Introduction

The geosciences have a long-standing struggle with diversity (Huntoon and Lane, 2007; Velasco and de Velasco, 2010; Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018) and racism (Reynolds and others, 2010; Dutt, 2020). In 1971, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) invested in addressing these issues and its own lack of workforce diversity with an “energetic program to improve the Survey’s record in professional employment for minorities” (Bromery and others, 1972, p. 1). Fifty years later, publicly available data show that the USGS workforce demographics are racially homogenous and still do not reflect the Nation’s diversity (Office of Personnel Management, 2021). The geosciences as a whole have also remained homogenous (Huntoon and Lane, 2007; Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018).

This conspicuous lack of improvement in diversity and inclusion of Black and Indigenous communities, and other communities of color, alongside the racial justice protests of 2020, motivated the launch of a global, virtual, geoscientist led, and National Science Foundation funded initiative known as Unlearning Racism in Geoscience (URGE) in the winter of 2021 (https://urgeoscience.org/). The 16-week facilitated URGE curriculum sought to explore the origins and scope of institutional racism and to educate the geoscience community on mechanisms by which it can begin to deconstruct institutional biases by building a culture that fosters diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA; Wright and others, 2021). The URGE effort encouraged participants to confront the roadblocks encountered by Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and underrepresented minorities (URMs) in the Earth sciences and to develop plans to reduce or eliminate those barriers. To do this, the program highlighted existing literature, presented expert seminars, and promoted discussion within groups (pods) with the goal of building action plans to affect change within the home institutions of participants. URGE recruited participants through professional networks; there was no cost for participation and there were no discipline restrictions, though as the name would suggest, the focus was on the geosciences. Most of the approximately 4,500 URGE participants were university faculty and students or from professional societies and nonprofit organizations. A smaller percentage of participants were from Federal science agencies; the USGS had the largest agency participation, with 6 pods totaling over 120 participants.

The URGE leadership engaged participants with a specific topic (for example, hiring or accountability) in each of eight 2-week sessions, providing published research and interviews meant to focus pod discussions on creating a session deliverable. Each deliverable contained background data and recommendations for addressing that session’s specific issue within each pod’s home institution. For the USGS pods, these deliverables reflect grassroots explorations and evaluations of the policies and practices of the organization that may not have been possible with a top-down approach. Furthermore, the deliverables represent an opportunity for the USGS to embrace actionable changes identified by employees who may not traditionally be part of decision-making and policymaking discussions. To facilitate this upward communication, deliverables from the six USGS pods were synthesized, and recommendations were provided for action specific to the USGS. The recommendations range from employee-level action items to USGS- and Department-level policy modifications that together can result in near-term and long-term achievements. Recommendations are also intended to support the 2021 government-wide DEIA plan to “cultivate a workforce that draws from the full diversity of the Nation … [and] advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility across the Federal Government” (Biden, 2021, p. 1).

Past Efforts and Current Workforce Demographics

USGS diversity statements from the Office of the Director over the past decade recognize that a “talented and diverse workforce is a key asset” (Reilly, 2018, p. 1) and that “to ensure we accomplish our mission in the most effective, efficient and robust way possible … the USGS is committed to seeking out and retaining a highly skilled and diverse workforce” (Kimball, 2010, p. 1). The USGS diversity vision aligns with decades-old research showing how teams with diverse membership providing divergent perspectives improve problem solving and creativity (Nemeth, 1986; Garcia-Prieto and others, 2009). This is particularly important for organizations like the USGS that rely on creativity and innovation to conduct scientific inquiries that support decision making across the Nation (Sparber, 2009). In addition to the intellectual merit of these proposals, improving access to collaborations and careers for members of underserved communities and populations is the appropriate action to better support racial justice and equity.

