Skip to content

PDF   Print   Email  Share

Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Part II
Work Force Statistics
Fiscal Year 2010

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. SUMMARY OF WORKFORCE STATISTICS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section A. Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

1. 85% of Agencies Issued EEO Policy Statements on an Annual Basis

2. 67% of Agencies Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures On the External Websites

Section B. Integration of EEO Into Agencies' Strategic Mission

1. 88% of EEO Directors Presented the State of the EEO Program to the Agency Head

Section C. Management and Program Accountability

1. 91% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

2. 89% of Agencies Report Having a Written Anti-Harassment Policy

Section D. Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

1. Barrier Analysis

2. Composition of Federal Work Force

a. Total Work Force: Hispanics or Latinos, White Women and Persons of Two or More Races Remain Below Availability

b. Senior Pay Levels: Incremental Improvement

c. General Schedule and Related Positions

d. Federal Wage System Positions: Women, Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American and Asian Employee Participation Rates Decrease Slightly

e. Other Pay Systems: Employees Decrease

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Holds Steady

Section E. Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

1. 22% of Agencies Collect Applicant Flow Data

Section F. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

1. 88% of Agencies and Subcomponents Timely Submitted MD-715 Reports

2. 81% of Agencies Post No FEAR Act Data

II PROFILES FOR SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES

APPENDIX I GLOSSARY / DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX II FEDERAL SECTOR EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX III FEDERAL AGENCY EFFICIENCY AND RESPONSIVENESS

APPENDIX IV FEDERAL WORK FORCE TABLES

PREFACE

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) was established by theCivil 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 or 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; 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; and beginning November 21, 2009 the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of genetic information.

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, 2009, through September 30, 2010 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.

The FY 2010 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 64 federal agencies.

To prepare this report, the Commission relied on the following data: 1) work force data, as of September 30, 2010, 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, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United States Postal Service (USPS); 2) data from the 2000 EEO Special Files, and 3) EEO program data submitted and certified as accurate by 190 of 193 federal agencies and subcomponents in their FY 2010 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715 reports).[3]

Effective January 1, 2006, OPM required federal agencies to collect ethnicity and race information for accessions on the revised Ethnicity and Race Identification (Standard Form 181). Accordingly, the CPDF contains data on persons who are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander or who are of Two or More Races. Thus, for the fifth 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 or 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, Foreign Service, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), TVA, and USPS for providing their work force data; and 3) those agencies that timely submitted accurate and verifiable EEO program analysis 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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  • In FY 2010, there were over 2.8 million women and men employed by the federal government across the country and around the world.
    • 56.0% were men and 44% were women; after a slow but steady increase, the participation rate for women fell slightly again from last year (44.06% to 43.97%).
    • 7.9% were Hispanic or Latino, 65.4% were White, 17.9% were Black or African American, 5.9% were Asian, 0.4% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 1.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.8% were persons of Two or More Races.
  • Between FY 2009 and FY 2010, Women, Hispanic or Latino men and women, men of Two or More Races, and White women remained below their overall availability in the national civilian labor force, as reported in the 2000 census (CLF).
  • After a steady decline for the past ten years, the participation rate of employees with targeted disabilities in the total federal work force again held steady in FY 2010 at 0.88%. Despite a modest net gain of 554 employees in FY 2010, Individuals with Targeted Disabilities still fell far short of the 2% goal set by EEOC's LEAD Initiative.
  • Of the total work force, 0.75% held senior pay level positions, which is an increase from 0.69% in FY 2001. Over the last ten years women, Hispanic or Latino, Black/African American, and Asian employees have made the most gains in securing senior level positions in the federal government, increasing their participation rates by 56.94%, 51.83%, 41.47% and 126.30% respectively. Comparatively, women increased their participation rates in the total work force over the same period by 20.73%, Hispanic or Latino employees by 32.64%, Black/African American employees by 11.58% and Asian employees by 29.26%.
  • Of the total work force, 54.78% of employees occupied General Schedule and Related (GSR) pay system positions. During FY 2010, many employees in Other Pay system positions were reclassified to GSR positions.
  • The average grade for permanent and temporary GSR employees was 10.1. The following groups Hispanic or Latino employees (9.7), Black or African American employees (9.3), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (8.6), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.6) and employees of Two or More Races (9.3) had average grades lower than the government-wide average. The average grade for Asian employees (10.6) and White employees (10.4) exceeded the government-wide average.[4]
  • The average GSR grade for women increased to 9.5, still more than one grade below the average grade level for men of 10.7.
  • The average GSR grade for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities rose to 8.7, nearly one and a half grades below the government-wide average (for permanent and temporary employees) of 10.1.
  • Of the total work force, 6.93% of employees occupy positions in the Federal Wage System. In comparison to the GSR positions, the Federal Wage System had a higher percentage of men (89.64%), Hispanic or Latino men (6.84%), and Black or African American men (14.61%), Asian men (3.36%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders (0.80%), American Indian or Alaska Natives (2.49%) and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (1.09%) and a lower percentage of women (10.36%).
  • Of the total work force, 37.54% of employees occupied positions in Other Pay Systems (i.e. other than Senior Pay, GSR and Federal Wage Systems).[5] In comparison to the GSR, the other pay systems had a higher percentage of men (55.37%), Hispanic or Latino men (4.88%), Black or African American men (8.59%), Asian employees (7.58%) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (0.36%); and a lower percentage of White employees (63.83%), and American Indian or Alaska Native employees (1.09%), Persons of Two or More Races (0.77%) and Individuals With Targeted Disabilities (0.69%).
  • Of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2010 MD-715 report, 85% reported that they had issued an EEO policy on an annual basis, an increase from the 61% of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2009.
  • In FY 2010, reasonable accommodation procedures were posted on only 67% of 194 federal agency and subcomponent's external websites.
  • A state of the agency briefing to the agency head, required by MD-715, was conducted by 88% of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2010 MD-715 report, up from 77% of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2009 MD-715 report.
  • In FY 2010, 91% of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports reported rating its managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO, which exceeds the 80% of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2009.
  • Of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2010 MD-715 report, 89% reported it maintained a written anti-harassment policy, up from the 77.8% of 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2009.
  • In FY 2010, 22% of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports included comprehensive applicant flow data, increasing slightly from the 18.33% of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2009.
  • In FY 2010, 88% or 169 of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so by the February 4, 2011 deadline. Agencies that participated in EEOC's pilot project involving the electronic filing of MD-715 data received an extension until February 28, 2011. In FY 2009, 79% or 143 of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted reports were timely. No extensions were granted in FY 2009.
  • Only 81.4% or 157 of the 194 agencies and subcomponents post the required Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act data on their external websites in FY 2010.

I - Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

Section A - Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

Federal agencies must be forward-thinking in positioning themselves as the nation's employer of choice. Reaching all segments of our diverse population only strengthens an agency's ability to achieve its mission. EEOC's Management Directive 715 sets 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 safeguard the principles of equal employment opportunity and ensure that they become ingrained as part of their everyday practice and a fundamental part of agency culture. All agency leaders must "own" their agencies' EEO program.

1. 85% 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." Issuing the statement on an annual basis provides an opportunity to highlight the accomplishments and strategies of most import for the coming year.


Figure 1 - Percent of Agencies that Issued EEO Policy Statements
On an Annual Basis FY 2006 - FY 2010

Bar graph depicting the Percent of agencies that issued EEO policy statements on an annual basis. For FY 2010 - 85.42% FY 2009 - 61.11%; for FY 2008 - 78.60%; for FY 2007 - 58.72%; for FY 2006 - 68.30%

Figure 1 above shows the number of agencies that issued EEO policy statements on an annual basis. Of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2010, 164 (85.42%) reported that they had issued an EEO policy statement annually and would continue to do so, an increase from the 61.1% of 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted in FY 2009. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

2. 67% of Agencies Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures on the External Websites

Section II(C) of EEOC's MD-715 provides that model EEO programs should "implement effective reasonable accommodation procedures that comply with applicable executive orders, EEOC guidance, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards and Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards. Agencies should ensure that EEOC has reviewed those procedures when initially developed and if procedures are later significantly modified."

Part G of the MD-715 report, the Self-Assessment Checklist, provides agencies with a comprehensive listing of the kinds of agency documents and systems that should be in place in order to operate a model EEO program. These measures include "Have the procedures for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities been made readily available/accessible to all employees by disseminating such procedures during orientation of new employees and by making such procedures available on the World Wide Web or Internet?" A review of agency external websites found that of the 194 agency and sub-component websites visited, the reasonable accommodation policies of 129 agencies and sub-components were located.

Figure 2 below shows the number of agencies that posted reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites for the last five years. As shown, in FY 2010, 4.72% more agencies posted their reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites than did in FY 2006. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 2 - Percent of Agencies that Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures on the External Website FY 2006 - FY 2010

Bar graph depicting percentage of agencies that have reasonable aaccommodation procedures posted on external website. In FY 2010, 66.5%; in FY 2009, 61.66%; in FY 2008, 56.54%; in FY 2007, 51.83% and in FY 2006, 61.78%.

EEO Program Tip

Posting Reasonable Accommodation Policy

The EEOC requires that federal agencies post their reasonable accommodation policy and procedures to their public websites. This critical resource should easily be available to employees and potential applicants. It provides a public window on how agencies address reasonable accommodations. Such postings allow potential applicants to review the agency's policy relating to accommodations prior to submitting an application for employment. It also provides applicants with guidance on how to request accommodations during the application process. In its policies, agencies must alert applicants to the procedures used by the agency to ensure that applicants and employees receive timely and appropriate accommodations. Additionally agencies should also provide applicants with the contact information for the person or office responsible for those accommodations should they have any questions regarding their specific request. This information should also be included in the vacancy announcement.

Section B - Integration of EEO Into Agencies

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 effective managerial, communications and interpersonal skills training; (6) all managers and employees are involved in implementing the EEO program; and (7) all employees are informed of the EEO program. One aspect of this model element is highlighted below.

1. 88% 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 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report for FY 2010, 169 (88.02%) indicated that the EEO Director had conducted the briefing, up from the 138 (76.7%) of 180 in FY 2009. Figure 3 below shows the percentage of Agency Heads that were briefed on the state of EEO over the last five years. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 3 - Percent of Agency Heads Briefed on State of EEO
FY 2006 - FY 2010

Bar graph depicting number of Agency heads that briefed on state of EEO. For FY 2010 - 88%; FY 2009 - 77%; for FY 2008 - 76%; for FY 2007 - 72%; for FY 2006 - 63%.

EEO Program Tip

Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission requires that the agency's EEO programs support the agency's strategic mission. As well, such a program must be organized and structured to maintain a workplace that is free from discrimination in all of the agency's policies, procedures or practices. When an agency integrates the EEO program into its strategic mission, it demonstrates its commitment to achieving a highly-skilled and diversified workforce. The most effective agency strategic plans address the agency mission and goals as it pertains to its government-wide initiatives, and also include a goal describing its operational strategy for its own workforce. This can be done a number of ways including through a specific EEO goal that should align with the agency's Diversity and Inclusion Plan and EEO mandates. In this way, the strategic plan ensures that EEO is integrated into the agency's mission and is aligned with its vision, goals and priorities.

