Annual Report on the Federal Work Force
Fiscal Year 2007

Download PDF version (4MB)

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART I SUMMARY OF EEO STATISTICS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

PART II PROFILES FOR SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES

APPENDIX I  GLOSSARY / DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX II FEDERAL SECTOR EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX III FEDERAL WORK FORCE & COMPLAINTS PROCESSING TABLES

(Actual tables are only available on CD or on the EEOC’s website at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/fsp2007/index.html)

PREFACE

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, with the mission of eradicating discrimination in the workplace.  In the federal sector, EEOC enforces Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age and older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), which prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees and applicants with disabilities, and requires that reasonable accommodations be provided.

EEOC is charged with monitoring federal agency compliance with equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws and procedures and reviewing and assessing the effect of agencies’ compliance with requirements to maintain continuing affirmative employment programs to promote equal employment opportunity and to identify and eliminate barriers to equality of employment opportunity.

Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD-715), issued October 1, 2003, established standards for ensuring that agencies develop and maintain model EEO programs.  These standards are used to measure and report on the status of the federal government’s efforts to become a model employer.  As detailed in MD-715, the six elements of a model EEO program are:

• Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership,
• Integration of EEO into the agency’s strategic mission,
• Management and program accountability,
• Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination,
• Efficiency, and
• Responsiveness and legal compliance.

This report covers the period from October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007 and contains selected measures of agencies’ progress toward model EEO programs.^[1]  Working within our mission as an oversight agency, EEOC strives to create a partnership with agencies.  In FY 2007, EEOC expanded its Relationship Management program from 12 Cabinet/Mid-Size agencies to 13 and continued its newly launched small agency program with 14 agencies.

The FY 2007 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, submitted to the President and Congress, presents a summary of selected EEO program activities in the federal government, including work force profiles of 59 federal agencies.  The report provides valuable information to all agencies as they strive to become model employers. 

To prepare this report, the Commission relied on the following data: 1) work force data, as of September 30, 2007, obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)^[2] supplemented with data provided by the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Foreign Service, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United States Postal Service (USPS); 2) data from the 2000 EEO Special Files; 3) EEO complaint processing data submitted and certified as accurate by 107 federal agencies in their fiscal year (FY) 2007 Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints (EEO 462 reports); 4) hearings and appeals data obtained from EEOC’s internal databases; and 5) EEO program data submitted and certified as accurate by 167 0f 197 federal agencies and subcomponents in their FY 2006 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715 reports).^[3]

Effective January 1, 2006, OPM required federal agencies to report ethnicity and race information for accessions on the revised Standard Form 181.  Accordingly, the CPDF contains data on persons who are Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or who are of Two or More Races.  Thus, for the second year, separate data on these groups is contained in this Report.  Readers should bear in mind that in prior years, data on Asians included Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and no data was reported on persons of Two or More Races.  As a result, care should be exercised when comparing current data to data from prior years. 

Finally, the Commission would like to extend its thanks to: 1) OPM for providing the work force data from the CPDF; 2) AAFES, FERC, the Foreign Service, TVA, and USPS for providing their work force data; and 3) those agencies that timely submitted accurate and verifiable EEO complaint processing data.

This year the Commission again provided agencies an opportunity to comment on the draft of this report.  The Commission thanks those agencies that submitted comments and suggestions for assisting in the publishing of a more accurate report.  Agencies are encouraged to submit all Reports to the Commission in a timely and accurate manner to ensure that the state of EEO in the federal work force is reflected correctly.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

