Sexual Harassment in STEM Research: Agencies Have Taken Actions, but Need Complaint Procedures, Overall Plans, and Better Collaboration

Sexual harassment is degrading and illegal. Studies show it has a negative effect on the ability of women to engage in research at the same level as men. Title IX prohibits sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding, and federal agencies are required to enforce the law at universities they fund. In fiscal year 2018, the most recent year for which data were available during GAO's review, U.S. universities were awarded about $27 billion in federal grants for STEM research. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to help prevent sexual harassment at universities that receive such grants.

This report examines, among other things, (1) how selected federal agencies receive, investigate, and resolve Title IX complaints; (2) the extent to which selected agencies have established an overall plan for their sexual harassment prevention efforts for university grantees, including for communicating and evaluating these efforts and (3) the extent to which selected agencies collaborate on efforts to prevent sexual harassment at universities they fund for STEM research. GAO reviewed agencies' relevant regulations and documentation and interviewed agency officials.

The five agencies GAO reviewed provided approximately 80 percent of federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research grants since fiscal year 2015. From fiscal year 2015 through 2019, four of the five agencies received few complaints—including sexual harassment—under Title IX from individuals at universities. Inconsistent with federal regulations implementing Title IX, two of the agencies—the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA)—lack finalized procedures for complaints and thus cannot ensure they are consistently handling complaints. Sex-discrimination concerns—including sexual harassment—can also be raised by individuals outside of the Title IX complaint process (see table). However, only two agencies—the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—publicly communicate the option to notify them of concerns. The other three—DOE, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and USDA—received no concerns in fiscal year 2019 and may be missing opportunities to obtain information for Title IX oversight.

All five agencies have established grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts beyond those required by Title IX. However, none of the agencies have goals and plans for all of their efforts, and thus they lack clear ways to evaluate how well these efforts are working and to identify any needed improvements. They may also be missing opportunities to coordinate and integrate prevention activities.

Additionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reconstituted an interagency discussion group on Title IX in 2016, where all five agencies share information about their activities. However, DOJ has not fully adopted two leading practices for collaboration: agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report collaborative efforts. Officials at one agency said clarifying agencies' roles and responsibilities would improve the group. Adopting leading practices would help enhance and sustain collaboration.

GAO is making 17 recommendations to the five agencies funding STEM research and DOJ, including to finalize and publish complaint procedures, establish goals and an overall plan for prevention efforts, and fully adopt two collaboration leading practices. The agencies agreed with GAO's recommendations and identified actions they plan to take to address them.

Not only is sexual harassment degrading and illegal, but studies show it  has a negative effect on the ability of women to engage in research at the  same level as men. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,  and Medicine (NASEM) reported that, in 2017 alone, the media covered  more than 97 allegations of sexual harassment at institutions of higher  education, with some of the most high-profile cases occurring in the fields  of science, engineering, and medicine. 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 federal financial assistance.  Federal agencies are responsible for enforcing Title IX compliance at the  universities they fund. In fiscal year 2018, the most recent year for  available data during our review, U.S. universities were awarded about  $27 billion in federal grant funding for science, technology, engineering,  and mathematics (STEM) research.

You asked us to review federal agencies’ Title IX efforts, policies for  university grantees related to sexual harassment, and information  sharing among federal agencies. This report examines: (1) the extent to  which selected federal agencies reviewed compliance with Title IX at  universities they funded for STEM research from fiscal year 2015 through  2019; (2) how selected federal agencies receive, investigate, and resolve  Title IX complaints; (3) the extent to which selected federal agencies have  established an overall plan for their sexual harassment prevention efforts  for university grantees, including for communicating and evaluating these  efforts; and (4) the extent to which selected federal agencies share  information and collaborate on efforts to prevent sexual harassment at  universities they fund for STEM research.

For all four objectives, we selected five federal research grant-making  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 2018. Our findings are not generalizable to all  agencies but provide illustrative examples of these agencies’ efforts to  prevent sexual harassment at universities they fund for STEM research.  The five federal agencies are:

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

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the  National Institutes of Health (HHS-NIH)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

We also reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from the  Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Justice  (DOJ) regarding their roles in providing technical assistance and  guidance for Title IX enforcement and information sharing to the five  federal agencies.

For objective one, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations on the five  agencies’ requirements for compliance reviews: (1) Title IX of the  Education Amendments of 1972, (2) Title IX Common Rule, (3) Title VI  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (4) the America COMPETES Act, and  (5) NASA Authorization Act of 2005. We also reviewed Title IX  compliance reviews completed by these agencies from fiscal year 2015  through fiscal year 2019, as well as summaries and lists of Title IX  compliance reviews. We reviewed documentation, such as compliance  review templates and guidance, and interviewed officials about how  agencies met the Title IX compliance review requirement, selected  universities for reviews, and conducted Title IX compliance reviews. We  compared agencies’ Title IX compliance reviews and summaries of  reviews to relevant laws and regulations to report whether agencies met  review requirements.

For objective two, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations—Title IX of  the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IX Common Rule. We  reviewed documentation—descriptions of the complaint process,  complaint procedures, and guidance on investigating complaints—on the  five agencies’ Title IX complaint reporting process and investigation  procedures and compared them to relevant requirements. In addition, we  reviewed these agencies’ grant terms and conditions, including any  reporting requirements for universities. We also reviewed agencies’  websites for information on the Title IX complaint process. We requested  and obtained the total number of formal Title IX complaints received by  agencies from fiscal years 2015 through 2019 and the total number of sex  discrimination concerns, including sexual harassment—information from  individuals to notify the agency of an issue without pursuing the formal  complaint process or complaint investigation—received in fiscal year  2019.

For one agency that requires information from university grantees on  sexual harassment findings, we requested and obtained the total number  of findings received in fiscal year 2019. For another agency that collects  information from university grantees on sex discrimination complaints, we  requested and obtained the total number of complaints received in fiscal  year 2019. We also interviewed officials from the five agencies about how  complaints are received, investigated, and resolved, as well as the  process for receiving concerns and other information. We interviewed  Education officials about Title IX complaints and any assistance provided  to the five agencies for investigating complaints. We determined whether  these agencies met requirements for establishing and publishing  procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of complaints, as  outlined in DOJ’s regulations.

To determine the reliability of reported data and information on Title IX  complaints, sex discrimination concerns, and Title IX compliance reviews,  we reviewed documents describing how the agencies collected this  information and interviewed officials who were familiar with the  information. We contacted agency officials to reconcile any discrepancies  in the data. We determined these data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our reporting objectives.

For objective three, we reviewed the sexual harassment prevention  activities the five agencies employ with their grantees, including policies  and procedures to grantees on preventing sexual harassment,  communication of these policies (e.g. agency websites), grant  requirements, agency goals related to Title IX, and evaluation methods.  We interviewed officials from these agencies about their policies and  procedures, communication of policies, and any goals and overall plans  for them.

For objective four, we reviewed Executive Order 12250—Leadership and  Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws (1980)—and documentation on  DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group, such as meeting  agendas. We interviewed officials from DOJ and the five agencies about  interagency collaboration within the group. We compared the activities of  the group to relevant federal interagency collaboration leading practices.  We reviewed documentation on other collaboration efforts of these  agencies. We also reviewed documentation from the Office of Science  and Technology Policy and interviewed officials about the federal  interagency Safe and Inclusive Research Environments Subcommittee  that was created in May 2019.

For three objectives, we compared federal agencies’ actions related to  Title IX compliance reviews, Title IX complaint process, and sexual  harassment prevention such as anti-sexual harassment policies and  procedures against various controls from Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government. For all four objectives, we reviewed our prior  work related to sexual harassment and Title IX, the 2018 NASEM study  on sexual harassment, and the Equal Employment Opportunity  Commission 2016 report on harassment. We also interviewed officials  at NASEM about its 2018 study.

We also interviewed Title IX officials at two universities and the university  system of one of the two universities to provide illustrative examples of  processes for Title IX compliance reviews and complaints, as well as  university views on agencies’ efforts to prevent sexual harassment. We  chose two universities that received funding from multiple agencies and  were the subject of a Title IX compliance review conducted by at least  one of the five agencies we reviewed. The views of these university  officials are not generalizable.

In addition, to better understand sexual harassment in STEM research,  we interviewed various stakeholders: (1) academia—two college  professors, (2) university administration—one former administrator, and  (3) international scientific and national educational associations—one  group representing professional scientific fields and one group  representing university administrators. We selected officials who were  knowledgeable about the federal role in STEM research, the prevalence  of sexual harassment in STEM research, and administration of Title IX  compliance activities at universities receiving federal grants for STEM  research. We identified them from prior GAO work, referrals from federal  agencies and NASEM, and a recent public forum on sexual harassment.  The views of these officials are not generalizable.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2018 to March 2020 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.