Specific goals should foster a highly qualified and diverse workforce by identifying and eliminating barriers to equal opportunity, as well as educating the agency workforce on EEO and diversity. Each goal should include the following: (1) strategies and specific tactics to meet the goal; (2) identification of individuals/organizations that will be responsible for leading and/or supporting the implementation of the strategy and tactics; (3) identification of the organizational challenges; (4) establishment of realistic time frames to meet the identified strategies; (5) establishment of meaningful measures of effort to meet the goal; (6) provision for the evaluation of the success in meeting the goal; and (7) whether modification of the goal will be necessary. A separate strategic plan for the EEO program that aligns with the overarching agency strategic plan is also vitally important to successfully executing the EEO program plans each year. A separate plan provides a blueprint for carrying out the objectives of the office to eliminate discrimination, promote inclusiveness and foster a culture that values diversity within the agency.

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. This year, we highlight the following two requirements.

1. 91% 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. MD-715 makes it clear that all managers and supervisors share responsibility for the successful implementation of EEO programs. The EEO office serves as a resource for the managers and supervisors by providing direction, guidance and monitoring of key activities to achieve a diverse workplace free of barriers to equal opportunity. In evaluating managers and supervisors on these efforts, it is essential that such an evaluation include an assessment of how the manager contributes to the agency's EEO program.

Figure 4 - Percent of Agencies that Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on their Commitment to EEO FY 2006 - FY 2010

Bar graph depicting the percentage of agencies that evaluate managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO. In FY 2010 - 90.63%; in FY 2009 - 80%; in FY 2008 - 83.24%; in FY 2007 - 83.14% and in FY 2006 - 70.05%.

In FY 2010, 174 (90.6%) of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports indicated that its managers and supervisors were rated on their commitment to EEO, up from the 144 (80%) of the 180 agencies that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2009. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

2. 89% of Agencies Report Having 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."[6] 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 and in addition to the 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, age (40 and over), disability, or protected activity (opposition to discrimination or participation in proceedings covered by the anti-discrimination statutes) and is not limited to 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.


Figure 5 - Percent of Agencies that Maintain an Anti-Harassment Policy
FY 2006 - FY 2010

Bar graph depicting the percentage of agencies that maintain a written anti-harassment policy. In FY 2010 - 89.06; in FY 2009 - 77.77%; in FY 2008 - 84.39%; in FY 2007 - 72.09% and in FY 2006 57.49%.

In FY 2010, 171 (89.06%) of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports reported they had a written anti-harassment policy, up from the 140 (77.8%) of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2009. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

EEO Program Tip

EEO & Diversity Performance Elements in Supervisory Performance Appraisals

The importance of EEO to an agency can readily be measured by whether managers and supervisors are evaluated on their adherence and commitment to EEO principles by means of a critical element in their performance appraisals. If agencies do not measure their managers' and supervisors' performance on this element, it will be difficult to assess whether they are managing in such a way as to ensure equality and diversity in the workplace.

There are a host of factors that could be measured under an EEO performance element. The following are just a few examples:

  • participating actively in barrier analysis and the implementation of resulting action plans;
  • resolving conflicts in work environments promptly;
  • building a climate of trust and respect;
  • acknowledging the value of individual differences and soliciting diverse points of view in meetings;
  • preventing harassment through swift investigation and corrective action;
  • ensuring all employees are aware of and have opportunities to participate in mentoring and career development programs;
  • cooperating in the EEO complaint process;
  • engaging in the interactive reasonable accommodation process for individuals with disabilities;
  • ensuring timely decisions for religious accommodation requests;
  • participating in EEO and Diversity and Inclusion training;
  • encouraging and recognizing employees for attending EEO and diversity and Inclusion training;
  • increasing the use of internships, details, co-op students and other like programs to increase the participation of those groups with lower than expected participation; and
  • participating in ADR when requested

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." See 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." See 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." Similarly, Part B(IV) of MD-715 sets forth the same requirement to identify and eliminate barriers to individuals with disabilities.

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

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.

Table 1 - FY 2010 Federal Work Force Pay Structure Participation Levels
# in Work Force % of Total Work Force

Total Work Force

2,850,584

Senior Pay Level

21,455

0.75

General Schedule and Related

1,561,411

54.78

Federal Wage System

197,543

6.93

Other Pay Systems

1,070,175

37.54

a. Total Work Force: Hispanics or Latinos, White Women and Persons of Two or More Races Remain Below Availability

In FY 2010, the Federal Government had a Total Work Force of 2,850,584 employees, compared to 2,445,335 in FY 2001. Table 2 shows the participation rate of the identified groups below, as compared to the civilian labor force (CLF). Table A-1 in Appendix IV, located at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm, provides ten-year trend data.

Table 2 - Composition of Federal Work Force -
Ten-Year Trend: Some Progress, Little Overall Change
FY 2001 - FY 2010[7]
Work Force Participation Rate 2000 CLF
FY 2010 FY 2001 % FY 2010 %

Men

1,597,321

57.55

56.03

53.23

Women

1,253,263

42.45

43.97

46.77

Hispanic or Latino Men

133,082

4.22

4.67

6.17

Hispanic or Latino Women

92,018

2.72

3.23

4.52

White Men

1,111,654

41.40

39.00

39.03

White Women

754,405

26.11

26.46

33.74

Black or African American Men

218,865

8.11

7.68

4.84

Black or African American Women

292,455

10.63

10.26

5.66

Asian Men

94,846

3.10*

3.33

1.92

Asian Women

73,310

2.22*

2.57

1.71

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

5,801

*

0.20

0.06

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

4,556

*

0.16

0.05

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

20,443

0.71

0.72

0.34

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

25,170

0.76

0.88

0.32

Two or More Race Men

12,630

**

0.44

0.88

Two or More Race Women

11,349

**

0.40

0.76

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

25,217

1.10

0.88

CLF NOT AVAILABLE

*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 IV, located at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm.[8]

b. Senior Pay Levels: Incremental Improvement

With a total of 21,455 employees, the Senior Pay Level (SPL) positions comprise 0.75% of the total work force. SPL positions include the SES, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15 of the General Schedule. Table 3 below reflects the SPL representation. Table A-2 and Table A-2a of Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm contains additional data.