• In FY 2007, there were almost 2.6 million women and men employed by the federal government across the country and around the world.
  • 56.8% were men and 43.2% were women; the participation rate for women has slowly but steadily increased over the last ten years.
  • 7.8% were Hispanic or Latino, 65.8% were White, 18.4% were Black or African American, 6% were Asian, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, 1.7% were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 0.2% were persons of Two or More Races.
• Between FY 2006 and FY 2007, Hispanic or Latinos, Whites, women and persons of Two or More Races remained below their overall availability in the national civilian labor force, as reported in the 2000 census (CLF).  Black or African Americans, Asians, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives and men remained above their overall availability in the CLF.
• The number of employees with targeted disabilities in the federal work force has been steadily declining in the past ten years, from 28,035 (1.13%) in FY 1998 to 23,993 in FY 2007.  In FY 2007, Individuals with Targeted Disabilities represented less than one percent (0.92%) of the total work force.
• Of the total work force, 0.76% held senior pay level positions, which is an increase from 0.63% in FY 1998.  Hispanics or Latinos and women have made the most gains in securing senior level positions in the federal government, increasing their participation rates 57.02% and 53.81% respectively while Hispanics increased their participation rates in the total work force over the ten year period by 24.33% and women by only 8.47%.
• Of the total work force, 50.70% of employees occupied General Schedule and Related pay system positions. 
• The average grade for permanent and temporary General Schedule employees remained at 10.  Hispanic or Latino (9.4), Black or African American (9), Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (8.0), American Indian/Alaska Native (8.4) employees and employees of Two or More Races (8.7) all had average grades lower than the government-wide average.  The average grade for Asian and Whites (10.3) exceeded the government-wide average.
• The average General Schedule grade for women remained at 9.3, nearly one and a half grades below the average grade level for men of 10.6.
• The average General Schedule grade for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities remained at 8.5, one and a half grades below the government-wide average (for permanent and temporary employees) of 10.
• Of the total work force, 7.35% of employees occupy positions in the Federal Wage System.  In comparison to the General Schedule and Related positions, the Federal Wage System had a higher percentage of men (89.10%), Hispanic or Latinos (7.88%), Black or African Americans (18.22%), Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (0.63%), American Indian/Alaska Natives (2.45%) and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (1.13%) and a lower percentage of Asians (4.06%), Whites (66.54%) and women (10.90%).
• Of the total work force, 41.19% of employees occupied positions in Other Pay Systems (i.e. other than Senior Pay, General Schedule and Federal Wage Systems).  In comparison to the General Schedule, the other pay systems had a higher percentage of Hispanic or Latinos (7.88%), Black or African Americans (19.35%), and Asians (7.54%); and a lower percentage of Whites (63.81%) American Indian/Alaska Natives (1.05%) and the same participation rates for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (0.18%).
• Of the 167 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2006 MD-715 report, 68% reported that they had issued an EEO policy on an annual basis, an increase over the 50% of the 170 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2005.
• Of the 94 agencies with 100 or more employees that were required to submit a FY 2007 EEOC Form 462 report, only 57 (61%) reported that the EEO Director reports directly to the agency head.
• A state of the agency briefing to the agency head, required by MD-715, was conducted by 63% of the 167 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2006 MD-715 report, up from the 59% of the 158 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2005 MD-715 report, and up from 38% of the agencies and subcomponents in FY 2004.
• Pre-complaint EEO counseling and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs addressed many employee concerns before they resulted in formal EEO complaints.  Of the 37,809 instances of counseling in FY 2007, 55.6% did not result in a formal complaint due either to settlement by the parties or withdrawal from the EEO process.
• In FY 2007, 15,294 individuals filed 16,363 complaints alleging employment discrimination against the federal government. 
• The number of complaints filed declined by 2.2% from the number filed the previous year and there was a 0.4% decrease in the number of individuals who filed complaints over the same period.  In FY 2007, 9.3% of the complaints filed were by individuals who had previously filed at least one other complaint during the year, up from 8.2% in FY 2006.
• A total of 11,184 investigations were completed government-wide in an average of 176 days in FY 2007.  Significantly, 8,271, or 74.0%, of the investigations were timely completed, up from 69.4% timely completed in FY 2006.
• Agencies issued 4,445 merit decisions without a decision by an EEOC Administrative Judge, and 2,818 (63.4%) of these decisions were timely issued, up from 62.3% timely issued in FY 2006.
• EEOC’s hearing receipts increased by 0.8%, from 7,802 in FY 2006 to 7,869 in FY 2007.  The average processing time for a hearing was 248 days, a 9.5% decrease from FY 2006's average of 274 days.

• EEOC’s appeal receipts decreased by 22.5%, declining from 6,743 in FY 2006 to 5,226 in FY 2007.  The average processing time for appeals in FY 2007 was 230 days, a 4.5% increase from the FY 2006 average of 220 days.
• In FY 2007, as a result of final agency decisions, settlement agreements, and final agency actions in which agencies agreed to fully implement EEOC Administrative Judges’ decisions, agencies paid monetary benefits to EEO complainants totaling $36.4 million, up from the $32.6 million paid in FY 2006.  An additional $10.7 million was paid out in response to appellate decisions, a decrease from the $11.7 million paid out in FY 2006.
• In FY 2007, EEOC’s training and outreach program reached 4,351 federal employees through 111 sessions.
• In FY 2007, EEOC Form 462 reports were timely filed by 87 or 93% of the 94 agencies (with 100 or more employees) that were required to submit an EEOC Form 462 report.
• In FY 2006, MD-715 reports were timely filed by 84 or 50% of the 167 reporting agencies and subcomponents down from the 68% or 107 of the 158 reporting agencies and subcomponents in FY 2005.