Funding for university STEM research. The five federal agencies  included in our analysis provide billions of dollars annually for university  research in STEM fields, with HHS-NIH providing more than the other  four agencies combined. Figure 1 details the total amount of basic and  applied STEM research funding provided to universities by each agency  in fiscal year 2018, these data are preliminary and the most current data  available during our review.

Sexual harassment. While sexual harassment is not a defined term in  Title IX, it can constitute sex discrimination under Title IX in some  circumstances if, among other things, the harassment is “so severe,  pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s  access to an educational opportunity or benefit.”

Some federal agencies and NASEM define sexual harassment based on  specific behaviors. Specifically, according to NASEM, sexual harassment  encompasses three types of behavior:

Sexual coercion: Favorable treatment conditioned on sexual activity.

Unwanted sexual attention: Verbal or physical sexual advances that  are unwelcome, including sexual assault.

Gender harassment: Sexist hostility and crude behavior.

The most common form of sexual harassment is gender harassment,  which generally involves behavior that conveys hostility, objectification,  exclusion, or second-class status about a person’s gender. According to  the Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus  Climate Survey for NASEM, female medical and engineering students  enrolled in the University of Texas System were more likely to experience  sexual harassment by faculty or staff compared with students enrolled in  other majors.

Title IX enforcement responsibilities. Title IX of the Education  Amendments of 1972 is the primary federal law that addresses sex  discrimination under education programs or activities receiving federal  financial assistance, including federally funded grant programs at  educational institutions, such as universities. Under Title IX, federal  agencies that award grants to educational institutions, including  universities, have enforcement responsibilities to ensure such institutions  do not discriminate based on sex. Enforcement responsibilities fall  under four main areas:  1.  Issuing regulations. Title IX requires that agencies promulgate  regulations to provide guidance on Title IX enforcement to recipients  of federal financial assistance who administer education programs or  activities.  2.  Obtaining assurance from university grantees that they are in  compliance with Title IX. Most of the agencies we reviewed require  grantees to submit an “assurance of compliance” form as part of their  grant application or award to attest compliance with anti-discrimination  laws, including Title IX.  3.  Conducting periodic compliance reviews of funding recipients.

Grant funding agencies are required to conduct periodic Title IX  compliance reviews of university grantees. A Title IX compliance  review is an agency’s assessment of whether a grantee is complying  with the law. According to DOJ’s Title IX legal manual, federal  agencies have broad discretion in determining which grantees to  review for compliance. Federal agencies may conduct these reviews  on-site at a university (grantee) or via a desk audit. In both types of  review, agency officials, among other things, review documentation  that indicates compliance, such as the universities’ policies and  procedures for receiving, investigating, and resolving Title IX  complaints. During on-site reviews, officials interview staff, faculty,  and students about their awareness of Title IX and any issues of  potential sex discrimination that they have encountered.  4.  Investigating written complaints of sex discrimination against  recipients in a timely way. Federal agencies are required to  establish and publish procedures for the prompt processing and  disposition of complaints. An individual alleging discrimination on the  basis of sex by a university can file a discrimination complaint with  multiple entities, including the university or one of the federal agencies  that provides funding to the university, which could include Education  or another funding agency.

In 2015, we reported on six federal agencies’ grant making to women in  STEM research, including their Title IX compliance activities. We found  that the Departments of Defense, and Health and Human Services were  not conducting required Title IX compliance reviews at universities they  funded and recommended that they periodically do so. In response to  our recommendation, HHS conducted three Title IX compliance reviews  in 2018 and according to officials, the agency initiated additional Title IX  compliance reviews in 2019 and 2020.

Education and DOJ also have responsibilities for administering Title IX.  Education plays a key role in ensuring compliance with Title IX as it  provides funding to most universities in the United States. DOJ’s Civil  Rights Division is responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting  discrimination of protected classes, including Title IX. Under Executive  Order 12250, DOJ also has the responsibility for playing a leadership role  in coordinating the “consistent and effective implementation” of several  civil rights laws, including Title IX.

In 2015, we reported that 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  response to our recommendation, DOJ reconstituted the Quarterly Title IX  STEM discussion group in February 2016 to facilitate information sharing  across the six major STEM grant-making federal agencies.

Recipients of federal assistance—in this case, university grantees—also  have Title IX compliance responsibilities. Specifically, universities are  responsible for ensuring Title IX compliance, designating an employee to  coordinate compliance (e.g., a Title IX coordinator), establishing  procedures to promptly and equitably resolve student and employee  complaints of sex discrimination made against the university, and  publishing a notice stating that they do not discriminate on the basis of  sex. Figure 2 outlines the various compliance activities required under  Title IX and the entity responsible for carrying out each activity.

Offices and their responsibilities for Title IX and grant management.

Among the federal agencies we reviewed, different offices handle various  aspects of Title IX and grant compliance activities. 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. All five agencies (DOE, HHS, NASA,  NSF, and USDA-NIFA) primarily address Title IX complaints, including  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 grantees,  including universities; these offices 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.

The agency office that awards grants generally creates and modifies  grant terms and conditions for universities receiving funding from the  agency. Table 1 outlines each agency’s Title IX and grant management  responsibilities by office.

All Five Agencies Conducted Compliance Reviews, and Two Published Promising Practices for Universities

All five agencies conducted periodic Title IX compliance reviews, as  required by federal laws and regulations, from fiscal years 2015 through  2019, and three completed joint compliance reviews. Two agencies  publicized promising practices from Title IX compliance reviews on their  websites and did so to assist all grantees with Title IX compliance. The  other three agencies have not clearly publicized such practices from their  Title IX reviews on their websites.

All Five Agencies Conducted Required Title IX Compliance Reviews from Fiscal Year 2015 through 2019

The five agencies we reviewed conducted periodic Title IX compliance  reviews, as required by federal laws and regulations. From fiscal year  2015 through 2019, DOE, HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA-NIFA officials  reported that their agencies met the requirement for conducting periodic  reviews. During this period, the agencies conducted between 4 and 11  Title IX compliance reviews among hundreds of grantees. No agency  completed more than three reviews in a fiscal year. Two agencies— DOE and NASA—have requirements to conduct a minimum of two Title  IX compliance reviews annually. DOE and NASA meet their statutory  requirements by starting at least two Title IX compliance reviews each  year, according to officials. HHS, NSF, and USDA do not have an annual  minimum requirement and are not required to have one, according to  officials.

Agencies conducted visits to universities to assess compliance and  developed written compliance reports. In the compliance report, agencies  can recommend a grantee take action to improve existing compliance  efforts to prevent sex discrimination and may highlight promising  practices by grantees. For example, NASA recommended in a written compliance report that a grantee provide more targeted Title IX training  geared toward STEM students and faculty, noting that such training  should focus on subtle forms of gender bias that pervade STEM  programs as well as on more egregious examples of sexual harassment.  Similarly, HHS made recommendations in three of its compliance reviews  for grantees to notify students and faculty of their right to file a Title IX  complaint with the HHS Office for Civil Rights. University grantees are not  required to implement the agency’s recommendations, but they must take  corrective actions to resolve findings of Title IX noncompliance, according  to DOE, HHS-OCR, NASA, and NSF officials.

Agencies are required by law to seek voluntary compliance for Title IX  violations. If an agency finds that a grantee has violated Title IX  (noncompliance), it first seeks to establish voluntary compliance through  a resolution agreement—an agreement with the agency and grantee  outlining corrective actions for the grantee. If the agency is unable to  achieve voluntary compliance in a Title IX case, it may initiate  proceedings to suspend or terminate federal funding, or refer the case to  DOJ for possible litigation. According to officials, the five agencies we  reviewed have not suspended or terminated funding to enforce Title IX,  including sexual harassment. Instead, according to agency officials, their  reviews have found that most grantees are in compliance with Title IX  from fiscal year 2015 through 2019, except for one grantee, where the  agency worked with the grantee to achieve voluntary compliance.

To leverage limited resources, three of the five agencies—DOE, NASA,  and NSF—conducted joint Title IX compliance reviews. These reviews  occur when two agencies providing funding to the same grantee jointly  assess whether the grantee is complying with the law. DOE and NSF  conducted three joint compliance reviews in fiscal years 2015 and 2016,  while NASA and NSF conducted a joint review in fiscal year 2019. These  joint reviews helped agencies leverage resources.