Table 3 - Senior Pay Level Representation
FY 2001 / FY 2010
Senior Pay Level (SPL) Positions
FY 2001 FY 2010
# in SPL % of SPL % of TWF # in SPL % of SPL % of TWF

Total SPL Work Force (#)

16,918

2,445,335

21,455

2,850,584

Men

12,837

75.88

57.55

15,050

70.15

56.03

Women

4,081

24.12

42.45

6,405

29.85

43.97

Hispanic or Latino

519

3.07

6.94

788

3.67

7.9

Hispanic or Latino Men

389

2.30

4.22

531

2.47

4.67

Hispanic or Latino Women

130

0.77

2.72

257

1.20

3.23

White

14,699

86.88

67.52

17,838

83.14

65.46

White Men

11,338

67.02

41.40

12,830

59.80

39.00

White Women

3,361

19.87

26.11

5,008

23.34

26.46

Black or African American

1,143

6.76

18.74

1,617

7.54

17.94

Black or African American Men

707

4.18

8.11

869

4.05

7.68

Black or African American Women

436

2.58

10.63

748

3.49

10.26

Asian

422*

2.49*

5.32*

955

4.45

5.90

Asian Men

308*

1.82*

3.10*

649

3.02

3.33

Asian Women

114*

0.67*

2.22*

306

1.43

2.57

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

**

14

0.07

0.36

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

**

12

0.06

0.20

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

**

2

0.01

0.16

American Indians or Alaska Native

135

0.80

1.48

172

0.80

1.60

American Indians or Alaska Nativ e Men

95

0.56

0.71

106

0.49

0.72

American Indians or Alaska Native Women

40

0.24

0.76

66

0.31

0.88

Two or More Races

**

**

**

71

0.33

0.84

Two or More Races Men

**

**

**

53

0.25

0.44

Two or More Races Women

**

**

**

18

0.08

0.40

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

60

0.35

1.10

111

0.52

0.88

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

  • From FY 2001 to FY 2010, the Total SPL Work Force increased by 4,537 employees, a net change of 26.82%. Comparatively, the number of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the SPL work force increased from 60 in FY 2001 to 111 in FY 2010, a net change of 85%.
  • The participation rate for women in the SPL work force increased 57% over the ten-year period from FY 2001 (4,081) to FY 2010 (6,405), while women increased their participation rate in the total work force by only 20.73% over the same ten-year period, from 1,038,045 in FY 2001 to 1,253,263 in FY 2010.
  • Between FY 2001 and FY 2010, the participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in Senior Pay Level positions increased 51.83% over the ten-year period from FY 2001 (519) to FY 2010 (788). During the same period, the overall participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in the total work force increased 32.64%, although still remaining below the 2000 CLF.
  • In the SPL, the participation rate increased to 0.52% for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities, 7.54% for Black or African American employees, 4.45% for Asian employees and 0.80% for American Indian or Alaska Native employees. The participation rate for White employees decreased to 83.14%.
  • In FY 2010, the "feeder grades" to SPL positions[9] (GS grades 14 and 15) showed the following participation rates: men 64.21%, women 35.79%, Hispanic or Latino employees 4.46%, White employees 75.86%, Black or African American employees 11.26%, Asian employees 6.86%, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees 0.10%, American Indian or Alaska Native employees 0.94%, employees of Two or More Races 0.52% and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0.53%.
  • 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

  • With a total of 1,561,411 employees, the General Schedule and Related (GSR) positions comprised 54.78% of the total work force in FY 2010. 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. The GSR participation rate reflects an increase due in part to the conversion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) employees in military components back to the GS pay system.
  • In FY 2010, the GSR participation rate for each group was: Hispanic or Latino employees 7.81%; White employees 66.17%; Black or African American employees 17.91%; Asian employees 5.03%; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees 0.31%; American Indian or Alaska Native employees 1.85%; persons of Two or More Races 0.91%, and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0.99%. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm, for the entire ten-year trend in the GSR pay systems.
Table 4 - General Schedule & Related (GSR) Representation FY 2001 / FY 2010
GSR Positions
FY 2001 FY 2010
Number % of GSR Number % of GSR