Part I
Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

Section A - Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

Now, more than ever before, with the increasing expectations of government institutions, federal agencies must position themselves to attract, develop and retain a top-quality work force in order to ensure our nation’s continued growth, security and prosperity.  To develop this competitive, highly qualified work force, federal agencies must fully utilize the talents of all employees, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or disability.  In order to assist agencies in attaining these goals, on October 1, 2003, MD-715 became effective and set forth “policy guidance and standards for establishing and maintaining effective affirmative programs of equal employment opportunity under Section 717 of Title VII and effective affirmative action programs under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.”

MD-715 requires agency heads and other senior management officials to demonstrate a firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment.  Agencies must promote and safeguard equal employment opportunity into everyday practice and make those principles a fundamental part of agency culture.

1. 68% of Agencies Issued EEO Policy Statements on an Annual Basis

Section II(A) of MD-715 provides that “commitment to equal employment opportunity must be embraced by agency leadership and communicated through the ranks from the top down.  It is the responsibility of each agency head to take such measures as may be necessary to incorporate the principles of EEO into the agency’s organizational structure.”  In addition, this section establishes that “agency heads must issue a written policy statement expressing their commitment to EEO and a workplace free of discriminatory harassment.  This statement should be issued at the beginning of their tenure and thereafter on an annual basis and disseminated to all employees.”

Of the 167 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2006, 114 (68.3%) reported that they had issued an EEO policy statement and would continue to do so on an annual basis, up from the 50% of 158 agencies that submitted in FY 2005 and 54% of the 170 that submitted in FY 2004.

Section B - Integration of EEO Into Agencies’ Strategic Mission

In order to achieve its strategic mission, an agency must integrate equality of opportunity into attracting, hiring, developing, and retaining the most qualified work force.  The success of an agency’s EEO program ultimately depends upon decisions made by individual agency managers.  Therefore, agency managers constitute an integral part of the agency’s EEO program.  The EEO office serves as a resource to these managers by providing direction, guidance, and monitoring of key activities to achieve a diverse workplace free of barriers to equal opportunity.

As part of integrating EEO into the strategic mission, Section II(B) of MD-715 instructs agencies to ensure that: (1)  the EEO Director has access to the agency head; (2) the EEO office coordinates with Human Resources; (3) sufficient resources are allocated to the EEO program; (4) the EEO office retains a competent staff; (5) all managers receive management training; (6) all managers and employees are involved in implementing the EEO program; and (7) all employees are informed of the EEO program.  Three aspects of this Section are highlighted below.

1. 61% of Agency EEO Directors Report to Agency Head

EEOC’s regulations governing agency programs to promote equal employment opportunity require each agency to “maintain a continuing affirmative program to promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and polices.”  29 C.F.R. §1614.102(a).  To implement its program, each agency shall designate a Director of Equal Employment Opportunity who shall be under the immediate supervision of the agency head.  29 C.F.R. §1614.102(b)(4).

When the EEO Director is under the authority of others within the agency, the agency creates a potential conflict of interest where the person to whom the EEO Director reports is involved in or would be affected by the actions of the EEO Director.  By placing the EEO Director in a direct reporting relationship to the agency head, the agency underscores the importance of EEO to the agency’s mission and ensures that the EEO Director is able to act with the greatest degree of independence. 

Of the 94 agencies (with 100 or more employees) that were required to submit an EEOC Form 462 report in FY 2007, 57 agencies (60.6%) reported that their EEO Director reports to the agency head, down slightly from the (61.5%) reported in FY 2006.  

2. 63% of EEO Directors Presented the State of the EEO Program to the Agency Head

In addition to improving the status and independence of EEO, Section II(B) of MD-715 requires that agencies “. . . provide the EEO Director with regular access to the agency head and other senior management officials for reporting on the effectiveness, efficiency, and legal compliance . . .” of the agency’s EEO program.  Following each yearly submission of the MD-715 report to EEOC, EEO Directors should present the state of the EEO program to the agency head.  See Section I of EEOC’s Instructions for MD-715.

Of the 167 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2006, 105 (63%) indicated that the EEO Director had conducted the briefing; up from the 59% of 158 in FY 2005 and the 44% of 170 in FY 2004.

3. 85% of Agencies Provided Their EEO Staff with Required Training

Section II(B) of MD-715 requires that agencies attract, develop and retain EEO staff with the strategic competencies necessary to accomplish the agency’s EEO mission.  In order to ensure staff competency within its EEO complaint program, agencies must comply with the mandatory training requirements for EEO counselors and investigators as set forth in MD-110.  Agencies using contract staff to perform these functions must also ensure that these requirements are met. 

Chapter 2, Section II of MD-110 requires that new EEO counselors receive thirty-two hours of EEO counselor training and thereafter eight hours of training each year.  Likewise, new EEO investigators are required to have thirty-two hours of EEO investigator training and thereafter eight hours of training each year as set forth in Chapter 6, Section II of MD-110.