Two Agencies Publicized Promising Practices for Title IX Compliance to Assist All Grantees, but the Other Three Agencies Have Not Clearly Publicized Practices from Title IX Reviews on Their Websites

NASA and NSF publicized on their websites a list of promising practices  identified as part of their compliance reviews to assist grantees with Title  IX compliance. Promising practices—grantee actions that have the  potential to advance equal opportunities, diversity, and inclusiveness for  program participants regardless of sex—may be considered, adopted,  and replicated by other grantees, according to NASA and NSF officials.  Some actions may go beyond meeting Title IX compliance requirements.  NASA identifies promising practices to provide grantees with information  and examples on practices they may wish to consider replicating to help  enhance or supplement their equal opportunity efforts, according to  officials. For example, NASA noted a promising practice in which a  grantee presents campus training sessions on Title IX at which  participants develop bystander behavior skills, discuss consent and  sexual respect, and learn how to encourage and support reporting of  sexual misconduct. In addition, this university grantee facilitates the  workshop using clickers to allow real-time, anonymous audience  response, enabling the facilitators to measure learning progress and see  attitudinal shifts in real time. According to NASA, since the inception of its  Title IX compliance program, the agency has followed a philosophy of  providing meaningful technical assistance to universities, including  identifying and reporting on promising practices of the universities that the  agency reviews. NASA officials told us this approach mitigates the fact  that the agency only has the resources to conduct compliance reviews at  a few of its hundreds of grantees annually.

NSF takes a similar approach. For example, NSF’s webpage for  promising practices has a link to a university’s complaint resolution flow  chart as an example for others to draw on. According to NSF officials, the  agency values opportunities to learn about practices that have the  potential to make significant and meaningful impacts on grantees’ efforts  to create and maintain research environments that are safe and free from  sexual and gender-based harassment. Moreover, according to officials,  NSF grantees have expressed gratitude to the agency for sharing what  other universities are doing that is working well.

In contrast, while DOE, HHS, and USDA identified promising practices in  some of their Title IX compliance reviews, they have not clearly publicized  a list of these practices to the broader grantee community.

DOE has posted reports of Title IX compliance reviews, but no list of  promising practices. As a result, grantees who want to learn from  other universities would need to review individual compliance reports  and search for promising practices. DOE does plan to develop a  publication that identifies promising practices and lessons learned  from its Title IX compliance reviews in fiscal year 2020, according to  officials. The agency did not provide any plans or timeframes because  officials stated that DOE’s Office of Civil Rights is determining the best  approach for this project.

USDA-NIFA is planning to create mechanisms to publicize best  practices, according to officials, but it has not yet done so. According  to USDA officials, the agency is discussing and determining the best  promising practices from compliance reviews to publicize; however,  recent staff changes have delayed this effort. As a result, USDA did  not provide further details about how and when it will publicize  promising practices.

In October 2019, HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (HHS-OCR) updated its  Title IX webpage to include a section dedicated to sexual harassment,  including links to resources, guidance, and effective practices (also  called promising practices) from other agencies, as well as a written  resolution agreement between HHS and a university grantee that  resolved findings of sex-based harassment. While a dedicated  webpage for sexual harassment is a positive step, HHS’s webpage  includes promising practices from other federal agencies—Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission and NSF—but not HHS. HHS- OCR officials told us that promising practices are similar across  federal agencies. However, HHS Title IX compliance reviews cover  grantees that may be different from other federal agencies, such as  medical colleges, and these grantees may face unique challenges in  complying with Title IX.

For example, according to the 2018 NASEM report, women students,  trainees, and faculty in academic medical centers experience sexual  harassment by patients and patients’ families, in addition to the  harassment they experience from colleagues and those in leadership  positions. HHS-OCR officials told us that the resolution agreement lists  corrective actions that may be considered promising practices. However,  a grantee who wanted to learn about these practices would need to know  that they exist in the agreement and then review the document to find  them. The agency has already identified potential promising practices in  some its completed Title IX reviews. Therefore, publishing a separate  list of these practices and corrective actions from resolution agreements  on its website would require few resources and could benefit grantees.

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,  management should use quality information to achieve its objectives and  externally communicate such information to achieve objectives. The  vast majority of grantees are reviewed for Title IX compliance infrequently  by the five agencies and therefore receive little to no information on such  compliance from these agencies. Moreover, while grantees can access  completed Title IX reviews on some agencies’ websites, this endeavor  would still require grantees to review the written reports in detail to  uncover any promising practices. Without clearly publicizing promising  practices to the broader grantee community, such as a stand-alone list of  practices, DOE, HHS-OCR, and USDA are missing an opportunity to  provide quality information to grantees about how best to ensure  compliance with Title IX requirements and reduce the likelihood of sexual  harassment.

Agencies Vary in their Efforts to Address Allegations of Sexual Harassment

The five agencies we reviewed received Title IX complaints, but varied in  their efforts to address sexual harassment allegations, including: 1)  finalizing procedures for processing Title IX complaints, 2) communicating  complete information about the complaint process to grantees, and 3)  addressing allegations outside of the Title IX process. Four agencies  received three or fewer formal Title IX complaints total from fiscal year  2015 through 2019. Two of the five agencies do not have written  procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of Title IX  complaints—including allegations of sexual harassment—as required by  federal regulations. According to agency officials, all five agencies use  their websites as the primary means of communicating Title IX complaint  information to grantees and individuals at universities; however, one of  the five agencies’ websites does not provide clear guidance for grantees  on the basics of the complaint filing processes—such as who can file.  Additionally, two agencies have gone beyond the formal Title IX complaint  process and also review sex discrimination concerns—including sexual  harassment—as a means of improving agency Title IX oversight of  university grantees.

Four Agencies Received Few Formal Title IX Complaints

Title IX affords individuals the ability to file formal complaints of Title IX  violations directly to the federal agency providing funding for the  program. According to agency officials, the five agencies generally  define formal complaints as those that:

Are filed within 180 days of the incident—or if ongoing, within 180  days of the last incident—to be considered timely;

Provide the name and contact information of the person who is

Provide a general description of the person or people injured by the  alleged discriminatory act(s) (names of those injured are not  required); and

Provide a description of the alleged discriminatory act(s) in sufficient  detail to enable the agency to understand what occurred, when it  occurred, and the basis for the alleged discrimination (sex  discrimination in the case of Title IX).

All five agencies accept formal Title IX complaints in multiple ways— including at minimum through email and postal mail.

From fiscal year 2015 through 2019, four agencies received three or  fewer formal complaints (see table 2).

Agency officials provided several reasons why they believe agencies  receive few formal Title IX complaints:

Complaints are more commonly filed with the university or with  Education and are rarely directly reported to the agency;  Individuals may be unaware of their right to file complaints directly  with the agency or how to file such a complaint; and  Individuals may fear retaliation or a negative impact on their scientific  career (see sidebar).

Retaliation  At a state university, a graduate student  reported her advisor for sexual harassment.  The university substantiated her claim and the  professor left the university. According to the  victim, fellow students upset at the impact of  the professor’s departure on their own  research and academic careers, retaliated  against her. Student-centered retaliation  included taking her lab equipment without  permission, ostracizing her from social events,  and withholding critical information and  resources necessary for her research. This  retaliation caused her to move her workspace  and lose progress on her own work.

Officials from DOE, NASA, HHS-NIH, and NSF stated they usually learn  about instances of sexual harassment from other sources (e.g. media  reports) and rarely from voluntary reporting from universities or other  federal agencies. Title IX officials at two universities we interviewed  agreed with agency officials about why few formal complaints are filed  with agencies. For example, one Title IX official stated that concerns  about retaliation for filing a complaint are amplified when there is an  agency involved due to concerns over risk to the funding. Officials from  NSF, which received the most formal Title IX complaints of the five  agencies from fiscal year 2015 through 2019, stated that complaints to  their agency have increased in recent years. They could not state  definitively the reason for the recent increases, but said it may stem from  the increased publicity of sexual harassment cases in STEM—including a  Twitter movement known as #MeTooSTEM—along with NSF’s revised  grant terms and conditions.

Two Agencies Lack or Have Outdated Title IX Complaint Procedures

DOJ’s regulations provide that federal agencies must establish and  publish procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of  complaints. While all five agencies specify general requirements for a  formal complaint, two do not have clear or updated written procedures for  processing and disposing of formal Title IX complaints. Specifically:

While DOE’s agency regulations stipulate that the agency will  investigate allegations of discrimination under Title IX, agency officials  stated that DOE does not currently have written Title IX complaint  procedures. In November 2019, the agency provided a preliminary  draft outline of its procedures, but officials stated that the agency does  not have a timeline for when they may be finished. This is because  the agency is devoting its resources to investigating current  complaints, according to DOE officials.

