOE, NIH, NSF, and USDA-NIFA updated their definitions of behaviors or  actions that qualify as sexual harassment in their grantee policies and  procedures, and NASA is in the process of doing so. The definitions are  more specific than previous definitions; for example, they include  descriptions of gender harassment, the most common form of sexual  harassment. The increased specificity may make clear the behaviors or  actions grantees are expected to address in their efforts to prevent sexual  harassment. The agencies continue to develop and revise policies and  communication mechanisms for grantees.

Also, NSF and NASA have modified, or are taking steps to modify their  grant terms and conditions to strengthen requirements for university  grantees to report on findings of sexual harassment to the funding  agency. Officials from both agencies told us these modifications will  help hold grantees accountable for reporting sexual harassment; the NSF  Director states on the agency’s website that these changes are “intended  to provide targeted, serious consequences for harassers” while also  providing “tools to make harassment stop without disturbing others’  careers and lives.” The requirement also supports the NASEM 2018  report recommendation for institutions to be transparent about reporting  sexual harassment findings, which is intended to foster a culture and  climate that does not tolerate sexual harassment at universities.  Officials from cabinet agencies DOE, NIH (a component of HHS), and  USDA-NIFA stated they would need to go through formal rulemaking  processes to alter their grant terms and conditions in a similar manner.

In addition, our preliminary analysis shows that two of the five selected  agencies are taking steps to evaluate the effectiveness of their sexual  harassment prevention policies and procedures for grantees. NSF  officials told us that they are in the process of determining how best to  evaluate the effectiveness of the new sexual harassment reporting  requirements and how the requirements have affected grantees.  Similarly, DOE is in the process of comparing its policies and procedures  against other federal agencies’, according to officials. To date, the other  three agencies have not yet evaluated the effectiveness of their policies,  but officials at these agencies told us that they focus on ensuring  grantees comply with Title IX regulations as a way to measure the effect  of their policies. For example, NASA established a goal to promote  compliance and encourage best practices among grantees, and the  agency measures progress towards this goal through verifying grantee  compliance with Title IX. USDA-NIFA officials are also in the process of  creating a tool to provide a comprehensive blueprint for civil rights  compliance—including Title IX compliance—and are planning to  implement the tool in fiscal year 2020. We will continue to examine and  assess the selected agencies’ sexual harassment prevention policies for  university grantees and steps they are taking to evaluate them in our  ongoing work.

Agencies Have Taken Some Steps to Share Information and Collaborate

Based on our preliminary review, all five selected agencies have taken  some steps to promote information sharing and collaboration among  agencies on Title IX compliance reviews through DOJ’s Title IX STEM  working group. According to officials, the group discusses strategies for  conducting joint Title IX compliance reviews to leverage limited agency  resources and share best practices. For example, DOE and NSF have  conducted three joint compliance reviews, and NASA and NSF told us  that they are in the process of conducting a joint review. These joint  reviews can be helpful, as the selected agencies conduct a small number  of compliance reviews (two to four) annually relative to the number of  university grantees who must comply with Title IX.

Despite this collaboration, all five selected agencies reported challenges  in obtaining and sharing information. For example, all five selected  agencies told us they rarely discuss sexual harassment cases at DOJ’s  Title IX STEM working group meetings unless they are directly related to  an ongoing or planned compliance review. In addition, DOE, NASA, NIH,  and NSF stated they rarely learn about instances of sexual harassment  from voluntary reporting from universities or other federal agencies and  instead must rely on other sources, such as news reports. This situation  may change at NSF and NASA, which have taken steps to modify their  grant terms and conditions to require reporting of sexual harassment  findings by grantees. Challenges in obtaining and sharing information on  sexual harassment cases may increase the risk of a situation known as  “pass the harasser,” in which a researcher with substantiated findings of  sexual harassment obtains employment at another university or grants  from another funding agency without the university or funding agency  being aware of the researcher’s history.

Officials from all five selected agencies noted a willingness to participate  in an interagency working group to address the culture of sexual  harassment in STEM research that moves beyond conducting Title IX  compliance reviews. The White House’s Office of Science and  Technology Policy (OSTP) has taken steps to establish an interagency  working group. In May 2019, OSTP established a joint committee under  the National Science and Technology Council to address challenges in  the research environment. OSTP, NIH, NSF, DOE, and the National  Institute of Standards and Technology Directors were selected as joint  committee chairs to engage with the academic and science community  for policymaking insight and to convene interagency efforts. According to  DOE officials, the committee will address several priorities, including the  development of policies and procedures across the federal government  regarding sexual harassment in the research environment. Three of the  five selected agencies (NSF, NASA, and DOE) stated OSTP would be the  appropriate entity to establish uniform sexual harassment policy  guidelines to help provide consistency across the federal government.  NSF and NASA officials suggested that DOJ or the Department of  Education would be the appropriate agencies to collaborate with OSTP  on the ongoing monitoring of sexual harassment policy guidelines.

All five selected agencies reported taking collaborative steps with  universities and federal agencies to address the culture and climate for women in STEM. For example, in 2019, NIH established a working group  with university experts to collaborate with other federal agencies to  assess the current state of sexual harassment allegation investigation,  reporting, remediation, and disciplinary procedures at NIH-funded  organizations and advise on oversight, accountability, and reporting  measures for grantees, among other things. In addition, all five agencies  provided examples of collaborative efforts that would help address the  culture of sexual harassment in STEM research. For example, NASA  officials told us that it would be helpful to conduct joint meetings with  other university grantees across agencies to discuss sexual harassment  in science. Lastly, efforts to improve information sharing and collaboration  across agencies beyond conducting Title IX compliance reviews are  consistent with findings in the 2018 NASEM report, which states,  “adherence to legal requirements is necessary but not sufficient to drive  the change needed to address sexual harassment.” We will continue to  examine and assess selected agencies’ Title IX reviews and efforts to  collaborate and share information in our ongoing work.

In closing, I note that we are continuing our ongoing work on this topic.  Sexual harassment is not only degrading to individual researchers, it  undermines the quality and fairness of our nation’s research enterprise. It  is therefore important that federal agencies ensure their grantees  effectively prevent and address sexual harassment in STEM research.  We look forward to continuing our work to determine whether additional  federal actions may be warranted to promote this objective.

Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact John Neumann, Managing Director, Science, Technology  Assessment, and Analytics, at (202) 512-6888 or NeumannJ@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Key contributors  to this testimony include Rob Marek (Assistant Director), Michelle St.  Pierre (Assistant Director), Kristy Kennedy (Analyst-In-Charge), Nora  Adkins, Caitlin Cusati, Nkenge Gibson, Amanda Postiglione, Janay Sam,  and Ben Shouse.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Federal agencies must enforce Title IX—which prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment—at universities receiving federal funds.

5 agencies provide most of the federal STEM research grant funding. We testified on our early observations of their sexual harassment prevention efforts for grantees:

Agencies' communications on these efforts vary, with some issuing more types of guidance and more details than others

2 agencies are changing grant requirements to ensure universities report sexual harassment findings

All 5 agencies coordinate to improve prevention, but getting and sharing information is a challenge