Of the 94 agencies with 100 or more employees that filed an EEOC Form 462 report in FY 2007, 85% ensured their EEO staff received the required regulatory training down from the 91% that reported providing the training in FY 2006.  Agencies trained 1,720 new EEO counselors and 457 new EEO investigators.  Agencies also provided the required eight hour annual refresher training to 2,970 EEO counselors and 1,821 EEO investigators.  Additionally, agencies reported providing thirty-two hour training to 64 EEO counselor/investigators and eight hour training to 259 EEO counselor/investigators.

Section C - Management and Program Accountability

A model EEO program will hold managers, supervisors, EEO officials, and personnel officers accountable for the effective implementation and management of the agency’s program.  As part of management and program accountability, MD-715 provides that agencies should ensure that:  (1) regular internal audits are conducted of the EEO program; (2) EEO procedures are established; (3) managers and supervisors are evaluated on EEO; (4) personnel policies are clear and consistently implemented; (5) a comprehensive anti-harassment policy has been issued; (6) an effective reasonable accommodation policy has been issued; and (7) findings of discrimination are reviewed.  Two aspects of this Section are highlighted below.

1. 70% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

Section II(C) of MD-715 provides that a model EEO program must “evaluate managers and supervisors on efforts to ensure equality of opportunity for all employees.” The success of an agency's EEO program ultimately depends on individual decisions made by its managers and supervisors.  Therefore, agency managers and supervisors constitute an integral part of the agency's EEO program.  As such, MD-715 makes clear that all managers and supervisors share responsibility with EEO program and human resources officials for the successful implementation of EEO programs.  The EEO office serves as a resource to these managers by providing direction, guidance and monitoring of key activities to achieve a diverse workplace free of barriers to equal opportunity.  In this regard, the EEO office should inform managers and supervisors that a positive evaluation will include an assessment of how that manager contributes to the agency's EEO program by emphasizing to managers and supervisors that equality of opportunity is essential to attracting, developing and retaining the most qualified workforce, with such a workforce being essential to ensuring the agency's achievement of its strategic mission.

In FY 2006, 117 (70%) of the 167 agencies that submitted MD-715 reports indicated that the managers and supervisors were rated on their commitment to EEO.

2. 58% of Agencies Report They Have A Written Anti-Harassment Policy

Sections II(A) and (C) of EEOC’s MD-715 provide that model EEO programs should “issue a written policy statement expressing their commitment to . . . a workplace free of discriminatory harassment” and “establish procedures to prevent . . . harassment.”^[4]  In order to ensure that the agency’s anti-harassment policy is enforced, Section II(C) requires agencies to establish procedures to prevent harassment and to take immediate corrective action if harassment is found.  These procedures are separate from the federal sector administrative EEO complaint process.

EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment makes clear that agencies can be held liable for harassment based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, protected activity, age (40 and over), or disability, and not merely for harassment that is of a sexual nature.  Accordingly, the policy guidance emphasizes that agencies should establish written anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures covering unlawful harassment on all bases.

Of the167 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2006, 96 (57.5%) reported that they had a written anti-harassment policy, down from the 101 of 158 agencies (64%) in FY 2005.

Section D - Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

Part 1614 of EEOC’s regulations provides that each agency shall “establish a system for periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the agency’s overall equal employment opportunity effort.”  29 C.F.R. §1614.102(a)(11).  In particular, “each agency shall maintain a continuing affirmative program to promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and policies.”  29 C.F.R. §1614.102(a).

1. Barrier Analysis

Pursuant to Section II(D) of MD-715, a model EEO program “must conduct a self-assessment on at least an annual basis to monitor progress and identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups.”  Part A(II) of MD-715 provides that “where an agency’s self-assessment indicates that a racial, national origin, or gender group may have been denied equal access to employment opportunities, the agency must take steps to identify and eliminate the potential barrier.”  Of the 167 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2006 MD-715 report, 143 (85.6%) reported addressing potential barrier(s), up from the 120 of 158 (76%) in FY 2005. 

Barriers are defined as policies, procedures, practices, or conditions that limit or tend to limit employment opportunities for members of a particular race, ethnic or religious background, gender, or for individuals with disabilities.  While some barriers are readily discernable, most are embedded in the agency’s day-to-day employment policies, practices and programs, including: recruitment; hiring; career development; competitive and noncompetitive promotions; training; awards and incentive programs; disciplinary actions; and separations.