The website for USDA’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights—the  office handling complaints across the agency—contains a summary of  procedures used to process and investigate discrimination complaints,  but a USDA official stated that the procedures need more clarity with  regard to the university and research environment. In November  2019, USDA officials highlighted a 1999 USDA Departmental  Regulation that addresses processing administrative complaints of  discrimination filed against any program or activity receiving financial  assistance from USDA. Officials stated that this regulation was  revised in fiscal year 2019 and is currently under review for  approval. The Departmental Regulations as they stand are  outdated, referencing out-of-date organizational responsibilities and  department names.

Despite the absence of formal complaint procedures for DOE and  outdated procedures for USDA, both agencies have evaluated formal  Title IX complaints to determine if they meet the necessary criteria for  investigation. Specifically, according to agency officials, USDA evaluated  and investigated a formal Title IX complaint in fiscal year 2017, and DOE  is currently evaluating a complaint to determine if it meets the criteria for a  formal complaint. However, without clear and specific guidance for the  processing and disposition of complaints, DOE is not complying with  DOJ’s regulations—which require federal agencies to establish and  publish complaint procedures—and may not be able to consistently and  efficiently handle formal Title IX complaints. Moreover, under Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should  implement control activities through policies. For example, management  should periodically review procedures for continued relevance and  effectiveness in achieving the entity’s objectives or addressing related  risks. Without updated complaint procedures, USDA does not have  procedures that are aligned with the current structure and oversight  responsibilities of the agency.

In contrast, NASA, NSF, and HHS-OCR have developed written  procedures for how the agency receives, investigates, and resolves  formal Title IX complaints. As seen in appendix I, the formal complaint  process is extensive and complex, with evaluative benchmarks to be met  prior to investigation.

USDA’s Complaint Website Is Unclear on Who Can File Title IX Complaints

According to officials, all five agencies use websites as the main  mechanism for communicating information about Title IX complaints to  individuals at university grantees. However, USDA’s website is not clear  about who can file a Title IX complaint. NASA, HHS-OCR, NSF, and DOE  each have a website intended to provide information about filing  complaints specifically to individuals involved with agency-funded grants.  On these websites, the agencies state that they accept Title IX complaints  or sex discrimination complaints, among other types.

In contrast, USDA communicates information on its complaints process  via a general discrimination website that is not specific to Title IX  complaints or to individuals on agency-funded grants, making it unclear  who can file Title IX complaints. Specifically, USDA provides information  about complaint resolution through its Office of Assistant Secretary for  Civil Rights website, but grantees wishing to file a formal complaint would  need to do so as a “customer,” a term that is not defined on the agency’s  website and that individuals on agency-funded grants may not recognize  as including them. A USDA official acknowledged that such individuals  may not realize that they can file through the website. USDA officials told  us that the agency would consider revising its website to make clear that  individuals on USDA grants can file a formal discrimination complaint with  the agency.

If USDA does not revise its website, the lack of clarity about who is a  customer that can submit a complaint may inhibit its ability to obtain  information necessary for Title IX oversight. Under Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government, management should externally  communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s  objectives. For example, management may communicate and receive  information through established reporting lines, such as websites, from  external parties that can help the agency achieve its objectives, such as  oversight of Title IX. The lack of clear communication of quality  information may reduce the effectiveness of USDA’s Title IX enforcement.

Unlike USDA, both HHS-OCR and DOE recently took action to improve  website clarity on who can file a Title IX complaint. Specifically:

HHS-OCR’s website provides information on filing formal complaints  for multiple forms of discrimination—such as race, age, and sex  discrimination—and allows formal complaints from all who feel they  have been discriminated against by a program or activity that receives  funding from any part of HHS. In part due to issues raised during the  course of our study, HHS-OCR published several new or updated  websites in October 2019—including a Title IX page with university- based examples of entities covered under Title IX and a website on  sex-based harassment outlining definitions and examples of what  constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX. Before this update, it was  not clear if individuals working on HHS-funded grants could file formal  Title IX complaints via HHS-OCR’s website.

In October 2019, DOE updated its Title IX website to include clear  information on the multiple ways individuals can file a formal Title IX  complaint with the agency, after we pointed out that this information  was missing from DOE’s website, according to officials. The updated  website specifies that individuals can notify the agency of a Title IX  complaint in person, by email, fax, or mail. Prior to this update, the  website only provided information on how to mail the agency a Title IX  complaint.

Two Agencies Communicate Other Reporting Options for Concerns

In addition to investigating Title IX complaints as required by Title IX, two  agencies—HHS-NIH and NSF—go beyond this requirement by also  reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual harassment— and publicly communicating the option for individuals to notify the agency  of such concerns outside of the formal Title IX complaint process.  “Concerns” are generally defined as information from individuals seeking  to inform or notify the agency that sex discrimination has occurred or is  occurring, but information is not intended to be a formal Title IX complaint.  For example, HHS-NIH established a website, email, and online portal  specifically for concerns of sexual harassment, publicly communicating  this effort not only on the website, but also in public presentations and  official statements. NIH officials stated the agency began reviewing  concerns to provide clear channels of communication to NIH.

HHS-NIH also developed internal guidance, which is still evolving, for  agency staff on how to process concerns from individuals at university  grantees through coordination with the grantee. While formal Title IX  complaint investigations are agency-led, investigations of sex  discrimination concerns, including sexual harassment, filed with HHS-NIH  are university-led, with HHS-NIH assessing the university grantee’s  response to the allegation to ensure appropriate action is taken to ensure  a safe research environment (see appendix II for more details). NSF also  publicly communicates the option to notify the agency of concerns of sex  discrimination via their Awardee Civil Rights website. In addition to  providing details on who should file a formal complaint and how, NSF also  provides information on how to notify the agency of concerns and what is  done with this information. For example, NSF has initiated a Title IX  compliance review for fiscal year 2020 based in part on information  contained in a concern it received, according to officials.

In fiscal year 2019, HHS-NIH received 93 concerns of sex discrimination  and NSF received 47, according to officials from each respective agency  (see table 3).

In contrast, the remaining agencies—NASA, USDA, DOE, and HHS- OCR—do not publicly communicate the option to notify the agency of  concerns of sex discrimination or sexual harassment. Although these  agencies stated that they do review all information received—including  information from those seeking to notify the agency of concerns—the  review is primarily to determine if the information provided meets the  agency’s criteria for a formal complaint. Those complaints meeting the  criteria for a formal complaint are processed by the agency following the  legally required Title IX complaint process. According to officials, the  agencies may use the information from concerns to help select a site for a  Title IX compliance review. As shown in table 3 above, officials from  DOE, USDA, and NASA stated their respective agencies received no  concerns of sex discrimination in fiscal year 2019, and HHS-OCR does  not track concerns—referred to as communications—that the agency  cannot investigate under Title IX, according to HHS-OCR officials. DOE  officials stated that the agency received its first sex discrimination  concern in fiscal year 2020 and therefore DOE was not aware individuals  were looking to notify the agency of concerns. While these agencies  accept concerns, they have received few or no concerns and have not  publicly communicated that individuals may send concerns to them.

The 2018 NASEM report, agency officials, and stakeholders we  interviewed all noted the importance of informal ways for individuals to  report concerns outside of formal complaint processes. The NASEM  report states that formal reporting procedures can re-victimize targets of  harassment, and informal procedures—including the acceptance of  anonymous complaints—may let them bring concerns forward without  fear of retaliation. A stakeholder we interviewed pointed out the arduous  nature of agencies’ formal complaint processes, and multiple  stakeholders highlighted the difficulty of meeting the federal standard for  a Title IX violation. All five agencies agreed that informal information— such as concerns—is helpful in providing the agency with additional  information about the research environment on campus. Of the 140 total  concerns of sex discrimination received in fiscal year 2019 by the  agencies in our study, all were filed with either NSF or NIH. A comparison  of the number of concerns and formal complaints received by the  agencies shows that the five agencies as a whole received more than  three times as many concerns in 1 year as they did formal complaints in 5  years.

Title IX specifies federal agencies’ Title IX oversight responsibilities— including enforcing Title IX compliance at the universities they fund.  Under Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,  management should externally communicate the necessary quality  information to achieve the entity’s objectives. For example,  management may communicate and receive information through  established reporting lines from external parties—in this case, through  formal complaints and concerns—which can help the agency achieve its  objectives, such as oversight of Title IX. By publicly communicating to  individuals that they may notify the agency of a concern of sex  discrimination outside of the formal Title IX complaint process, NASA,  USDA, DOE, and HHS-OCR could receive additional information  necessary for appropriate Title IX oversight. According to NSF officials,  concerns not only reveal potential issues with the climate at an awardee  university, they also aid in Title IX oversight by alerting the agency to  possible Title IX violations a university may need to notify the agency of  under the grant terms and conditions.

