Breadcrumb

  1. Inicio
  2. Node
  3. Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Fiscal Year 2007

Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Fiscal Year 2007

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

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.
Imagen

Congratulations to the Internal Revenue Service for receiving the EEOC Freedom to Compete Award in FY 2007.

Fostering its commitment to hire individuals with visual impairments, the IRS partnered with Lions World Services for the Blind in 1967 to form "Lions World Program." This program provides a pledge of employment to visually impaired candidates who complete pre-employment training on computer systems, alternative media resources and adaptive or assistive equipment that they will be expected to use on the job. Thus far, the results of the partnership have led to 673 hires of persons with visual impairments. The dedication of the IRS to its "Lions World Program" shows the agency's commitment to employ persons who will perform successfully, regardless of any disabilities.

The Freedom to Compete Award recognizes excellence in the implementation of specific equal employment opportunity practices that the Commission believes can be emulated by other employers, agencies or organizations. Further information about this award is available at www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/compete/index.html.

  • 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.

EEO Program Tip

"Start with an Effective EEO Program Policy Statement(s)"

A committed agency/facility/installation head will, at the beginning of her/his tenure, and each year thereafter, issue a signed policy statement declaring the agency's position against discrimination on any protected basis.

This policy shall be prominently posted in all personnel offices, EEO offices, and on the agency's internal website.

This statement shall affirm the principles of equal employment opportunity and assure that EEO program requirements will be enforced by the agency head and agency management.

Some of the principles the policy statement must assure will be upheld include, but are not limited to:

  • Equal employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment, regardless of their race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, or disability.
  • All employees will have the freedom to compete on a fair and level playing field with equal opportunity for competition.
  • Equal employment opportunity covers all personnel/employment programs, management practices and decisions including, but not limited to, recruitment/hiring, merit promotion, transfer, reassignments, training and career development, benefits, and separation.
  • Workplace harassment will not be tolerated, allegations of harassment will be immediately investigated, and, where allegations are substantiated, appropriate action will be taken. (Anti-harassment policy requirements are discussed under Element Four. Agencies may choose to include all issues under one policy or issue a separate anti-harassment policy, based on their needs.)
  • Reprisal against one who engaged in protected activity will not be tolerated, and the agency supports the rights of all employees to exercise their rights under the civil rights statutes.

See Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD-715

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.

EEO Program Tip

To improve the significance and success of an EEO program, an agency might consider changing from a "measure of the past" performance standard to an "improvement" performance standard when rating managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO.

In a copyrighted article published November 27, 2007, in the free email from FedSmith.com, Robbie Kunreuther suggested some measurable standards for evaluating managers and supervisors on their commitment to equal employment opportunity. Mr. Kunreuther suggests that shifting the focus of the standard to one of improvement rather than one of measuring the past would help supervisors and managers better understand and commit to civil rights. A few of Mr. Kunreuther's twelve performance standards are listed below:

  • Communicate to all subordinates his/her personal commitment to EEO policies in writing.
  • Conduct monthly staff meetings that include reports and/or discussions of relevant EEO issues.
  • Develop and work with a team to identify EEO barriers within the group.
  • Review agency EEO/affirmative action policies and develop a short report for supervisor re: inconsistencies between policies and practices.
  • Document ideas for ongoing improvements in EEO education and climate.
  • Review at least three Federal EEOC decisions (and/or related court decisions) and summarize their potential impact.

Mr. Kunreuther then sets out exactly how many of the standards would need to be met for each rating level from "Outstanding" to "Unacceptable."

Mr. Kunreuther's complete article Evaluating EEO As If It Really Mattered can be found at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1432.

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.

EEO Program Tip

Without a written anti-harassment policy, an agency cannot establish that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior.

For example, in Horton v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40014 (June 16, 2004), EEOC held that an agency could not avoid liability after it found the agency had discriminated against complainant on the bases of race and sex, when her first line supervisor treated her in a condescending manner, closely scrutinized her work and assigned her work to others.

EEOC found no evidence that the agency had a written anti-harassment policy, or an established procedure, for reporting harassment in the record and ordered the agency to pay $7,500.00 in non-pecuniary damages and attorney's fees, provide EEO training, and expunge complainant's employment file.