2. Composition of the Federal Work Force

With the increasing number of new grade and pay systems being adopted throughout the federal government, this year’s report provides statistics on the composition of the Total Work Force as well as statistics on employees in four pay structures:

Senior Pay Level pay structures were created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which established the Senior Executive Service (SES) as a separate personnel system covering a majority of the top managerial, supervisory, and policy-making positions in the Executive Branch of government.

The General Schedule pay system was created by the Classification Act of 1949, which created a centralized job evaluation for all White-Collar positions and merged several separate schedules into one.

The Federal Wage System was established by Public Law 92-392 in 1972 to standardize pay rates for Blue-Collar federal employees.

Today, many alternative pay plans are being used and proposed across the federal government.  In this report they are identified as “Other Pay Systems.”  These systems include pay-banding systems, the Market-Based Pay system of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, and include such agencies as the United States Postal Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Table 1 below shows the representation rates for each of these pay structures.

a. Total Work Force: Hispanic or Latino employees and White Women Remain Below Availability

In FY 2007, the federal government had a Total Work Force of 2,608,172 employees, compared to 2,479,199 in FY 1998.  Table 2 shows the participation rate of the identified groups below, as compared to the civilian labor force (CLF).  Table A-1 in Appendix III, located at www.eeoc.gov, provides ten-year trend data.

*Asians, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander data included in Asian data  **Data not available.

A comparison of the data on the participation rates of persons in particular agency components or specific major occupations can serve as a diagnostic tool to help identify possible areas where barriers to equal opportunity may exist within an agency. 

Participation rate information is located in Tables A-1a, A-6b and A-6c of Appendix III, located at www.eeoc.gov.^[6]

b. Senior Pay Levels: Continued Improvement

With a total of 19,751 employees, the Senior Pay Level (SPL) positions comprise 0.76% of the total work force.  SPL positions include the SES, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15 in the General Schedule.  Table 3 below reflects the SPL representation.  Table A-2 of Appendix III at www.eeoc.gov contains additional data.

  *Includes both Asian and Pacific Islander  **Data not available

• From FY 1998 to FY 2007, the Total SPL Work Force increased by 4,118 employees, a net change of 26.34%.  Likewise, the number of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the SPL work force increased from 64 in FY1998 to 123 in FY 2007, a net change of 92.19%.
• The participation rate for women in the SPL work force increased 53.81% over the ten year period from FY 1998 (3,468) to FY 2007 (5,334) while women increased their participation rate in the total workforce by only 8.47% over the same ten-year period from 1,038,040 in 1998 to 1,126,007 in FY 2007.
• Between FY 1998 and FY 2007, the participation rate for Hispanic or Latino increased (57.02%) over the ten-year period from FY 1998 (456) to FY 2007 (716), while their overall participation rate in the total work force increased 24.33%, while remaining below the 2000 CLF.  The participation rate was (0.62%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities, (6.63%) for Black or African American employees, (3.77%) for Asian employees and (0.89%) for American Indian/Alaska Native employees.
• In FY 2007, the “feeder grades” to SPL positions^[7] (GS grades 14 and 15) showed the following participation rates: men (65.80%), women (34.20%), Hispanic or Latino employees (4.34%), White employees (77.72%), Black or African American employees (10.26%), Asian employees (6.48%), Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander employees (0.05%), American Indian/Alaska Native employees (1.01%), and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (0.52%).
• Part II of this report also contains information on the major occupations in selected government agencies.  Data on participation rates of persons holding positions in an agency’s major occupations can serve as a diagnostic tool to help determine possible areas where barriers to equal opportunity may exist and prevent upward mobility to SPL positions.

c. General Schedule and Related Positions: Hispanic or Latinos and Women Improve

• With a total of 1,322,332 employees, the General Schedule and Related (GSR) positions comprised 50.70% of the total work force in FY 2007.  GSR positions are mostly comprised of positions whose primary duty requires knowledge or experience of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature.  GSR figures include employees in other pay systems that are easily converted to GS by OPM.
• In FY 2007, the GSR participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees was 7.76%; for White employees was 66.94%; for Black or African American employees was 17.88%; for Asian employees was 4.97%, for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander employees was 0.18%; for American Indian/Alaska Native employees was 2.04%, for persons of Two or More Races (0.23%) and for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities was 1.04%.  See Table A-3 in Appendix III at www.eeoc.gov, for the entire ten-year trend in the GSR pay systems.

*Includes both Asian and Pacific Islander **Data not available

• Women held 49.00% of all GSR positions in FY 2007, up from 47.82% in FY 1998.  Over the ten year period, Hispanic or Latino employees and Asian employees gradually increased their representation rates in the GSR work force as well.
• Over the ten year period, the participation rate for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the total work force declined from 1.13% to 0.92% while the participation rate in the GSR workforce declined from 1.27% to 1.04% of the GSR work force.
• The average grade level for the total GSR permanent and temporary work force was grade 10 in FY 2007.  Of GSR employees, 18.66% were in grades 1-6, 38.76% were in grades 7-11, 30.35% were in grades 12-13, and 12.22% were in grades 14-15.