In addition to reviewing concerns of sex discrimination from individuals at  university grantees, NSF receives notifications directly from university  grantees. In 2018, NSF modified its grant terms and conditions to  require university grantees to notify the agency if there is a finding of  sexual harassment against a principal investigator (PI) or co-PI on an  NSF-funded grant, or if administrative action was taken against a PI or  co-PI due to an allegation or complaint of sexual harassment. In 2019,  NSF established written procedures to review these notifications from  university grantees to determine if the university handled the matter  adequately and appropriately, and if further action is needed by NSF.  NSF received 13 notifications from university grantees through the new  grant terms and conditions in fiscal year 2019, according to agency  officials. NASA, similar to NSF, proposed changes to its grant terms and  conditions. NASA published its notice of the proposed change in July  2019. However, according to NASA officials, the Office of Science and  Technology Policy requested that NASA consult with the National  Science and Technology Council’s joint committee’s subcommittees— Safe and Inclusive Research Environments Subcommittee and  Coordinating Administrative Requirements for Research Subcommittee— prior to moving forward with finalizing the terms and conditions. NASA  consulted with the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December  2019 and received concurrence to move forward with finalizing the  change to its terms and conditions, according to NASA officials. On  March 10, 2020, NASA published a final notice of its new terms and  conditions for grants. Upon implementation, the new terms and  conditions requires, among other things, grantees to report to NASA any  findings or determinations of sexual harassment, other forms of  harassment, or sexual assault regarding a NASA funded PI or co-PI. The  reporting requirement will be applied to all new NASA awards and funding  amendments to existing awards made on or after the effective date—30  days from the date of the publicized notice.

HHS Components Do Not Share Information on Complaints and Concerns

HHS differs from the other four agencies in that formal complaints and  concerns are handled by two different components, which do not  communicate with each other regarding information on sexual  harassment, according to officials from both HHS-OCR and HHS-NIH.  HHS-OCR—the enforcement authority of the agency—has the authority  to conduct Title IX compliance reviews and investigate formal Title IX  complaints. However, as previously mentioned, HHS-NIH—the grant- making component—has independently developed its own avenue for  receiving concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment.

The Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should internally communicate the necessary quality  information to achieve its objectives. This communication includes  conveying information down and across reporting lines to allow staff to  perform key roles in achieving objectives and addressing risks. There  are no formal procedures within HHS for communicating information  across the agency components regarding Title IX complaints, concerns of  sex discrimination including sexual harassment, or Title IX compliance,  according to officials from both HHS-NIH and the HHS-OCR. An official  from HHS-OCR stated that the department already shares broad  information about findings of Title IX violations and completed Title IX  compliance reviews via a listserv to HHS employees and stakeholders  who subscribe, but HHS-NIH officials stated they were not aware of this  information. HHS-NIH officials also stated they do not share information  with HHS-OCR regarding concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual  harassment, received by HHS-NIH or actions taken in response to these  concerns. According to HHS-NIH officials, grantees are expected to  provide safe and healthy working conditions—a term and condition of the  grant—and therefore if harassment threatens the research environment,  this is a potential violation of grant terms and conditions and officials  stated that HHS-NIH has the authority to handle it.

Establishing procedures for communicating grantee sexual harassment  findings could improve efforts by both HHS-NIH and HHS-OCR to prevent  sexual harassment at universities. For example, HHS-OCR could use  HHS-NIH data to aid in selecting grantees for Title IX compliance reviews.  Additionally, HHS-NIH could use HHS-OCR’s compliance review findings  to inform oversight of NIH grants—including modifying university  grantees’ grant terms and conditions if there were findings of non- compliance. Officials from HHS-OCR agreed that information on concerns  of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, from HHS-NIH would  be helpful. HHS-NIH officials also agreed that information sharing may be  useful for cross agency awareness, but HHS-NIH officials asserted that a  formal agreement would be necessary to ensure privacy when sharing  information. HHS-NIH officials did not provide any further details on what  should be included in a formal agreement for sharing information on sex  discrimination concerns, including sexual harassment.

Agencies Have Established and Communicated New Grantee Sexual Harassment Prevention Policies but Lack an Overall Plan

All five agencies have taken additional steps beyond Title IX compliance  requirements to address sexual harassment by university grantees. As  we reported in June 2019, all five agencies have developed and  communicated grantee sexual harassment prevention policies, with some  providing more detailed guidance than others. All five agencies have  also established grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts beyond  those required by Title IX, to varying degrees. For example, as we noted  above, HHS-NIH launched a website to receive concerns of sex  discrimination including sexual harassment, and NSF and NASA have  modified grant terms and conditions that require universities to report  findings of sexual harassment. All of the agencies we reviewed  established and communicated their sexual harassment prevention efforts  to grantees within the last 3 fiscal years, and most of them have  continued to update and communicate them since we last reported on  their efforts in June 2019 (see sidebar for an agency example and  appendix III for more information on agencies’ efforts).

Agencies have taken steps to create goals for and evaluate some of  their individual grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts. However,  four of the five agencies have not created goals for all prevention efforts.  In addition, none of the five agencies have a plan designed to assess  progress toward achieving those goals, including methods to regularly  monitor and evaluate their various grantee sexual harassment  prevention efforts together—both those that are required by Title IX and  those that go beyond these requirements.

USDA created a poster for grantees that  describes how the agency prohibits  discrimination in all forms, including  discrimination on the basis of sex. The poster  also provides information on how to file a  discrimination complaint with USDA by phone,  mail, fax or email.   USDA requires all grantees to prominently  display the poster in all offices where there is  a USDA presence and where it may be read  by customers. USDA also requires that the  poster be a specific size.

NSF and USDA-NIFA do not have goals for all of their grantee sexual  harassment prevention efforts, according to officials. In addition, NASA  and DOE have or are in the process of establishing goals for some  prevention efforts related to Title IX requirements, while HHS-NIH has  created goals for all of their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts.  NASA and DOE have goals or plan to establish goals for sexual  harassment prevention efforts required by Title IX—such as compliance  reviews—but they lack goals that include all other sexual harassment  prevention efforts for university grantees. For example, according to  NASA officials, NASA’s strategic plan has goals for equal opportunity and  diversity and inclusion for the NASA workforce and grantees, and it  includes a goal for the agency to promote equal opportunity for grantees  and to encourage them to use best practices identified by NASA. To  measure progress toward this goal, NASA officials told us that the agency  plans to establish a timeline to track the percentage of Title IX compliance  activities completed by grantees. However, NASA has not established  goals for its other grantee sexual harassment prevention initiatives. In  addition, DOE officials told us that they are in the process of establishing  a goal for the number of Title IX compliance reviews they conduct each  year, but DOE does not have goals or a plan for evaluating other DOE  grantee sexual harassment prevention initiatives.

In contrast, HHS-NIH’s Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the  NIH Director has created goals for HHS-NIH’s various grantee sexual  harassment prevention efforts and steps to achieve them. These goals  include assessing the current state of sexual harassment allegation  investigation, reporting, remediation, and disciplinary procedures at NIH- funded organizations; advising grantees on oversight, accountability, and  reporting measures that will encourage a reduction in, and prevention of  sexual harassment; and developing strategies for encouraging research  on anti-harassment policies, procedures and training, and measures and  evaluations of their effectiveness. HHS-NIH developed  recommendations for the steps needed to achieve these goals, including  immediate, actionable efforts and longer-term efforts to change the  culture within NIH and at universities to end sexual harassment. HHS-NIH  officials published a final report and recommendations in December 2019.  The report recommended that HHS-NIH establish a hotline and a web- based form for reporting sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior  by any principal investigator or key personnel funded by HHS-NIH, and  that HHS-NIH also conduct an analysis of the prevalence and  antecedents of sexual and gender harassment in order to develop  interventions that address goal-specified gaps, among others.

Agencies Do Not Have an Overall Plan to Regularly Monitor and Evaluate All Grantee Sexual Harassment Prevention Efforts

In addition to most of the agencies not having goals for all of their grantee  sexual harassment prevention efforts, none of the five agencies have a  plan to measure progress toward achieving those goals, including  methods to regularly monitor and evaluate them all. Some of the agencies  have taken steps toward conducting evaluations of some—but not all—of  their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts:

Evaluations of policies and procedures. Three agencies—NASA,  NSF, and DOE—have evaluated or are beginning to evaluate some of  their sexual harassment policies and procedures for university  grantees. NASA officials said they conduct evaluations every five  years for all of their agency’s civil rights compliance and complaints  procedures, including their Title IX compliance review procedures.  NSF is also developing an evaluation plan for its new sexual  harassment reporting requirements and how they have affected  grantees. NSF officials said that they have an evaluation team in  place, which has outlined an approach for evaluating the new grant  terms and conditions and has begun gathering information from  universities. In addition, DOE officials told us that they are currently  reviewing other agencies’ policies and using them as a benchmark as  they draft their own grantee policies.