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.

EEO Program Tip

A barrier is an agency employment policy, procedure, practice, or condition that limits employment opportunities for members of a particular race//color/ethnicity/gender or because of a disability.

Barrier analysis is an investigation of anomalies (triggers) found in workforce data with an eye toward identifying the root causes of those triggers (workplace policies, procedures, and practices), and if necessary, eliminating them.

In comparing workforce data to the appropriate benchmarks, agencies often ask whether they should conduct barrier analysis if the difference is less than one percent. EEOC encourages agencies to analyze all triggers.

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.

Table 1 - FY 2007 Federal Work Force Pay Structure Participation Levels
# Work Force % of Total Work Force

Total Work Force

2,608,172  

Senior Pay Level

19,751 0.76

General Schedule and Related

1,322,332 50.70

Federal Wage System

191,701 7.35

Other Pay Systems

1,074,388 41.19
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.

Table 2 - Composition of Federal Work Force –
Ten-Year Trend: Some Progress, Little Overall Change
FY 1998 - FY 2007[5]
Work Force Participation Rate 2000 CLF
FY 2007 FY 1998 % FY 2007 %

Men

1,482,165 58.13 56.83 53.23

Women

1,126,007 41.87 43.17 46.77

Hispanic or Latino Men

121,807 4.07 4.67 6.17

Hispanic or Latino Women

81,316 2.52 3.12 4.52

White Men

1,040,271 42.36 39.89 39.03

White Women

674,842 26.12 25.87 33.74

Black or African American Men

206,298 8.13 7.91 4.84

Black or African American  Women

274,261 10.45 10.52 5.66

Asian Men

88,401 2.89* 3.39 1.92

Asian Women

66,802 2.06* 2.56 1.71

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Men

3,107 * 0.12 0.06

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Women

2,488 * 0.10 0.05

American Indian/Alaska Native Men

19,582 0.69 0.75 0.34

American Indian/Alaska Native Women

23,578 0.72 0.90 0.32

Two or More Race Men

2,699 ** 0.10 0.88

Two or More Race Women

2,720 ** 0.10 0.76

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

23,993 1.13 0.92 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 III, located at www.eeoc.gov.[6]

Recent Initiatives

EEOC has recently implemented E-RACE (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment), an initiative designed to advance the statutory right to a workplace free of race and color discrimination. EEOC has convened a work group to determine whether and to what extent a "bamboo ceiling" might exist that limits or impedes the career progress of Asians and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) toward the senior and managerial ranks of the federal workforce. Preliminary observations indicate that, while AAPIs enjoy robust participation rates at many federal agencies, those participation rates tend to decline at higher grade levels.

The EEOC formed a partnership with the Social Security Administration to launch a Hispanic Work Group which will examine the community's concerns about federal sector employment, including leadership development, hiring, and retention. The members of the work group represent a cross-section of federal agencies: U.S. Department of Commerce; Broadcasting Board of Governors; U.S. Postal Service; U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Transportation; U.S. Department of the Air Force; and U.S. Department of Labor. The work group plans to share its progress and solicit feedback during the Hispanic Employment Program Managers Summit at the EEOC's 2008 EXCEL Conference.

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.

Table 3 - Senior Pay Level Representation
FY 1998 / FY 2007
Senior Pay Level Positions
FY 1998 FY 2007
# in SPL % of SPL % of TWF # in SPL % of SPL % of TWF

Total SPL Work Force (#)

15,633   2,479,199 19,751   2,608,172

Men

12,164 77.81 58.13 14,417 72.99 56.83

Women

3,469 22.20 41.87 5,334 27.01 43.17

Hispanic or Latino

456 2.92 6.59 716 3.63 7.79

White

13,693 87.60 68.48 16,798 85.05 65.76

Black or African American

1,048 6.70 18.57 1,309 6.63 18.43

Asian

328* 2.10* 4.95* 745 3.77 5.95

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

** ** ** 6 0.03 0.21

American Indians/Alaska Native

108 0.70 1.40 154 0.89 1.65

Two or More Races

** ** ** 23 0.12 0.21

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

64 0.41 1.13 123 0.62 0.92

  *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.
Table 4 - General Schedule & Related (GSR) Representation
FY 1998 / FY 2007
GSR Positions
FY 1998 FY 2007
Number % of GSR Number % of GSR

Total GSR Work Force

1,249,935   1,322,332  

Men

652,216 52.18 674,444 51.00

Women

597,719 47.82 647,888 49.00

Hispanic or Latino

80,871 6.47 102,634 7.76

White

865,705 69.26 885,149 66.94

Black or African American

227,613 18.21 236,386 17.88

Asian

50,122* 4.01* 65,718 4.97

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

** ** 2408 0.18

American Indian/Alaska Native

25,499 2.04 27,017 2.04

Two or More Races

** ** 3,020 0.23

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

15,874 1.27 13,700 1.04

*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

Imagen
  • 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.
Table 5 - Federal Wage System (FWS) Representation
FY 1998 / FY 2007
Federal Wage System (FWS) Positions
FY 1998 FY 2007
Number % of FWS Number % of FWS

Total FWS Work Force

232,693   191,701  

Men

207,958 89.37 170,809 89.10

Women

24,735 10.63 20,892 10.90

Hispanic or Latino

18,825 8.09 15,114 7.88

White

153,275 65.87 127,560 66.54

Black or African American

43,583 18.73 34,928 18.22

Asian

10,774* 4.63* 7,779 4.06

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

* * 1,205 0.63

American Indian/Alaska Native

6,236 2.68 4,702 2.45

Two or More Races

* * 413 0.22

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

3,421 1.47 2,167 1.13

* 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.
Table 6 - Other Pay Systems (OPS) Representation FY 1998 – FY 2007
Other Pay Systems (OPS) Positions
FY 1998 FY 2007
Number % of OPS Number % of OPS

Total OPS Work Force

980,856   1,074,388  

Men

586,846 59.83 622,495 57.94

Women

394,010 40.17 451,893 42.06

Hispanic or Latino

67,875 6.92 84,659 7.88

White

638,831 65.13 685,606 63.81

Black or African American

199,212 20.31 207,936 19.35

Asian

66,306* 6.76* 80,961 7.54

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

** ** 1,976 0.18

American Indian/Alaska Native

8,632 0.88 11,287 1.05

Two or More Races

** ** 1,963 0.18

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

9,122 0.93 8,003 0.74

*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 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

2,192 58 2.65

Social Security Administration

62,407 1,288 2.06

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

12,449 253 2.03

Defense Logistics Agency

21,394 404 1.89

Department of the Treasury

102,787 1,748 1.70

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.

EEO Program Tip

LEAD (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities) is EEOC's initiative to address the declining number of employees with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce. The over-arching goal for this initiative is to significantly increase the population of individuals with disabilities employed by the federal government. In support of the LEAD initiative, the Office of Federal Operations maintains a strategic workgroup formulating strategies and plans designed to assist federal agencies in reversing the negative trends facing the severely disabled who seek federal employment opportunities.

An excellent tool for hiring new employees with targeted disabilities into your agency is the Special Excepted Appointing Authority under Schedule A, codified by the OPM at 5 C.F.R. 213.3102(u). This authority allows agencies to hire individuals with targeted disabilities directly into available positions for which they are qualified without competition. EEOC's LEAD initiative has developed brochures entitled "The ABCs of Schedule A" for the hiring manager, the human resources manager, and the disability program manager. http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/lead/index.html

Table 8 - Ranking Cabinet Level Agencies by IWTD
FY 1998 – FY 2007[8]
Agencies Fiscal Year (FY)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1. Treasury

#

2,176

2,167

2,144

2,204

2,150

2,157

2,105

1,964

1,842

1,748

%

1.58%

1.55%

1.54%

1.53%

1.53%

1.99%

1.90%

1.82%

1.73%

1.70%

2. Veterans Affairs

#

3,621

3,517

3,512

3,501

3,399

3,623

3,692

3,566

3,566

3,758

%

1.83%

1.80%

1.79%

1.74%

1.69%

1.75%

1.56%

1.52%

1.49%

1.48%

3. Education

#

78

79

81

74

73

73

73

63

59

59

%

1.81%

1.81%

1.85%

1.68%

1.69%

1.73%

1.59%

1.42%

1.36%

1.36%

4. Housing & