As previously reported in the Spring 2022 issue of NEXO, On October 1, 2020, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform (COR) directed a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting that the GAO “issue a report on the representation of Latinos in employment and management positions in the film, television, and publishing industries, and the enforcement of federal equal opportunity requirements on those industries by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Labor (DOL)” (2020, p. 1). In September of 2021, the GAO returned the report, “Workforce Diversity: Analysis of Federal Data Shows Hispanics Are Underrepresented in the Media Industry,” which concluded that in 2019 Latina/os made up only 12 percent of the media workforce, compared to 18 percent of workers in the rest of the workforce. The report drew no conclusions beyond acknowledging that Latina/os are underrepresented in media industries and did not address how the EEOC and DOL might enforce measures to diversify media industries.

In September of 2022, the GAO issued a follow-up report titled “Workforce Diversity: Hispanic Workers Are Underrepresented in the Media, and More Data Are Needed for Federal Enforcement Efforts.” The new report reiterates and expands upon the findings of the original regarding the underrepresentation of Latina/os in media industries over the past decade. In addition to analysis of the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for 2010-2019, for this report the GAO took the additional step of interviewing agency officials and stakeholders and reviewing diversity reports issued by 15 large media companies, as well as federal agency documents and enforcement data. Based on this study, the GAO makes several recommendations in the report regarding data collection and sharing between EEOC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This article presents a summary of the new GAO report.

Through a review of ACS data for the years 2010 to 2019, the report indicates that Latina/os were underrepresented in media industries compared to their representation in all other industries combined. The report notes that in 2019, Latina/os made up only 12 percent of the workforce in media industries, compared to 18 percent in all industries. Further, it notes that Latina/o representation increased very little over the past decade, with an increase of only one percentage point from 2010 to 2019 (11 to 12 percent) compared to a three-percentage point increase in all other industries over the same period (15 to 18 percent). Measuring against the overall share of Latina/ os in the civilian employed workforce (17 percent) further supports the finding that Latina/os are underrepresented in media industries. The report notes that Latina/o representation across all industries ranges from 9 percent in the professional, scientific, and technical services industry to 33 percent in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry. At 12 percent, Latina/o participation in media industries is close to the bottom of the range.

Analyses of 2015-2019 5-year ACS and EEOC EEO-1 data showed that Latina/o representation varied by occupation and gender. Looking at 13 media occupations, the study estimated that 10 percent of workers were Latina/o, with Latina/o representation ranging from 7 percent of writers and authors to 16 percent of music directors and composers. It further found that Latinas were substantially underrepresented relative to Latino men in media occupations with the highest concentrations of Latina/os, including television, video, and film camera operators and editors; other media and communication equipment workers; designers; and photographers. For instance, while Latina/os made up 13 percent of other media and communication equipment workers, Latinas only accounted for 1 percent, compared to 12 percent for Latino men. The EEOC’s EEO-1 data collected from 2014 to 2018 likewise showed that Latina/o representation varied widely across job categories, ranging from 4 percent of senior and executive managers to 19 percent in service jobs. Once again, Latinas were underrepresented compared to Latino men in the two job categories with the highest concentrations of Latina/os—craft workers and technicians.

The authors of the report also extended their analysis through interviews with 15 stakeholders, including “researchers and representatives from industry groups, unions, and Hispanic media not-for-profit organizations” (p. 17). These stakeholders identified challenges that they felt could contribute to underrepresentation of Latina/os in media industries. These included financial barriers, which included the cost of education or training, resources dedicated to producing content for Latina/os. Stakeholders also identified challenges in obtaining education beyond financial costs, including the competitive nature of relevant programs and lack of knowledge about educational opportunities. Eight of 15 stakeholders also identified limited access to professional networks as a challenge. Six stakeholders noted difficulties in joining unions due to work experience requirements, which puts Latina/os at a disadvantage given the importance of union membership in obtaining employment in certain media occupations. Finally, stakeholders indicated that a lack of diversity among talent agents, media executives, and other decision-makers puts Latina/os at a disadvantage as this lack of diversity may lead decision-makers to dismiss content created for Latina/o markets or to misunderstand the diversity of Latina/o communities.