Total GSR Work Force

1,268,656

1,561,411

Men

656,022

51.71

812,656

52.05

Women

612,634

48.29

748,755

47.95

Hispanic or Latino

87,918

6.93

121,971

7.81

Hispanic or Latino Men

44,657

3.52

66,865

4.28

Hispanic or Latino Women

43,261

3.41

55,106

3.53

White

866,746

68.32

1,033,118

66.17

White Men

461,030

36.34

587,591

37.63

White Women

405,589

31.97

445,527

28.53

Black or African American

233,306

18.39

279,704

17.91

Black or African American Men

70,030

5.52

97,156

6.22

Black or African American Women

163,149

12.86

182,548

11.69

Asian

53,791*

4.24*

78,565

5.03

Asian Men

26,515*

2.09*

40,309

2.58

Asian Women

27,276*

2.15*

38,256

2.45

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

4,900

0.31

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

2,473

0.16

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

2,427

0.16

American Indian or Alaska Native

26,642

2.10

28,889

1.85

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

10,403

0.82

10,924

0.70

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

16,619

1.31

17,965

1.15

Two or More Races

**

**

14,262

0.91

Two or More Races Men

**

**

7,338

0.47

Two or More Races Women

**

**

6,926

0.44

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

15,351

1.21

15,522

0.99

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

  • Women held 47.95% of all GSR positions in FY 2010, a drop from the 48.29% held in FY 2001. Over the ten-year period, Hispanic or Latino employees, and Asian employees gradually increased their representation rates in the GSR work force.
  • Over the ten year period, the participation rate for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the total work force declined from 1.10% to 0.88%, as their participation rate in the GSR workforce declined from 1.21% to 0.99.
  • The average grade level for the total GSR permanent and temporary work force increased[10] to grade 10.1 in FY 2010. Of GSR employees, 17.75% were in grades 1-6, 37.40% were in grades 7-11, 32.40% were in grades 12-13, and 12.45% were in grades 14-15.

Figure 6 - Average Grade in the General Schedule and Related Positions
FY 2010

Bar graph depicting the average GS grade for each group. Government-wide - 9.9 Men - 10.4 Women - 9.3 Hispanic or Latino - 9.4 White - 10.2 Black/African American - 9.0 Asian - 10.4 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander - 7.9 American Indian/Alaska Native - 8.4 Persons of Two or More Races - 8.5 Individuals with Targeted Disabilities - 8.5
  • The average GSR grade level for Hispanic or Latino employees (9.7), Black or African American employees (9.3), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (8.6), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.6) and persons of Two or More Races (9.3) was lower than the government-wide average grade level (10.1).
  • Approximately 40.6% of women employed in the GSR work force were in grades 7-11. The average GSR grade for women was 9.5, more than half a grade below the government-wide average of 10.1, and more than one grade below men (10.7).
  • The average GSR grade level for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities was 8.7, almost one and a half grades below the government-wide average. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm.

d. Federal Wage System Positions: Women, Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American and Asian Employee Participation Rates Decrease Slightly

  • With a total of 197,543 employees, Federal Wage System (FWS) positions comprised 6.93% of the total work force in FY 2010. FWS (Blue-Collar) positions are mostly comprised of trade, craft and labor occupations.
Table 5 - Federal Wage System (FWS) Representation FY 2001 / FY 2010
Federal Wage System (FWS) Positions
FY 2001 FY 2010
Number % of FWS Number % of FWS

Total FWS Work Force

208,580

197,543

Men

186,637

89.48

177,071

89.64

Women

21,943

10.52

20,472

10.36

Hispanic or Latino

16,061

7.70

15,006

7.60

Hispanic or Latino Men

14,580

6.99

13,512

6.84

Hispanic or Latino Women

1,481

0.71

1,494

0.76

White

138,330

66.32

132,058

66.85

White Men

127,171

60.97

121,276

61.39

White Women

11,159

5.35

10,782

5.46

Black or African American

38,796

18.60

34,967

17.70

Black or African American Men

31,412

15.06

28,864

14.61

Black or African American Women

7,405

3.55

6,103

3.09

Asian

9,636*

4.62*

7,568

3.83

Asian Men

8,614*

4.13*

6,632

3.36

Asian Women

1,022*

0.49*

936

0.47

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

1,582

0.80

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

1,437

0.73

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

145

0.07

American Indian or Alaska Native

5,757

2.76

4,928

2.49

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

4,902

2.35

4,114

2.08

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

876

0.42

814

0.41

Two or More Races

**

**

1,434

0.73

Two or More Races Men

**

**

1,236

0.63

Two or More Races Women

**

**

198

0.10

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

2,920

1.40

2,151

1.09

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

  • FY 2010 FWS positions declined 5.29% from FY 2001.
  • Since FY 2001, the participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (7.60%), Black or African American employees (17.70%), Asian employees (3.83%), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (2.49%) and women (10.36%) have declined, while the participation rates of White employees (66.85%) have essentially remained the same. See Table A-4 in Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm for the complete ten-year trend.
  • In FY 2010, the participation rate of men in the FWS pay system was 37.59 percentage points higher than the participation rate of men in the GSR pay system. Comparatively, FWS participation rates for White employees and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were higher than the GSR participation rates, while the FWS work force participation rates for women, Asian employees, Black or African American employees, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees and Hispanic or Latino employees were lower.

e. Other Pay Systems: Employees Decrease

  • With a total of 1,070,175 employees, other pay systems (OPS) comprised 37.54% of the total work force in FY 2010. Other Pay Systems include pay banding and other pay-for-performance systems. The Other Pay Systems participation rate reflects a decrease due in part to the conversion of NSPS employees back to the GSR pay system.
Table 6 - Other Pay Systems (OPS) Representation FY 2001 - FY 2010
Other Pay Systems (OPS) Positions
FY 2001 FY 2010
Number % of OPS Number % of OPS