Figure 1 - Average Grade in the General Schedule and Related Positions
FY 2007

• The average GSR grade level for Hispanic or Latino employees (9.4), Black or African American employees (9), Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander employees (8.0), American Indian/Alaska Native employees (8.4) and persons of Two or More Races (8.7) was lower than the government-wide average grade level (10).
• Approximately 41.77% of women employed in the GSR work force were in grades 7-11.  The average GSR grade for women was 9.3 almost one full grade below the government-wide average of 10 and one and a half grades below men (10.6).
• The average GSR grade level for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities was 8.5, again one and a half grades below the government-wide average.  See Table A-3 in Appendix III at www.eeoc.gov.

d. Federal Wage System Positions: Women, Asians and American Indian/Alaska Natives Decrease Slightly

• With a total of 191,701 employees, Federal Wage System (FWS) positions comprised 7.35% of the total work force in FY 2007.  FWS (Blue-Collar) positions are mostly comprised of trade, craft and labor occupations.

* Includes data for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander until separate data in FY 2006 data.

• FY 2007 FWS positions declined 17.62% from FY 1998.
• Since FY 1998, the participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (7.88%), Black or African American employees (18.22%), Asian employees (4.06%) and American Indian/Alaska Native employees (2.45%) have declined, while the participation rates of women (10.9%) and White employees (66.54%) have increased slightly.  See Table A-4 in Appendix III at www.eeoc.gov for the complete ten-year trend.
• In FY 2007, the participation rate of men in the FWS pay system was 38.2 percentage points higher than the participation rate of men in the GSR pay system.  Comparatively, FWS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees, Black or African American employees, American Indian/Alaska Native employees and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were higher than the GSR participation rates, while the FWS work force participation rates for women, White employees, and Asian employees were lower.

e. Other Pay Systems: Employees Increase By 9.66%

• With a total of 1,074,388 employees, other pay systems (OPS) comprised 41.19% of the total work force in FY 2007.  Other Pay Systems include pay banding and other pay-for-performance systems.

*Includes both Asian and Pacific Islander employees;  ** Included with Asian employees

• The participation rate for women (42.06%) in OPS was significantly lower than those (49.00%) in the GSR pay system.
• In FY 2007, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (7.88%), and Asian employees (7.54%) and American Indian/Alaska Native employees (1.05%) slowly rose, while the participation rates for White employees (63.81%), Black or African American employees (19.35%) and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (0.74%) fell from FY 1998 levels.
• In FY 2007, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees, Black or African American employees, and Asian employees were higher than in the GSR and FWS pay systems. OPS participation rates for White employees and American Indian/Alaska Native employees and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were lower than those in the GSR and FWS pay systems.  See Table A-5 in Appendix IV at www.eeoc.gov for the complete ten-year trend.

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Continues to Fall

• From FY 1998 to FY 2007, the Total Work Force increased by 128,973 employees, a net change of 5.20%.  However, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities decreased from 28,035 in FY 1998 to 23,993 in FY 2007, a net change of –14.42%, resulting in a 0.92% participation rate.  The EEOC had the highest percentage of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (2.65%) among those agencies with 500 or more employees.  See Table 7 below.

Table A-6b in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.  See Table 8 below for a Cabinet level ranking of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities.

Section E- Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

EEOC’s regulations provide that each agency shall assure that individual complaints are fairly and thoroughly investigated and that final action is taken in a timely manner.  29 C.F.R. §1614.102(c)(5).  Section II(E) of MD-715 establishes that a model EEO program must have an efficient and fair dispute resolution process and effective systems for evaluating the impact and effectiveness of its EEO programs.  In this regard, Section II(E) recommends that agencies “benchmark against EEOC regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and other federal agencies of similar size which are highly ranked in EEOC’s Annual Report on the federal sector complaints process.”

1. Federal Agency EEO Programs:  Complaints Decrease but Processing Times Continue to Exceed Regulatory Deadlines

Agencies process federal employees’ EEO complaints under EEOC’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614.  Employees unable to resolve their concerns through counseling can file a complaint with their agency.^[9]  The agency will either dismiss^[10] or accept the complaint.  If the complaint is accepted, the agency must conduct an investigation, and, in most instances, issue the investigative report within 180 days from the date the complaint was filed.^[11]

After the employee receives the investigative report, s/he may: (1) request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, who issues a decision that the employee or the agency may appeal to EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations; or (2) forgo a hearing and request a final agency decision.  An employee who is dissatisfied with a final agency decision or the agency’s decision to dismiss the complaint may appeal to EEOC.  The complainant or agency may also request EEOC to reconsider its decision on the appeal.  In addition, during various points in the process, the complainant has the right to file a civil action in a federal court.