To attain its vision, an organization must implement a chosen system of policies and behavioral expectations. It is critical to acknowledge that “the system is optimized to produce what you get” (variously attributed to Don Berwick, W. Edwards Deming, or Dr. Paul Batalden). Figure 1 shows “what we get”: Current USGS workforce demographics fall well below the Federal civilian workforce and National diversity levels, particularly at higher General Schedule levels that mostly represent research scientists with advanced degrees. This, despite the fact that the USGS implemented a diversity program 50 years ago (Bromery and others, 1972). Though the current disparity may, in part, reflect a time lag between hiring and advancement to the highest levels of civil service, it may also represent an inability to retain and promote recruited talent. The trend in minority participation rates in the USGS workforce is weakly positive for the USGS, though not all minority participation rates are increasing. For example, Black employees represented 5.2 percent of the USGS workforce in 1971 (Gillette, 1972), but only 3.3 percent in 2020 (Office of Personnel Management, 2021), and the percentage in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) workforce is even smaller (fig. 1). The current system of policies and behavioral expectations in the USGS will need to change if the organization intends to embody the vision articulated by the USGS Office of the Director (Kimball and others, 2020) and President Biden.

Our Way Forward: An URGE-Inspired Plan for Progress

Before exploring the URGE curriculum, USGS participation in URGE, and USGS demographic data in more detail, the synthesis of USGS URGE pod deliverables is summarized here. The synthesis is organized around recommendations for three connected supporting efforts required to implement and sustain a workplace environment that embodies the USGS vision and the Department of the Interior’s commitment to creating a workplace culture that attracts, develops, and retains outstanding individuals. In the following sections, recommendations associated with three themes for action are described, each with requirements for internal and external engagement, that will allow the USGS to “accomplish our mission in the most effective, efficient and robust way possible” (Kimball, 2010, p. 1). These “Fundamental Pillars of Institutional Change” are shown in figure 2 and include (1) engagement and networking with the diverse communities served by the USGS; (2) recruitment and hiring to attract diverse talent into the USGS workforce; and (3) retention and advancement to support, protect, and motivate the USGS workforce to reach its fullest potential. Note that lasting cultural change requires all three pillars to remain stable, supported by accountability, which provides fundamental support for institutional change.

In the next section, details about the URGE curriculum and USGS participation in the program are provided; additionally, USGS demographic data are explored at the Bureau and Center levels. Having established the current composition of the USGS workforce, the subsequent section describes the summary recommendations of the USGS URGE pods for each fundamental pillar of institutional change and for its base of accountability (fig. 2), where primary recommendations are listed in tables and secondary recommendations are provided in bulleted lists.

URGE and Diversity at USGS

The URGE curriculum is explicitly antiracist. Emphasis on “antiracist” is important because “not racist” is passive, while “antiracist” is active (Kendi, 2019; Ben and others, 2020). The lack of systemic change within the USGS since 1971 is an indication that new, active, and explicitly “antiracist” approaches could bring about much needed change. URGE challenged its participants, approximately 84 percent of whom were White, to understand why active change is needed and to thoughtfully consider how to use their privilege, in whatever way it might be manifested, within their institutions to affect change (Wright and others, 2021).

The curriculum consisted of eight units delivered over 16 weeks, with required readings, supplemental readings, author discussions via webinar, pod discussions, and deliverables (table 2) that asked pods to explore the systems within their organizations and consider recommendations for policy or procedural changes where needed. The readings were primarily curated from the social sciences literature and, as such, exposed the participants to new ideas. Discussions and interviews with the authors helped to stimulate pod conversations while providing opportunities for question and answer sessions with experts on the topic of each unit.

This work was carried out by more than 120 USGS participants organized into 6 pods and 10 discussion groups. They came from 16 States, every USGS Region, multiple Mission Areas, and represented a wide range of USGS job series and career stages. USGS participants joined from the Office of Science Quality and Integrity; St. Petersburg (Florida) and Woods Hole (Massachusetts) Coastal and Marine Science Centers; New York Water Science Center; New Mexico Water Science Center; Geological Hazards Science Center; Utah Water Science Center; Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center; Astrogeology Science Center; Upper Midwest Water Science Center; Volcano Science Center; Earthquake Science Center; Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center; and the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Water Science Center (fig. 3).

One of the key components to resolving the issue of a lack of institutional diversity is access to demographic data. Without a robust understanding of the status quo for employment of minorities within the USGS, it is not possible to track positive or negative changes to overall staff diversity. At the beginning of the URGE curriculum, USGS pods gathered both Center-level demographics and demographics across the USGS to better understand its diversity baseline. URGE pod participants found that the USGS does not represent the overall demographic diversity of the United States (fig. 1). For example, while 12.5 percent of the U.S. population is Black or African American, only 3.3 percent of USGS employees identify as Black or African American (fig. 4). Similarly, people of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity represent 18.7 percent of the overall U.S. population, but only 4.8 percent of USGS employees identify as Hispanic/Latinx (fig. 4). This is the starting point for all recommendations laid out below, which highlight specific ways to improve on the demographic data presented here.

Because USGS Science Centers are on the front lines of their communities, URGE pod participants also examined Center-level demographic data (when accessible) which showed that the distribution of URMs is heterogeneous across the USGS, highlighting a role for local DEIA activities that complement National, Bureau-level efforts. For example, the Utah Water Science Center URGE Pod presented the following data: in Utah (fig. 5), the Hispanic/Latinx population makes up 14 percent of the population, but there are currently no Hispanic/Latinx USGS employees in the State of Utah. In the fall of 2020, 98 percent of USGS employees in Utah were White, 20 percent more than the population of the State and 13 percent higher than the broader USGS. Moreover, when compared to the applicant pool from which the State’s USGS facilities in Utah have recruited/hired from in the past—the student body at the University of Utah College of Mines and Earth Sciences (including undergraduate and graduate students in M.S. and Ph.D. programs)—the USGS in Utah is less diverse. This is consistent with the findings from Bernard and Cooperdock (2018) showing that the relatively diverse student body studying geoscience is not transitioning into geoscience careers.

Later in this document, recommendations to address possible systemic contributors to the data as they are will be discussed, but here the focus is on what can be learned from the demographic data themselves. Certainly, these baseline numbers provide a benchmark to improve upon; however, the Center-level example highlights that the communities around USGS Science Centers reflect the National demographics to varying degrees. An effort could be made to annually collect and make public Center-level demographic data to track Center-level progress. In addition to providing longitudinal metrics on the efficiency of certain networking, recruitment, and retention policies, annually reported Center-level demographic information could help identify local successes or policies that could be implemented more broadly across the USGS.

The authors recognize that sharing demographic information representing only the Center level may inadvertently identify individual employees, thus preventing the release of that information. Nonetheless, localized demographic information offers opportunities for directly linking hiring strategy changes with hiring outcomes. As noted in table 3, a recommendation is to elevate these Center-level results to higher level human resource groups or committees with authority to view demographic information. These approved groups could aggregate findings on effective practices and broadly share recommendations for effective Center-level engagement strategies. Presented below are two possible actions that could take place when Center-wide demographics are available:

Regardless of whether evaluating Bureau- or Center-level data, it is clear that the demographics of the USGS are not representative of the Nation or, in many cases, the communities in which Centers are located, and that new, sustainable institutional and local policies are needed to achieve better outcomes.

Recommendations

The following sections are a result of the work of the USGS URGE pod participants who systematically explored USGS Bureau- and Center-level demographic data, policies, and practices through the lens of URGE. Here, key consensus recommendations are presented, organized by the three fundamental pillars of institutional change illustrated in figure 2: engagement and networking; recruitment and hiring; and retention and advancement—supporting these pillars is accountability. Each section’s introduction provides context for the issues addressed by the URGE pod recommendations. The primary recommendations of the USGS URGE groups are summarized in tables 4–12. Certain sections also contain a bulleted list of secondary recommendations relevant to the inclusive workplace culture structure. This framework seeks to answer the following questions in each section:

Fundamental Pillar of Institutional Change 1: Engagement and Networking

Policies and Support for Working With Communities of Color

Anecdotal evidence collected by the six URGE pods indicates that the USGS Mission Areas rarely provide guidance or support for effectively engaging with BIPOC and URM communities. Yet, the USGS researches many topics (for example, geologic hazards and climate change) that disproportionately impact communities of color (Jerolleman, 2019). Because USGS and Science Center demographics include only very small percentages of these populations, effective engagement and collaboration with these communities is often a challenge, reducing the efficacy of USGS endeavors in these research areas.