Total OPS Work Force

975,074

1,070,175

Men

583,777

59.87

592,544

55.37

Women

391,297

40.13

477,631

44.63

Hispanic or Latino

70,790

7.26

87,335

8.16

Hispanic or Latino Men

45,341

4.65

52,174

4.88

Hispanic or Latino Women

25,449

2.61

35,161

3.29

White

630,483

64.66

683,045

63.83

White Men

394,417

40.45

389,957

36.44

White Women

236,065

24.21

293,088

27.39

Black or African American

195,502

20.05

195,032

18.22

Black or African American Men

99,458

10.20

91,976

8.59

Black or African American Women

96,045

9.85

103,056

9.63

Asian

68,645*

7.04*

81,068

7.58

Asian Men

39,978*

4.10*

47,256

4.42

Asian Women

28,667*

2.94*

33,812

3.16

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

3,861

0.36

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

1,879

0.18

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

1,982

0.19

American Indian or Alaska Native

9,653

0.99

11,624

1.09

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

4,485

0.46

5,299

0.50

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

5,070

0.52

6,325

0.59

Two or More Races

**

**

8,210

0.77

Two or More Races Men

**

**

4,003

0.37

Two or More Races Women

**

**

4,207

0.39

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

8,873

0.91

7,433

0.69

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

  • The participation rate for women (44.63%) in OPS was lower in the GSR pay system (47.95%).
  • In FY 2010, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (8.16%), Asian employees (7.58%), and American Indian or Alaska Native employees (1.09%) slowly rose, while the participation rates for White employees (63.83%), Black or African American employees (18.22%) and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (0.69%) fell from FY 2001 levels.
  • In FY 2010, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American and Asian employees were higher than in the GSR and FWS pay systems. OPS participation rates for White employees, American Indian or 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 http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm for the complete ten-year trend.

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Holds Steady

  • On July 26, 2010, the President issued Executive Order 13548, requiring federal agencies to develop a specific plan for promoting employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The plan shall include performance targets and numerical goals for employment of individuals with disabilities and sub-goals for employment of individuals with targeted disabilities.
  • From FY 2001 to FY 2010, the Total Work Force increased by 405,249 employees, a net change of 16.57%. However, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities decreased from 26,834 in FY 2001 to 25,217 in FY 2010, a net change of -6.03%, resulting in a 0.88% participation rate. Once again, only eleven agencies have achieved the federal goal of at least a 2% participation rate for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities.
  • The EEOC had the highest percentage of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (2.67%) among those agencies with 500 or more employees. See Table 7 below.
Table 7 - Ranking of Agencies with the Highest Percent of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (Agencies with 500 Or More Employees)
Agency Total Work Force Individuals with Targeted Disabilities
# %

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2,543

68

2.67

Army & Air Force Exchange Service

35,512

847

2.39

Social Security Administration

69,963

1,387

1.98

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

12,878

246

1.91

Department of the Treasury

109,900

1,918

1.75

Nine agencies with fewer than 500 employees exceeded the 2% federal goal. They were the Architectural & Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (ACCESS Board), Committee for Purchase From People Blind or Severely Disabled, Export Import Bank of the United States, Farm Credit Administration, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, National Council on Disability, Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and Trade and Development Agency.

Table 8 below shows that the Department of the Treasury continued to maintain the highest participation rate (1.75%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities among the cabinet level agencies.

Table 8a below shows that the Army and Air Force Exchange Service continued to maintain the highest participation rate (2.39%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities among the Department of Defense components.

Table A-6b in Appendix IV contains this information for all agencies and is located at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/tables.cfm. See Table 8 below for a Cabinet level ranking of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities.


Table 8 - Ranking Cabinet Level Agencies by IWTD
FY 2001 - FY 2010[11]
Agencies Fiscal Year (FY)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. Treasury*

#

2,204

2,150

2,157

2,105

1,964

1,842

1,748

1,827

1,864

1,918

%

1.53%

1.53%

1.53%

1.99%

1.90%

1.82%

1.73%

1.70%

1.73%

1.75%

2. Veterans Affairs*

#

3,501

3,399

3,623

3,692

3,566

3,566

3,758

3,985

4,241

4,650

%

1.74%

1.69%

1.75%

1.56%

1.52%

1.49%

1.48%

1.43%

1.43%

1.51%

3. Education*

#

74

73

73

73

63

59

59

59

55

60

%

1.68%

1.69%

1.73%

1.59%

1.42%

1.36%

1.36%

1.36%

1.30%

1.32%

4. Housing & Urban Development*

#

136

138

148

139

134

130

126

116

107

121

%

1.40%

1.41%

1.45%

1.36%

1.35%

1.32%

1.31%

1.19%

1.12%

1.21%

5. Labor*

#

190

184

221

206

207

186

193

188

171

188

%

1.19%

1.16%

1.40%

1.30%

1.35%

1.21%

1.25%

1.22%

1.07%

1.13%

6. Interior*

#

609

598

702

692

678

684

700

689

699

750

%

1.03%

0.99%

1.15%

0.89%

0.88%

0.94%

0.97%

0.93%

0.91%

0.95%

7. Defense*

#

7,133

6,922

6,021

5,747

5,643

6,053

5,817

5,894

6,096

6,261

%

1.08

1.05%

0.89%

0.84%

0.81%

0.86%

0.83%

0.82%

0.80%

0.89%

8. Agriculture*

#

988

990

1,077

1,068

1,000

1,009

965

893

883

924

%

1.12

1.09%

1.20%

0.95%

0.91%

0.96%

0.93%

0.85%

0.83%

0.85%

9. Health & Human Services*

#

614

619

673

651

624

576

596

596

592

672

%

1.18%

1.14%

1.27%

1.02%

0.97%

0.91%

0.81%

0.79%

0.75%

0.81%

10. Commerce

#

341

313

334

319

358

334

323

337

385

376

%

0.97%

0.87%

0.94%

0.84%

0.89%

0.82%

0.78%

0.79%

0.78%

0.76%

11. Energy

#

128

127

122

119

116

111

122

118

120

124

%

0.82%

0.81%

0.80%

0.79%

0.77%

0.74%

0.82%

0.76%

0.76%

0.75%

12. Transportation*

#

356

498

307

322

298

285

302

315

340

404

%

0.55%

0.49%

0.53%

0.56%

0.55%

0.53%

0.56%

0.57%

0.59%

0.70%

13. Homeland Security*

#

--

--

756

740

720

709

674

692

727

744

%

--

--

0.69%

0.45%

0.44%

0.42%

0.41%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

14. Justice*

#

485

485

396

406

406

413

412

408

421

452

%

0.40%

0.39%

0.40%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.38%

0.37%

0.39%

15. State

#

64

67

93

93

90

88

84

84

79

88

%

0.48%

0.49%

0.53%

0.39%

0.37%

0.36%

0.33%

0.34%

0.31%

0.30%

Total Work Force*

#

26,834

26,230

25,551

25,917

25,142

24,442

23,993

24,427

24,663

25,217

%

1.10%

1.07%

1.05%

0.99%

0.96%

0.94%

0.92%

0.88%

0.88%

0.88%

* This agency showed an increase in the number and participation rate of IWTD in FY 2010.