However, agencies have not periodically evaluated all of their own  sexual harassment policies and procedures related to university  grantees. Agencies provided examples of evaluations of grantee or  employee prevention policies, rather than an evaluation of their own  policies created for university grantees. It is unclear why agencies  have not yet established methods to evaluate all of their sexual  harassment prevention efforts for university grantees, and we  recognize the challenge in doing so. Yet agencies have found ways to  evaluate the policies of other entities. For example, officials from  HHS-OCR told us that they use information from past compliance  reviews to improve their compliance review and resolution  requirements for grantees. However, compliance reviews are an  evaluation of the university grantee’s sexual harassment prevention  policies and procedures, not HHS’s. In addition, when asked whether  HHS-NIH evaluates its grantee sexual harassment policies, HHS-NIH  officials did not give any examples of evaluations of their own policies  created for university grantees. Instead, they gave an example of a  climate survey they administered to their employees for work-life  climate and harassment. Title IX officials from two universities and  one university system all said none of the five agencies had asked for  their opinions on how effective the agencies’ sexual harassment  prevention policies for grantees are. Nor had they requested  suggestions for improvement, even though at least one of the five  agencies had been in direct contact with two of these officials for a  recent compliance review.

Evaluations of communication mechanisms. None of the five agencies  periodically evaluate the mechanisms for how they communicate their  sexual harassment prevention policies and procedures to individuals  at universities receiving federal grants. Instead, agencies rely on  general efforts to evaluate their website or are developing plans for  such an evaluation. As a result, the agencies do not know the extent  to which their various communication mechanisms are working and  whether students, researchers, faculty, and university officials are  getting the information they need from these mechanisms.

For example, as previously stated, all five agencies use their website  as the main mechanism to communicate information about Title IX  complaint procedures to individuals at universities receiving federal  grants. While agencies have taken steps to add more information to  their websites for individuals at universities receiving federal grants,  we found some of the agencies’ websites difficult to navigate. Even  when key content existed, it was sometimes spread across multiple  sections of the website or buried in supplemental materials, or in one  case, associated with an incorrect destination page. For example,  NSF officials stated that they prefer formal Title IX complaints be filed  via their online complaint portal. However, this tool is not linked to the  tab of the website discussing how to file complaints. Additionally,  HHS-OCR’s newly-developed Title IX and sex-based harassment  websites are not referenced or linked to the information on laws and  regulations enforced by HHS-OCR or the complaints page. Rather,  from the HHS-OCR home page, one would have to know to click on  the “Special Topics” link to find links to the two new websites or find  the link to the “Sex-based Harassment” page embedded within the  new Title IX website. All of the agencies acknowledged issues with  their websites. For example, NSF officials acknowledged that their  agency’s website may not be user-friendly to individuals at  universities—such as students—and is in the process of revising the  website to increase ease of use.

None of the five agencies have periodically evaluated this key  communication tool at this time. NASA officials said that they evaluate  their website for grantees, but these evaluations are not systematic  and have not specifically focused on their sexual harassment  prevention efforts for grantees. HHS-NIH officials said that they  receive some feedback on the agency’s webpages, and the agency  keeps track of website user satisfaction to improve their quality in  general, but this effort is not specific to evaluating how HHS-NIH  communicates information on sexual harassment prevention to  grantees. NSF officials said they are planning to conduct an  evaluation on the effectiveness of their communication efforts with  their grantee community and will include actions that result from that  evaluation in NSF’s corrective action plan. As previously mentioned,  HHS-OCR and DOE recently took action to improve website clarity on  who can file a Title IX complaint, in part due to issues raised during  the course of our study.

Evaluating the effectiveness of their communication mechanisms is  important, as agencies may not be clearly communicating their sexual  harassment prevention policies and procedures to their intended  audiences. Nor can they be sure these policies and procedures are  reaching the right university officials. For example, Title IX officials  from two universities and one university system said that they had not  received any information from the five agencies on their sexual  harassment prevention policies for grantees. Two Title IX officials  stated that, even if this information is already provided to the  university departments or offices conducting scientific research, it  should also be given to the university’s Title IX office, with one official  noting they are the part of the university responsible for overseeing  compliance with sexual harassment policies and procedures under  Title IX. Title IX university officials also told us that the federal  agencies providing their grants had never provided them with  information on agencies’ policies and procedures for how individuals  at their institutions could file sexual harassment complaints. One Title  IX university official described how they would not know how to tell  someone to proceed if they wanted to file a complaint with the agency  funding their research project.

Officials from all five agencies acknowledged the value of evaluating  their grantee sexual harassment prevention efforts and noted that  they may be able to conduct such evaluations in the future. In  addition, four of the agencies have a general goal to prevent sexual  harassment by their university grantees, and all have recognized the  need to move beyond their current grantee sexual harassment  policies and procedures. As we reported in June 2019, their  completed or planned actions include modifying current department- level or agency-wide policy statements to include more specific  definitions and examples of sexual harassment and strengthening  requirements for their university grantees to report on findings of  sexual harassment. The 2018 NASEM report also noted that, while  it is clear that the agencies are concerned about sexual harassment in  STEM, it is not yet apparent whether and how actions such as their  new policy statements will translate into meaningful action.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification  of risks and define risk tolerances; for example, in defining objectives,  management may clearly define what is to be achieved, who is to achieve  it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement.  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government also state that  federal agencies should establish and operate monitoring activities to  evaluate results, select and periodically evaluate methods of  communication, and define objectives in specific and measurable terms.  We recognize that the agencies’ civil rights or diversity offices are  responsible for enforcing and overseeing a number of other civil rights  laws, Executive Orders, regulations, and policy directives for grantees  and their own employees, and that sexual harassment prevention efforts  for grantees are just some of their many discrimination prevention  initiatives. We also recognize that most agencies’ grantee sexual  harassment prevention efforts are new, and in some cases, still under  development. However, establishing goals and an overall plan to assess  progress toward achieving those goals—including methods to regularly  monitor and evaluate sexual harassment prevention policies and  communication mechanisms— would better position the agencies to  effectively coordinate and integrate such activities. It would also help  them holistically evaluate all their efforts—both those that are required by  Title IX and those that go beyond these requirements—to help grantees  prevent sexual harassment at universities, determine whether their  policies and procedures are reaching the populations they intend to  receive the information, and allow them to more effectively target  outreach if they find that there are deficiencies.

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM Discussion Group Aids Collaboration but Has Not Fully Implemented Two Key Leading Practices

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group provides a forum for the  five agencies to collaborate and share information on Title IX compliance.  While DOJ has implemented four of the six relevant leading practices on  federal interagency collaboration, it has not fully implemented two key  practices—agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities and developing  mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting collaborative  efforts. Outside of the discussion group, the five agencies have taken  collaborative steps to address the culture and climate for women in  STEM.

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM Discussion Group Facilitates Information Sharing across Agencies, but DOJ Has Not Fully Implemented Two Key Leading Practices on Collaboration

DOJ’s Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group facilitates collaboration  and shares best practices on Title IX enforcement across the five  agencies. Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is  intended to produce more public value than could be produced when  organizations act separately. Since February 2016, after reconstituting  the Quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group, DOJ has held quarterly  group meetings to share information on Title IX enforcement. According  to DOJ officials, the agencies discuss several topics, including:

Strategies for conducting Title IX compliance reviews, including joint

Strategies for investigating Title IX complaints

General discussion of Title IX complaints, including sexual

Title IX court cases and case history  Officials at the five agencies agreed the group is useful to coordinate and  share information on Title IX, for example, by avoiding duplication in  compliance reviews and complaint investigations. Indeed, when multiple  agencies received the same Title IX complaint, the three agencies  collaborated with DOJ to determine which one would handle the  complaint, according to officials. DOJ also provides technical assistance  and training on Title IX enforcement, according to officials.

Some agency officials identified steps that could potentially improve  collaboration within the group, including:

Clarifying and documenting the group’s purpose, scope, and roles and  responsibilities to ease transition of new agency staff and leadership  Incorporating more specific topics related to sexual harassment in  meeting agendas  Involving all federal agencies that fund STEM research at  universities.

Although agencies are not required to follow leading practices for  interagency collaboration, doing so can enhance and sustain such  collaboration, thereby improving performance and results. DOJ officials  told us the agency has adopted leading practices for interagency  collaboration as part of the group. Based on information from DOJ, we  found the agency’s actions were consistent with four out of six of the  relevant leading practices we have identified for collaborating across  agencies. We also found that DOJ could take additional steps to fully  adopt the remaining two leading practices, as shown in table 4.