A lack of diversity in USGS employees distances USGS research from, and reduces its relevance to, BIPOC and URM communities. By not connecting with these communities until the late stages of study development or even deployment (if at all), the USGS is deprived of valuable input and collaborative opportunities. Lack of initial community buy-in can also limit the relevance of any USGS research results to these communities. With more direct efforts to connect with BIPOC and URM communities, the USGS can (1) improve working relationships with these communities, (2) potentially increase recruitment from these communities, and (3) improve USGS science, since undervalued or unseen challenges facing these communities will become new avenues to pursue high-impact research.

The authors acknowledge that there are existing trainings and funded partnership programs with Tribal communities (for example, the Office of Tribal Relations trainings on consulting with Tribal Nations and improving and sustaining Tribal relations) that seek to help employees to avoid repeating past mistakes in how the USGS and Department of Interior conducted work on Tribal land (Clinton, 2000; Haaland, 2021). The authors drew inspiration from these existing programs and include some recommendations they believe will augment engagement across Tribal and other minority communities in table 4.

Table 4.    

Primary recommendations for building relationships with underrepresented minority communities.

[EN, engagement/networking; DEO, Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BIPOC, Black, Indigenous, and people of color]

Table 4.    Primary recommendations for building relationships with underrepresented minority communities.

Concept	Target
Goal EN1	Create long-lasting relationships and data sharing arrangements with communities of color
Action level	Bureau, Mission Area, and Center level
Facilitators	DEO and potentially USGS Office of Tribal Relations
Format of product, outcome, or plan	Outreach and community of practice to engage communities of color will include
	1. A code of conduct for working with communities of color (for example, figure 6 and the “Secondary Recommendations: Engagement and Networking” section below)        2. Training for working with BIPOC communities (for example, data sharing, history of exclusion from science, etc.), expanding existing trainings on working with Tribal Nations        3. Increased support (time, funding, and personnel) to establish relationships with BIPOC communities        4. Develop mechanism for community partners to provide feedback on collaboration with USGS partners
Implementation resources/trainings	Improve employee confidence through new training on working with BIPOC communities
Inclusivity/diversity contribution	BIPOC communities are some of the most exposed communities to geologic hazards, yet are poorly represented in project discussions (from ideation to publication)
Success criteria	Increased number of internships and collaborative projects with BIPOC communities; positive feedback from community partners
Review/update interval	Biennial

Secondary Recommendations: Engagement and Networking

• Expand cooperative agreements and memorandums of understanding with minority-serving institutions to support networking and connect students to internships within the USGS (for example, STEM Educational Partnerships Program).

• Develop formal policies for land acknowledgements for research documents (papers, reports, etc.) and online public-facing web pages, including, but not limited to the lands on which research was conducted or land offices are located within the scope of existing laws, USGS Fundamental Science Practices, and the needs of Tribal Nations across the United States.

• Make more USGS content available in languages other than English (for example, Spanish).

• Establish a code of conduct: Several tenets have been identified by USGS employees as keys to a code of conduct for working with BIPOC communities. This recommended code is intended to include all project partners and to be developed at the start of a project to define the following:

  1. The objectives of the work

  2. How decisions will be made and how data will be shared

  3. How best to share information amongst all collaborators

  4. How to resolve disputes

  5. Timelines for responding to stakeholders and collaborators

USGS Complaints and Reporting Policy

The USGS provides avenues for employees to report physical or psychological harassment, complaints, or conflicts that may require mediated resolutions. The specific details of these avenues are beyond this document; however, it is important for all employees to be aware of the different avenues available to them (for example, the bottom-up approach) and for the USGS to reduce barriers to utilizing support programs (for example, placing points of contact in accessible positions in each Region and Center; the top-down approach). Complaints and reporting data indicate that many incidents are witnessed (17 percent of respondents) or experienced (28.4 percent of respondents) yet are not reported (80.2 percent of people who experienced harassment did not report; fig. 7), suggesting that the USGS has an opportunity to better implement and support resources with low barriers of entry (for example, resources that are confidential; table 10). Progress and development in the complaints and reporting structure of the USGS will not only aid and support existing USGS employees, but the benefits will have disproportionately positive impacts on already vulnerable and marginalized groups within the USGS.