Table 8a - Ranking of DOD Sub-Components by IWTD
FY 2001 - FY 2010[12]
Agencies Fiscal Year (FY)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. Army & Air Force Exchange Service *

#

818

763

687

628

597

604

556

706

805

847

%

2.00%

1.87%

1.88%

1.87%

1.69%

1.65%

1.62%

2.00%

2.27%

2.39%

2.Defense Finance & Accounting Service

#

317

302

283

275

271

261

253

243

238

246

%

2.07%

2.11%

2.08%

2.05%

2.02%

1.99%

2.03%

2.04%

1.95%

1.91%

3.Defense Logistics Agency

#

534

495

448

449

430

413

404

409

418

416

%

2.36%

2.28%

2.16%

2.07%

2.00%

1.92%

1.89%

1.78%

1.65%

1.65%

4.Defense Contract Management Agency

#

177

169

149

149

146

127

121

120

122

123

%

1.48%

1.49%

1.39%

1.34%

1.39%

1.29%

1.27%

1.28%

1.22%

1.17%

5. Office of the Inspector General*

#

14

13

14

13

13

15

18

17

18

19

%

1.12%

1.10%

1.19%

1.02%

0.95%

1.08%

1.28%

1.12%

1.14%

1.17%

6.Defense Commissary Agency*

#

178

174

156

158

141

142

123

124

141

170

%

1.27%

1.42%

1.30%

1.07%

0.92%

0.92%

0.82%

0.82%

0.91%

1.09%

7. Defense Media Activity

#

5

%

0.89%

8. Defense Contract Audit Agency

#

55

46

54

52

48

41

40

39

39

41

%

1.37%

1.13%

1.34%

1.28%

1.17%

1.02%

0.98%

0.94%

0.90%

0.87%

9. Defense Information Systems Agency

#

67

74

64

60

53

62

53

55

53

54

%

1.12%

1.25%

1.16%

1.15%

1.08%

1.15%

0.95%

0.97%

0.91%

0.87%

10. Defense TRICARE Management Activity

#

14

%

0.87%

11. Defense Threat Reduction Agency

#

6

6

5

7

10

10

7

9

10

10

%

0.64%

0.63%

0.56%

0.84%

0.90%

0.86%

0.63%

0.75%

0.83%

0.76%

12. Department of the Navy

#

1,732

1,724

1,620

1,562

1,500

1,430

1,380

1,398

1,423

1,427

%

0.99%

0.97%

0.92%

0.88%

0.86%

0.82%

0.80%

0.78%

0.75%

0.72%

13. Defense Security Service

#

22

25

21

16

7

8

6

6

6

6

%

0.83%

0.98%

0.88%

0.84%

1.33%

1.47%

1.14%

1.04%

0.83%

0.70%

14. Department of the Army

#

1,857

1,793

1,689

1,710

1,756

1,724

1,719

1,714

1,786

1,837

%

0.89%

0.85%

0.82%

0.75%

0.74%

0.72%

0.71%

0.67%

0.65%

0.64%

15. Defense Human Resource Activity *

#

4

4

6

6

4

4

3

4

3

7

%

0.60%

0.60%

0.82%

0.78%

0.50%

0.45%

0.34%

0.44%

0.29%

0.59%

16. Department of the Air Force

#

1,305

1,273

1,157

1,196

1,174

1,123

1,042

953

934

932

%

0.90%

0.90%

0.87%

0.80%

0.75%

0.71%

0.67%

0.62%

0.58%

0.55%

17. Office of the Sec./Wash. Hqtrs. Services

#

32

32

38

39

41

45

54

60

42

40

%

0.71%

0.72%

0.72%

0.78%

0.71%

0.69%

0.71%

0.71%

0.71%

0.54%

18. Defense Missile Defense Agency

#

10

10

%

0.69%

0.49%

19. Defense Education Activity*

#

33

36

38

56

41

44

37

37

42

57

%

0.30%

0.33%

0.35%

0.32%

0.25%

0.27%

0.24%

0.24%

0.28%

0.35%

* These Defense Sub-Components showed an increase in the number and participation rate of IWTD in FY 2010.


Section E- Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

A model EEO program must have adequate and accurate information collection systems, which are integrated into the agency's information management infrastructure, and provide the ability to conduct a wide array of periodic examinations of the agency's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act workforce profile(s). Such systems should collect data, used to monitor and evaluate its EEO programs. The data collection system should allow the agency to identify and evaluate information related to management actions affecting employment status. The system should be capable of tracking applicant flow data for each selection made by the agency identified by race, national origin, sex, and, where known, disability, as well as the disposition of each application. 29 C.F.R. §1607.4.

The system should be capable of monitoring employment trends through review of personnel transactions and other historical data, tracking recruitment efforts to permit data analyses of these efforts, and allow for the integration of comprehensive management, personnel, and budget planning with Title VII and Rehabilitation Act program planning.