As the EEO complaint process has become increasingly more costly, adversarial, and lengthy, EEOC has encouraged agencies to promote and expand the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a means of avoiding formal adjudication processes.  Used properly, ADR can provide fast and cost-effective results while improving workplace communication and morale.^[12]

a. Pre-Complaint Counselings and Complaints Decline

Completed counselings decreased by 2.6% from FY 2006 to FY 2007 and decreased 16.0% from FY 2003.  Formal complaints declined by 2.2% from FY 2006 to FY 2007 and 19.1% from FY 2003.  Of the 37,809 completed counselings, 15,294 individuals filed 16,363 formal complaints in FY 2007.^[13]  The number of formal complaints filed represents 43.3% of all pre-complaint counseling activities in FY 2007.  As Figure 2 shows, over the past five fiscal years, the number of pre-complaint counseling activities has decreased from 45,030 in FY 2003 to a low of 37,809 in FY 2007, and likewise, the number of complaints filed by individuals has steadily decreased.  During the same five-year period, the number of formal complaints filed continued to represent less than 50% of all pre-complaint counseling activities.  See Figure 2.  Significantly, while the United States Postal Service constituted 26.4% of the work force, it accounted for 45.7% of all EEO counselings, 37.2% of all complaints filed, 41.7% of all completed investigations and 35.1% of all complaints closed in FY 2007.  See Tables B-1, B-9 and B-10 in Appendix III.

Figure 2 – Completed Counseling to Formal Complaints Filed/Complainants
FY 2003 - FY 2007

Table 9 below shows that among the cabinet/large (15,000 or more employees) agencies, in FY 2007, the USPS reported the highest percentage (2.0%) of its work force that completed counseling, while the government-wide average was 1.2%.  Among the medium sized agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees), Broadcasting Board of Governors reported the highest percentage (4.4%) of its work force completed counseling.  Agencies that had fewer than 25 completed/ended counselings were not included in the ranking.  Small agencies (1-999 employees) typically have fewer than 25 completed/ended counselings and therefore are not ranked.  Table B-1 in Appendix III lists this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

As shown in Table 10 below, in FY 2007, among the cabinet/large (15,000 or more employees), the Department of Education reported the highest complainant rate (1.2%), while the government-wide average was 0.5%.  Among the medium sized agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees), both the Government Printing Office and the EEOC reported the highest complainant rate of (1.1%).  Agencies that had fewer than 25 complaints filed were not included in the ranking.  Table B-1 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

b. Pre-Complaint ADR Usage – Higher Rates in Two Major Categories

Beginning in FY 2006, ADR offer and participation rates were measured in completed/ended counselings at the end of the fiscal year to ensure greater uniformity, consistency, and quality in the reporting and utilization of ADR data.

Therefore, comparison of FY 2006 and FY 2007 data with prior year’s data is not possible.  The government–wide ADR offer rate increased from 75.6% in FY 2006 to 80.7% in FY 2007.  In FY 2007, the government-wide offer rate was 80.7% based upon 30,513 ADR offers made in 37,809 completed/ended counselings.  Of these offers, 18,262 were accepted into agencies’ ADR programs, resulting in a 48.3% participation rate in FY 2007, up from the 44.6% reported for FY 2006.

Twenty-one agencies had 100% offer rates in FY 2007.  The agencies were the Department of Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defense National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Defense National Security Agency, OPM, EEOC, Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Federal Reserve System-Board of Governors, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Defense Office of the Secretary/Wash. Hqtrs. Services, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Trade Commission, National Credit Union Administration, Securities & Exchange Commission, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, National Labor Relations Board, Defense Information Systems Agency, Export-Import Bank, Federal Election Commission and National Science Foundation.

The U.S. Postal Service Again Had the Highest ADR Participation Rate

In FY 2007, the U.S. Postal Service reported the highest ADR participation rate in the pre-complaint process (76.1%) among the cabinet/large agencies, while the government-wide average was 48.3%.  Among the medium sized agencies Defense Finance and Accounting Service reported the highest pre-complaint ADR participation rate (34.0%).  The government-wide average falls to 24.9% without the U.S. Postal Service.  No other agency with 25 or more completed/ended counselings had a participation rate greater than fifty percent.  See Table 11.  Agencies that had fewer than 25 completed/ended counseling were not included in the ranking.  See Tables B-1 and B-4 in Appendix III for information on all agencies, which is located at www.eeoc.gov.

c. Agencies Meet Counseling Deadlines in 90% of Cases

On average, in FY 2007 agencies met timeliness requirements for EEO counseling in 90.0% of all completed/ended counselings, an improvement from 89.0% in FY 2006 and twice as successful as the 45.9% that were timely in FY 2003.  Agencies are required to complete counseling in 30 days except when there is a 60-day extension due to an ADR election or the complainant agrees in writing to an extension.

d. Agencies Increase Pre-Complaint Resolution Rate in FY 2007

During counseling and ADR in the pre-complaint stage, EEO disputes can be resolved by either a settlement or a decision not to file a formal complaint.  In FY 2007, the government-wide resolution rate average was 55.6%, up from 55.2% in FY 2006.