Table 10.    

Primary recommendations for retention and advancement (RA): Resources for responding to unwelcome behavior.

[BIPOC, Black, Indigenous, and people of color; URM, underrepresented minority; PSW, Peer Support Worker; CADR, Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution; DOI, Department of the Interior; FEV, Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey]

Table 10.    Primary recommendations for retention and advancement (RA): Resources for responding to unwelcome behavior.

Concept	Target
Goal RA3	Facilitate dialogue that leads to an improved working environment for BIPOC and URMs.
Action level	Bureau and Center level
Facilitators	PSWs, CADR, and DOI Ombuds Service
Format of product, outcome, or plan	At least one PSW in each Center Mechanism for BIPOC and URM employees to report barriers and disparate treatment without fear of retribution
Implementation resources/trainings	1. Training on inclusive language and conflict resolution 2. Publicizing confidential resources that center on the reporting individual
Inclusivity/diversity contribution	More effective reporting avenues protect all employees especially those most vulnerable (BIPOC and URMs).
Success criteria	Improvement in annual workplace climate evaluations, differentiable by demographic categories, building off the FEVs and Workplace Environment Study Reports
Review/update interval	Biennial

Secondary Recommendations: Retention and Advancement—Complaints and Reporting

• Create easy to understand resource flyers, providing information and contacts for Peer Support Workers, the Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution, and Ombudspersons.

• Provide a USGS online portal to report unwelcome behavior, or more clearly highlight how reports can be filed online through the Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General, which has separate forms for reporting confidentially, anonymously, or when one feels they have been retaliated against.

• Create and grow a USGS Civil Rights Special Emphasis Program Advisory Council to coordinate and expand existing Special Emphasis Programs. The USGS approach could be modeled on the efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Civil Rights and Diversity Advisory Committee.

Conclusion

Despite USGS leadership commitments to improving diversity over the past few years (Reilly, 2018), the past decade (Kimball, 2010), and even the past half century (Gillette, 1972), the USGS has remained far less racially diverse than the Nation and its civilian workforce. It is important to recognize in what ways the system is not optimized to increase diversity and where it may, in fact, erect obstacles for BIPOC and URM individuals (Berhe and others, 2022). Progress toward the stated diversity vision of the USGS will require acknowledgment of a previous lack of progress and a commitment to changing policies and behavioral norms from the highest levels of leadership within the USGS to Center Directors, and ultimately, to all employees. These changes are possible. In this document, USGS URGE participants have combined knowledge gained through the facilitated URGE program with their own knowledge and experiences with USGS policies and practices to lay out a detailed strategy and framework of recommendations for revising the ways in which this organization

Changes recommended herein are supported by peer-reviewed literature curated for the 16-week URGE program curriculum. However, the topics for change and the implementation strategies are drawn from only a fraction of the relevant employee perspectives and represent only a single snapshot in time of how the USGS can respond to positively affect change moving forward; in fact, over the course of the preparation and internal review of this document, the USGS has already made progress on some of the recommendations, which is a good start. The work is just beginning. Increasing the racial diversity of the USGS workforce and bringing change to the geoscience community to create a safer and more enjoyable working environment for all USGS employees will require a long-term sustained effort, enhanced vigilance, a commitment to incorporating wisdom from the lived experiences across the entire USGS, and accountability at all levels (for example, Bureau, Mission Areas, Regions, Centers, and work groups). The authors hope that this document and more detailed URGE pod deliverables (appendix 1) will encourage purposeful, inclusive action at all levels of the USGS. Only with collective action at all organizational levels can the USGS move toward fulfilling meaningful advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and ultimately, justice.