1. 22% of Agencies Collect Applicant Flow Data

EEOC's regulations provide that each agency shall establish a system to collect and maintain accurate employment information on the race, national origin, sex and [disabilities] of its employees . . . .[and] use the data . . . in studies and analyses which contribute affirmatively to achiev[e] the objectives of the equal employment opportunity program. 29 C.F.R. §114.601(a) and (e). Section II(E) of MD-715 establishes that a model EEO program must maintain a system that tracks applicant flow data, which identifies applicants by race, national origin, sex and disability status and the disposition of all applications.

The MD-715 report tables currently require agencies to report applicant flow data for new hires and internal competitive promotions in major occupations, for internal selections to Senior Level positions and for participation in career development.

In FY 2010, 42 (22%) of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 data, reported collecting comprehensive applicant flow data, up from 33 (18.33%) of the 180 agencies and subcomponents, that submitted MD-715 data, reporting comprehensive applicant flow data in FY 2009. Figure 7 below shows the percentage of agencies that collected comprehensive applicant data on an annual basis. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 7 - Percent of Agencies that Collect Comprehensive Applicant Flow Data
FY 2006 - FY 2010

Bar graph depicting the percentage of agencies that collect comprehensive applicant flow data. In FY 2010 - 21.88%; in FY 2009 - 18.33%; in FY 2008 - 15.34%; in FY 2007 - 16.4% and in FY 2006 15.34%.


Section F- Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

The sixth MD-715 element, "Responsiveness and Legal Compliance," encompasses agencies' timely filing of required reports with EEOC and timely compliance with EEOC's issued orders.

1. 88% of Agencies and Subcomponents Timely Submitted MD-715 Reports

EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.601(g) requires agencies to report to the EEOC employment by race, national origin, sex, and disability in such form and at such times as the Commission requires. In addition, EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.602(c) requires agencies to "submit annually for the review and approval of the Commission written national and regional EEO plans of action."

MD-715 reports provide information on an agency's progress in achieving the model EEO program elements, identifying and eliminating barriers, and allow the EEOC to conduct a wide array of examinations of the agency's Title VII and Section 501 work force profiles. MD-715 applies to all Executive agencies and military departments (except uniformed members) as defined in Sections 102 and 105 of Title 5. U.S.C. (including those with employees and applicants for employment who are paid from non-appropriated funds), the United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Smithsonian Institution, and those units of the judicial branch of the federal government having positions in the competitive service. These agencies and their Second Level Reporting Components are required to file an EEOC FORM 715-01 on or before January 31st of each year.

In FY 2010, 88% or 169 of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so by the February 4, 2011 deadline. Agencies that participated in EEOC's pilot project involving the electronic filing of MD-715 data received an extension until February 28, 2011. In FY 2009, 79% or 143 of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so in a timely manner. No extensions were granted in FY 2009. In FY 2008, 50% or 73 of 145 the agencies and subcomponents that submitted reports were timely; and increased to 80.7% or 117 with extensions. In FY 2007, MD-715 reports were timely filed by 77 or 44.7% of the 172 reporting agencies and subcomponents down from the 50% or 84 of the 167 reporting agencies and subcomponents in FY 2006. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

2. 81% of Agencies Post No FEAR Act Data

On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the "Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002," which is commonly referred to as the No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act is to "require that each Federal agency post quarterly on its public Web site, certain statistical data relating to Federal sector equal employment opportunity complaints filed with such agency[.]" Title III of Public Law 170-174 sets forth the required contents to be posted.

EEOC Regulations 29 C.F.R. §1614.701 to 705 implement Title III - setting forth basic requirements of agency postings, providing data set definitions for clarity, the manner and format with which the data should be posted, reiterating the required contents of the postings and setting forth the requirement for posting comparative data.

Of the 194 agencies and sub-components where we were able to find the agency posting on its web-site, 158 (81.44%) reported or were found to have the required postings of the No FEAR Act available on its public website. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.




[1] All measures under EEOC's regulations and management directives are equally important, and the inclusion of particular measures in this Report does not indicate a higher degree of importance.

[2] The September 30, 2010 snapshot includes only employees in pay status on that date; thus, some permanent employees, like seasonal employees or those on active military tours of duty, are not included.

[3] Certain agencies do not provide total work force numbers for national security reasons. The 2000 EEO Special File does not control for citizenship.

[4] Each General Schedule (GS) grade has 10 steps. Within Grade increases or step increases are periodic increases in a GS employee's rate of basic pay from one step to the next higher step.

[5] In FY 2010 many employees were reclassified into the General Schedule and Related pay system.

[6] For more information, please review EEOC's Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, Notice 915.002 (June 18, 1999) (Enforcement Guidance on Harassment).

[7] Because separate data is unavailable, the Asian American/Other Pacific Islander data prior to 2006 throughout this report includes the data for Asian with "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders."

[8] These tables report breakouts of the employment data for specific components of certain large federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, as well as certain defense agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the United States Postal Service.

[9] There is a strong likelihood that an EEO group will be absent or have a low participation rate in the next higher grade level where the group has a lower than expected participation rate in the feeder grade/applicant pool. See Government Accountability Office Report No.GAO-03-34, Senior Executive Service: Agency Efforts Needed to Improve Diversity as the Senior Corps Turns Over (January 2003).

[10] Average grade was impacted by the conversion of NSPS employees back to the GS pay system.

[11]Table 8 identifies participation rates for FY 2001 - FY 2010 which reflects total work force numbers. The total work force figures are as reported in CPDF plus AAFES & the Foreign Service of the Department of State.

[12]Table 8a data identifies participation rates based on total work force numbers. The total work force figures are as reported in CPDF plus AAFES.