National Endowment for the Arts Holds the Highest Pre-Complaint Resolution Rate

In FY 2007, the National Endowment for the Arts again reported the highest pre-complaint resolution rate (100%) among agencies with more than 25 completed/ended counselings.  See Table 12.  Among cabinet/large agencies, Defense National Guard Bureau reported the highest pre-complaint resolution rate (84.5%).  The Federal Reserve System – Board of Governors reported the highest pre-complaint resolution rate (97.14%) among the medium sized agencies. Agencies that had fewer than 25 completed/ended counselings were not included in the ranking.  However five agencies, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Housing Finance Board, Federal Maritime Commission, Holocaust Memorial Museum and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in this category had 100% resolution rates.  Table B-3 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Had the Highest ADR Resolution Rate in FY 2007

In FY 2007, the Defense Army & Air Force Exchange reported the highest ADR resolution rate in the pre-complaint process (74.51%), whereas the government-wide average was 66.5%.  See Table 13.  When the U.S. Postal Service resolution rate (74.45%) is excluded from the government-wide average, the government-wide ADR resolution rate decreased to 46.0% in FY 2007.  Agencies that had fewer than 25 ADR closures were not included in the ranking.  Table B-5 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

e. Monetary Benefits in Pre-Complaint Phase Again on the Rise

Monetary benefits awarded in settlements during the pre-complaint phase, shown in Table 14, have dropped significantly since FY 2003.  The data showed an increase in the average amount of monetary benefits from $2,680 in FY 2006 to $3,349 in FY 2007.

f. The Most Frequently Alleged Basis and Issue Remain Unchanged

Of the 16,363 complaints filed in FY 2007, the basis most frequently alleged was reprisal (6,960) and the issue most frequently alleged was non-sexual harassment (4,951).  As shown in Tables 15 and 16, this trend has remained unchanged for the past five fiscal years.  In FY 2007, complaints filed with allegations of disability (physical) exceeded those complaints filed with allegations of race (Black).

Allegations of race discrimination were made in 36.4% of all complaints filed in FY 2007.  In FY 2007, there was a 19.1% decrease in the number of complaints filed since FY 2003, and the percentage of complaints alleging discrimination based on race decreased by 28.8%.  During that same period, the percentage of complaints filed alleging discrimination based on color increased 1.6%, from 1,650 in FY 2003 to 1,677 in FY 2007.^[14]

In April 2006, EEOC issued Section 15 of the new Compliance Manual on “Race and Color Discrimination.”  It includes numerous examples and guidance in proactive prevention and “best practices.”  This Manual Section is located at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html. 

g. Agency Investigation Times Lowest in Fourteen Years, Yet, Agencies Continue to Exceed Time Limits for Issuing Final Agency Decisions

Investigations

Investigations into allegations of discrimination are a key component of the formal EEO complaint process.  Delays may impede the primary goal of gathering sufficient evidence to permit a determination as to whether discrimination occurred.  EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614.106(e)(2) requires agencies to conduct an investigation and issue a report to the complainant within 180 days of the filing of a complaint unless: 1) the parties agreed to no more than a 90-day extension (may not exceed 270 days); or 2) the complaint was amended or consolidated, which can add another 180 days to the period but may not exceed a total of 360 days.

In FY 2007, agencies timely completed investigations 73.95% of the time, up from 69.4% in FY 2006 (including written agreements to extend the investigation and consolidated or amended complaints).  When the U.S. Postal Service is not included, the percentage of timely completed investigations decreased to 55.98% government-wide.  Agencies reported the best investigation time in fourteen years by averaging 176 days to complete an investigation in FY 2007.  In comparison, agency investigations averaged 186 days in FY 2006 and 267 days in FY 2003.  See Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – Average Processing Days for Investigations for FY 2003 – FY 2007

Of those investigations required to be completed within the 180-day time limit, agency in-house investigators averaged 230 days to complete the investigation, while contract investigators averaged 149 days.  Several years ago, in a review of the investigatory practices of selected agencies, EEOC identified se