Overview
HRD did not always ensure that each state agency submitted annual progress reports for affirmative action plans and diversity plans by the due date. Specifically, we noted the following issues with the annual progress reports from the audit period.
Annual Progress Reports for Affirmative Action Plans
We noted the following issues with fiscal year 2020 annual progress reports:
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, 1 was submitted 11 days late.
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, HRD could not locate 5. The state agencies submitted these annual progress reports to HRD as hard copies.
We noted the following issues with fiscal year 2021 annual progress reports:
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, 9 were submitted late, ranging from 4 to 316 days past the due date.
We noted the following issues with fiscal year 2022 annual progress reports:
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, 11 were submitted late, ranging from 13 to 129 days past the due date.
Annual Progress Reports for Diversity Plans
We noted the following issues with fiscal year 2020 annual progress reports:
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, 1 was submitted 16 days late.
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, HRD could not locate 6. The state agencies submitted these annual progress reports to HRD as hard copies.
We noted the following issues with fiscal year 2021 annual progress reports:
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, 4 were submitted late, ranging from 11 to 317 days past the due date.
We noted the following issues with fiscal year 2022 annual progress reports:
- Out of 20 annual progress reports, 7 were submitted late, ranging from 13 to 106 days past the due date.
If HRD does not ensure that each state agency submits its annual progress reports for affirmative action plans and diversity plans in a timely manner, then HRD cannot determine to what extent each state agency met its placement goals.6 Furthermore, if HRD cannot locate files sent to it, it cannot use these files to hold state agencies accountable for the contents of these files as required by state law or executive order, and its failure to retain these records may violate state laws regarding records retention. Meeting placement goals helps state agencies provide for and protect diversity and equal opportunity in all facets of state employment.
Authoritative Guidance
Section 3 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592 states, “The plans shall set forth specific goals and timetables for the achievement of these goals and shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws.” Furthermore, Section 3.2 states,
The secretariats and agencies shall annually submit progress updates on their Affirmative Action and Diversity Plans. These Progress Reports should be submitted sixty days after the close of the fiscal year or August 30th.
The “Massachusetts Statewide Records Retention Schedule” states,
E03-04: Affirmative Action Plans and Reports Records. . . .
Documents reports and plans submitted to the State Office of Affirmative Action (SOAA). Includes plans, reports, statistics, goals, and related correspondence.
E03-04 (a): Agency’s primary copy of final plans and substantive support materials
Permanent
E03-04 (b): All other records
Retain until administrative use ceases. Permission from [the Records Conservation Board] not required for destruction.
E03-05: Affirmative Action Monitoring/Compliance Records. . . .
Documents the monitoring of programs and activities relating to the functions of affirmative action requiring oversight, review, opinion, or input. Includes information on the monitoring of contract bids for [Equal Employment Opportunity] requirements, [people of color] and women proposals, grants and contracts, facilities handicapped access, hiring, purchasing, and related correspondence.
E03-05 (a): Contract related documentation
Retain 3 years after close of bid process.
E03-05 (b): All other records
Retain 3 years or until administrative use ceases, whichever is longer.
Reasons for Noncompliance
HRD officials told us that HRD followed up with the noncompliant state agencies that submitted their annual progress reports late using phone calls and emails. HRD was unable to provide us with evidence of phone calls made, but HRD did provide us with examples of some of the email communications. However, HRD’s records did not indicate to what extent HRD followed up with noncompliant state agencies regarding their missing annual progress reports.
Additionally, HRD did not have a policy that includes monitoring controls to ensure that it sends follow‑up communications to noncompliant state agencies regarding missed deadlines for annual progress reports.
Recommendations
- HRD should ensure that ODEO updates its “Accountability Policy for Affirmative Action Plans for Executive Branch Agencies” to include procedures for missed deadlines for annual progress reports, how HRD should send follow-up communications for late submissions, and how HRD should retain documentation regarding these follow-up communications.
- HRD should establish the conditions under which HRD takes remedial courses of action against noncompliant state agencies and how HRD should retain documentation regarding these actions.
- HRD should ensure that it retains each state agency’s annual progress report.
Auditee’s Response
HRD/ODEO acknowledges there is an opportunity for improvement in our current process. HRD followed the 2019 recommendations of the Audit team and implemented tighter controls aimed at ensuring more timely submissions of affirmative action and diversity plans. We also developed an accountability policy to enhance these processes further. However, the fact remains that [affirmative action] and [diversity plan] progress reports were not submitted in a timely manner.
HRD/ODEO provided an explanation of the re-prioritization of priorities during the implementation of EO595. It appears no consideration was given to this document in your final review. I am including the full statement below as an abbreviated version appears in the draft audit report: “To execute a hiring freeze in the midst of staff losses and difficulty in filling vacant positions seemed counterproductive and further contribute to the crisis as staff losses were especially high in the healthcare and public safety agencies. Therefore, during these unprecedented times, we concentrated our energies to continuing to work with the agencies to assist them in the submission of their plans.” . . .
We will make further enhancements to our processes and documentation. . . .
HRD consolidated its offices and underwent construction and a remodel during the period of time at issue. While certain progress reports could not be located to produce to the auditors as they were misplaced when the contractor was packing and moving our records, it is unfair to reach the conclusion that the records were permanently destroyed.
Auditor’s Reply
We commend HRD for its efforts to implement stronger controls and develop an accountability policy to ensure the on-time submission of affirmative action and diversity plans. We understand the need for HRD to reprioritize its responsibilities during the audit period due to the implementation of EO 595. We also commend HRD/ODEO for its efforts to assist state agencies with the submission of their annual affirmative action and diversity plan progress reports during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As noted in this report, HRD could not locate some affirmative action and diversity plan progress reports. We recognize HRD’s contention that these progress reports were misplaced and not permanently destroyed, so we will follow up with HRD in our post-audit review to inquire if these records have been located. Of note, we did not reach the conclusion, or state at any point in the audit report, that these progress reports were permanently destroyed. We, therefore, encourage HRD to reconsider the last sentence of its response to the Office of the State Auditor. The record retention criteria we cited in this report, however, does indeed require that HRD permanently retain the progress reports. Since the progress reports we requested were not available for us to review, we will revisit this issue during our post-audit review and encourage HRD to make them available at or before that time. Additionally, as noted above, state agency affirmative action and diversity plan progress reports were not submitted in a timely manner during the audit period. HRD records did not indicate to what extent HRD followed up with noncompliant state agencies regarding their late or missing annual progress reports.
HRD implemented some of the recommendations from our prior audits. We strongly encourage it to implement our recommendations from this audit.
| Date published: | July 5, 2024 |
|---|