The authors of the report further conducted a systematic review of reports published on the websites of 25 large media companies, selected based on market value. Fifteen of the 25 companies selected had publicly posted documents that detailed workforce diversity initiatives, which were analyzed according to previous GAO work on diversity management practices, though the authors did not verify the accuracy of the companies’ self-reports or assess their effectiveness. The report offers a table in which companies’ self-reports are matched to leading diversity management practices, such as top leadership commitment, measurement, accountability, succession planning, recruitment, employee involvement, and diversity training. It further identifies other steps taken to increase diversity, such as targeted development programs, education and training, partnerships, dedicated funding, and mechanisms to assess pay equity.

Finally, the report considers tools used by federal agencies to enforce EEO requirements and promote diversity in media industries. The report notes that an analysis of EEOC enforcement data for 2020 to 2021 “identified 24 discrimination charges based on Hispanic national origin involving media companies that were resolved by EEOC and state/local fair employment practices agencies (FEPA)” (p. 27). None of these resulted in findings of discrimination by the EEOC, but five were resolved by financial settlements before EEOC investigations were completed. An examination of Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforcement data from 2010 to 2021 showed one compliance evaluation, closed in 2021, that resulted in discrimination violations against 17 Latina/o workers at a media company, resulting in total remedies of $97,435. Analysis of FCC audits and periodic reviews of compliance with EEO rules, which can result in monetary fines or, at the most extreme, denial of license renewal, showed that from 2010 to 2021 the FCC took enforcement action against 14 media companies for noncompliance. However, the FCC “does not financial strain when quitting a paying job to take an unpaid internship, difficulties in obtaining long-term employment in a project-based industry, and lack of financial track whether the violations affected particular racial or ethnic groups, such as Hispanics” (p. 30).

Despite a common goal of the EEOC and FCC to eliminate discriminatory employment policies and practices by media companies, the report indicates that the agencies lack data that could assist in their enforcement efforts. Specifically, it notes that the EEOC and FCC no longer have a data sharing agreement in place that could inform FCC licensing decisions, with the FCC relying on self-reporting from media companies of pending or received discrimination complaints. Previously, the two agencies had a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that facilitated data sharing, but the MOU was terminated in 2020. The report further notes that current EEOC data collection methods do not allow the agency to determine if all labor unions are complying with reporting requirements on demographics of union membership.

The report concludes with three recommendations for executive action to be taken by relevant federal agencies. The recommendations are as follows:

1) “The Chair of EEOC should work with FCC to develop a new memorandum of understanding that includes a plan for EEOC to routinely share data with FCC regarding discrimination charges filed against broadcasters and cable and satellite television operators” (p. 37).

2) “The Chair of FCC should work with EEOC to develop a new memorandum of understanding that includes a plan for EEOC to routinely share data with FCC regarding discrimination charges filed against broadcasters and cable and satellite television operators” (p. 37).

3) “The Chair of EEOC should improve EEOC’s approach to routinely identify local unions required to file an EEO3 report to help ensure that they file such reports on the demographics of union members” (p. 38).

These recommendations, which are restricted to data collection and sharing, are consistent with the GAO’s remit to “enhance the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and credibility of the federal government.” However, since the authors of the report themselves observe that “The media industry is uniquely positioned to inform and educate the public, and the content it produces can influence the way people view themselves, others, and the world around them” (p. 36), and “Given the important role the media plays [sic] in American life, the representation in its workforce of historically disadvantaged racial or ethnic groups, including Hispanics, may have implications that extend beyond the workplace” (p. 36-7), the matter seems more urgent than the slow, bureaucratic approach recommended in the report would suggest. As such, other tactics may be necessary to pressure media companies to more rapidly diversify their workforces.