Without implementing the two interagency collaboration leading practices,  DOJ is missing an opportunity to enhance and sustain collaboration  among the five agencies we reviewed as they continue to address the  problem of sexual harassment at universities.

Agencies Have Taken Steps to Address the Culture and Climate for Women in STEM

All five agencies reported taking collaborative steps with universities and  federal agencies to address the culture and climate for women in STEM.  For example, in 2019, HHS-NIH established a working group with  university experts to collaboratively assess the current state of  procedures for sexual harassment allegation investigation, reporting,  remediation, and discipline at NIH-funded organizations. In December  2019, the working group made several recommendations. For example, it  recommended that NIH require each principal investigator and key  personnel on an NIH grant attest that they have not been found to have  violated their institution’s code of professional conduct, including having a  finding of sexual harassment, for a determined period of time. The  working group also recommended that NIH create a parallel process to  treat professional misconduct, including sexual harassment, as seriously  as research misconduct.

In addition, DOE, NASA, NSF, and USDA collaborated with universities at  conferences and meetings.

According to DOE officials, the agency attends the annual conference  of university Title IX administrators, where participants discuss issues  related to Title IX, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

In 2016, NASA held a conference to help universities address sexual  harassment and share best practices to increase participation of  underrepresented populations in STEM education (see sidebar).  According to NASA officials, attendees included university presidents,  deans, and provosts, as well as NASA leaders. The agency is  planning another conference in 2020, according to NASA officials.

NSF presented information on Title IX and their policies and  procedures at numerous conferences and meetings in 2018 and  2019, according to officials.

USDA-NIFA served on the planning committee and participated in a  conference with public land grant universities to discuss diversity and  inclusion in 2018. According to officials, USDA is considering  participation in future events.

Such efforts to go beyond compliance reviews and to address the  larger culture and climate of STEM research are consistent with the  2018 NASEM report, which states that “adherence to legal  requirements is necessary but not sufficient to drive the change  needed to address sexual harassment.” increase participation in NASA business  and grant opportunities, and education  programs. address important issues related to America’s research environment.  The joint committee also established the Safe and Inclusive Research  Environments Subcommittee, in which DOE, HHS (including NIH), NASA,  and NSF participate, along with other federal agencies and offices.  USDA-NIFA is a member of the joint committee but does not participate in  the Safe and Inclusive Research Environments Subcommittee; instead,  USDA’s Agricultural Research Service participates in the subcommittee.  The goals and planned actions of the joint committee and subcommittee  have not been determined yet, according to Office of Science and  Technology Policy officials. Office of Science and Technology Policy  officials told us in December 2019 that its work plan is complete, but there  are no plans to release it publicly since it is a deliberative document. The  subcommittee is broadly focused on preventing harassment in research  environments.

Sexual harassment in higher education is degrading and illegal. In 2017  alone, the media covered over 97 allegations of sexual harassment at  institutions of higher education with some of the most high-profile cases  occurring in the fields of science, engineering and medicine, according to  the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Federal  agencies, in connection with the billions of dollars in research funding  they provide to universities and other institutions each year, are required  to enforce Title IX—prohibiting sex discrimination, including sexual  harassment—at these universities. As part of their enforcement  responsibilities, all five agencies have conducted the required Title IX  compliance reviews, but three agencies—DOE, HHS-OCR, and USDA— are missing an opportunity to share promising practices from their Title IX  compliance reviews with the broader grantee community. Given that  these agencies conduct compliance reviews at only a handful of the hundreds of grantees they fund in any given year, the vast majority of  grantees receive little to no information on Title IX compliance reviews  from these agencies.

Another tool federal agencies can use to address sexual harassment is  the prompt processing and disposition of Title IX complaints from  students and employees. Although all five selected agencies received  Title IX complaints, DOE and USDA have not finalized and published  complaint procedures, as required by DOJ’s regulations. Furthermore,  USDA does not provide clear information about the complaint process on  its website—its primary means of communicating information to  individuals and grantees. As a result, the agency may be missing the  opportunity to better serve individuals seeking relief from sexual  harassment at universities.

Federal agencies can also review information from individuals seeking to  notify the agency of a concern related to sex discrimination—including  sexual harassment—in an informal manner outside of the Title IX  complaint process. However, only HHS-NIH and NSF communicate the  option to submit concerns, and only HHS-NIH has a written process for  reviewing such concerns. In a single year, these concerns outnumbered  formal Title IX complaints received by all the agencies over 5 years. The  2018 NASEM report, agency officials, and stakeholders we interviewed  noted the importance of informal ways for individuals to report concerns  outside of formal complaint processes, which can protect an individual  from retaliation, alert agencies to possible Title IX violations, and help  agencies select sites for Title IX compliance reviews.

Two HHS components—NIH and OCR—do not share sexual harassment  complaint information with each other. This poses the risk that HHS-NIH  will be unaware of situations in which HHS-OCR finds non-compliance  with Title IX and may approve a STEM research grant for that university.  It also raises the possibility that NIH will receive concerns about a  university that may warrant a Title IX compliance review, but the Office for  Civil Rights may be unaware of these concerns.

Establishing clear goals and an overall plan can help agencies assess  progress and manage change, including, in this case, the creation of new  sexual harassment prevention efforts for grantees. Although all five  agencies have established a variety of prevention efforts, they have done  so without a plan, and without methods to evaluate their policies and how  they communicate them. As a result, agencies do not have a way to  measure progress toward preventing sexual harassment at their  university grantees, including how or whether these efforts are helping  university grantees and individuals who have been subject to harassment.

Finally, interagency coordination can help improve the results of agency  activities. DOJ has not fully adopted two key interagency collaboration  leading practices for its interagency working group. Without doing so, the  agency is missing an opportunity to enhance and sustain collaboration  among agencies as they continue to address the problem of sexual  harassment at universities.

We are making 17 recommendations, including four to DOE, one to DOJ,  four to HHS, two to NASA, one to NSF, and five to USDA. Specifically:

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the  Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to publicize promising practices for  Title IX compliance on its websites for their university grantees.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of  Economic Impact and Diversity to publicize promising practices for  Title IX compliance on its websites for their university grantees.  (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services  should direct the Director for the Office for Civil Rights to publicize a  stand-alone list of promising practices for Title IX compliance on its  websites for their university grantees. (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of  Economic Impact and Diversity to finalize and publish Title IX  complaint procedures, consistent with DOJ’s regulations.  (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the  Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to finalize and publish revised Title  IX complaint procedures. (Recommendation 5)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the  Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to clarify on its website that  individuals on USDA-funded grants can file Title IX complaints  through the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights—including clarifying  who is considered “customers.” (Recommendation 6)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services  should direct the Director for the Office for Civil Rights to assess the  feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination— including sexual harassment—and communicating to individuals on  agency-funded grants the option to notify the agency of these  concerns, outside of the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation  7)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of  Economic Impact and Diversity to assess the feasibility of receiving  and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual  harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency-funded  grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns, outside of  the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 8)

The Administrator of NASA should assess the feasibility of receiving  and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual  harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency-funded  grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns, outside of  the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 9)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should direct the  Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to assess the feasibility of  receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including  sexual harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency- funded grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns,  outside of the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 10)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services  should direct the Director for the Office for Civil Rights and the  Director of NIH to develop and implement formal procedures for  sharing relevant information about Title IX (compliance reviews,  violations, and complaints) and sex discrimination concerns, including  sexual harassment. For example, HHS components should internally  share information regarding findings of Title IX violations, concerns of  sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and Title IX  compliance review reports. (Recommendation 11)

The Secretary of Energy should establish goals and an overall plan to  assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for  their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and  evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and  communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination  websites). (Recommendation 12)

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services  should establish goals and an overall plan to assess all of the  agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for their university  grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate its  sexual harassment prevention policies and communication  mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination websites).  (Recommendation 13)

The Administrator of NASA should establish goals and an overall plan  to assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for  their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and  evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and  communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination  websites). (Recommendation 14)

The Director of NSF should establish goals and an overall plan to  assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment prevention efforts for  their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and  evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and  communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination  websites). (Recommendation 15)

The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should establish goals  and an overall plan to assess all of the agency’s sexual harassment  prevention efforts for their university grantees, including methods to  regularly monitor and evaluate its sexual harassment prevention  policies and communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex  discrimination websites). (Recommendation 16)

In consultation with DOE, HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA, the Assistant  Attorney General for the Department of Justice should direct the  responsible Civil Rights Division sections to fully adopt two federal  interagency leading practices—agree on agency’s roles and  responsibilities and develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and  report results of collaborative efforts, for its Quarterly Title IX STEM  discussion group. (Recommendation 17)

We provided a draft this report to DOE, DOJ, Education, HHS, NASA,  NSF, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and USDA for review  and comment. We received written comments from the Departments of  Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, as well as  NASA and NSF that are reprinted in appendixes IV through IX, and  summarized below. Education did not have comments on the draft report,  but it provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. The Office of Science and Technology Policy stated that it  did not have comments on the draft report.

All six of the agencies and departments to which we made  recommendations stated that they agreed with the recommendations and  most provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. The agencies’ comments are summarized below:  In the Department of Agriculture's written comments, reproduced in  appendix IV, the department agreed with all five recommendations.  USDA outlined actions for improving the complaint process and  communication with university grantees. For example, the department  stated that its regulation for processing complaints is currently in the  clearance process for publication. In addition, USDA will reach out to  other agencies within the quarterly Title IX STEM discussion group to  assess best practices for monitoring and evaluating sexual  harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms.

In DOE's written comments, reproduced in appendix V, the  department agreed with all four recommendations. DOE plans to  publicize a promising practice guide on its website, publish complaint  procedures, and evaluate the feasibility of receiving and reviewing  concerns of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment. The  department estimates completion by the end of calendar year 2020.  DOE will establish goals for prevention efforts and an overall plan by  the end of January 2021 and August 2021, respectively.

In HHS's comments, reproduced in appendix VI, the department  agreed with all four recommendations. In response to one  recommendation, HHS stated that HHS-OCR and HHS-NIH would  review the current procedure, and develop and implement, as  necessary, formal procedures for sharing relevant information about  Title IX and sexual harassment concerns. However, the department  also noted that it did not "share GAO's supposition that coordination of  Title IX enforcement between HHS-OCR and HHS-NIH raises privacy  concerns." Therefore, we removed this portion of our  recommendation. As stated in the report, it was HHS-NIH officials who  asserted that a formal agreement is needed to ensure privacy when  sharing information, in particular sexual harassment concerns. For  another recommendation, the department stated that HHS-NIH has  established goals and will develop a plan to assess progress towards  achieving these goals, and that HHS-OCR will also develop a plan for  its Title IX enforcement and outreach efforts.

In DOJ's written comments, reproduced in appendix VII, the  department generally agreed with our recommendation. DOJ stated  that the department is prepared to delineate the agencies' roles and  responsibilities within the interagency group (quarterly Title IX STEM  discussion group), as recommended. DOJ also plans to develop an  enhanced process for evaluating, monitoring, and reporting on the  group's collaborations in enforcing Title IX that is achievable within its  current resource allocation, or if more resources become available.

In NASA's comments, reproduced in appendix VIII, the agency  concurred with our two recommendations. NASA stated that the  agency plans to assess the feasibility of receiving and reviewing  concerns of sex discrimination and harassment and estimates  completion by September 20, 2020. Through the interagency process,  NASA will also adopt the policies and procedures developed by the  National Science and Technology Council, overseen by the Office of  Science and Technology Policy.

In NSF's written comments, reproduced in appendix IX, the agency  agreed with our recommendation for goals and an overall plan to  assess sexual harassment prevention efforts. NSF is embarking on an  assessment process to improve its policies and practices continually  in order to achieve the goal of safe and inclusive research  environments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Energy, and Health  and Human Services; the Directors of the National Science Foundation  and the Office of Science and Technology Policy; the Administrator of the  National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Attorney General for  the Department of Justice; 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) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix X.

Appendix I: General Procedures for Evaluating and Investigating Formal Title IX Complaints at Five Agencies

While Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations require federal agencies  to establish and publish complaint procedures, according to the DOJ Title  IX Legal Manual, agency regulations with respect to procedures for the  investigation of complaints of discriminatory practices are typically brief  and lack details as to the manner or timetable for such an inquiry. The  National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and  Space Administration (NASA) have developed complaint manuals in  addition to the agencies’ Title IX regulations. According to NSF and NASA  officials, both agencies follow the same general processes as those  published in DOJ guidance or the Department of Education’s Investigative  Manual for the prompt processing and disposition of complaints. Figure 3  is a visualization of the general Title IX complaint process described in  NASA’s and NSF’s complaint manuals.

Formal complaints can conclude in one of four ways: 1) dismissed for a  variety of reasons—such as untimeliness or lack of information; 2)  referred to another agency based on jurisdiction or authority; 3) resolved  through a voluntary resolution process; or 4) resolved via an investigation  and formal finding—either supporting the allegation or not. While the  formal complaint may be alleging a discriminatory act against an  individual, agency investigations focus on the university grantee’s  compliance or non-compliance with Title IX. According to NASA and NSF  officials, if there is a finding of non-compliance with Title IX, the onus is on  the university grantee to take actions to come into compliance—which  may include disciplinary action against the harasser.

Appendix II: Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health Process for Responding to Concerns

In recent years, the National Institutes of Health within the Department of  Health and Human Services (HHS-NIH) has publicly addressed the  agency’s efforts to prevent sexual harassment in science and elevate the  seriousness with which the agency takes this issue through action. While  already receiving information of sex discrimination concerns, including  sexual harassment, from relationships built with institutions—including  universities, in March 2019, HHS-NIH launched an email address to  receive concerns about sexual harassment directly from individuals  involved in HHS-NIH funded projects at universities. Shortly after, in June  2019, HHS-NIH also created an online portal in response to user  feedback requesting a method of anonymous reporting. HHS-NIH  developed preliminary internal guidance for staff regarding the process for  handling concerns (see figure 4).

According to officials, in order to review a concern, HHS-NIH needs basic  information about the allegation, including:

First and last name of the person who may have committed  Institution that employs that person

Brief description of the incident  HHS-NIH notifies universities of the concern and may request details on  the allegation and the university’s response to the allegations, according  to officials. As part of this process, HHS-NIH assesses the university  grantee’s response to ensure it is taking appropriate actions to ensure a  safe research environment—altering the grant terms and conditions if  needed to remove or replace key grant personnel. For example, in 2018,  HHS-NIH followed up on sexual harassment-related concerns at more  than 20 universities. According to a 2019 HHS-NIH Director Statement,  this follow-up resulted in the replacement of 14 principal investigators  named on NIH grant awards, disciplinary actions taken by awardee  universities against 21 principal investigators—including termination of  employment—and removal of 14 individuals from peer review. According  to HHS-NIH officials, in fiscal year 2019 HHS-NIH received 93 concerns  regarding sexual harassment. HHS-NIH does not just review allegations  against personnel already funded by HHS-NIH, but also assesses if the  allegations are against applicants for HHS-NIH funding. If a principal  investigator or co-principal investigator listed on an application for an  HHS-NIH grant is named in an allegation, HHS-NIH works with the  institution to gather more information about the allegation in the context of  HHS-NIH funded research. While the institution is conducting an internal  investigation into the allegations, they may request to change the  principal investigator or remove a co-principal investigator listed on the  application. This may be a temporary or permanent action depending on  the circumstances and the institution’s findings.

Appendix III: Five Agencies’ Sexual Harassment Prevention Efforts for Grantees

This appendix contains a summary of the five agencies’ sexual  harassment prevention efforts for university grantees or individuals at  universities receiving federal grants as of December 2019. This summary  indicates the implementation status for each agency’s efforts, and  whether they were complete, in progress or partially implemented, or not  reported. These efforts are grouped in three categories: 1) activities  required by Title IX, 2) activities beyond those required by Title IX, and 3)  evaluation activities (see figures 5, 6, and 7, respectively).

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix IX: Comments from the National Science Foundation

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

John Neumann, (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov  In addition to the individual named above, Mark Gaffigan (Managing  Director), Melissa Emrey-Arras (Director), Robert Marek (Assistant  Director), Michelle St. Pierre (Assistant Director), Nkenge Gibson  (Analyst-in-Charge), Nora Adkins, Caitlin Cusati, Cindy Gilbert, Kristy  Kennedy, Anika McMillon, Kristen Pinnock, Amanda Postiglione, Janay  Sam, and Benjamin Shouse made key contributions to this report.

Federal agencies must enforce Title IX—which prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment—at universities receiving federal financial assistance. We looked at 5 agencies funding science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research and found:

4 of 5 agencies received 3 or fewer complaints over the last 5 years

2 of 5 agencies lack or have outdated complaint procedures

None of the 5 agencies have goals and an overall plan to evaluate all prevention efforts

Our recommendations include establishing or updating agency complaint procedures and establishing goals and an overall plan for sexual harassment prevention.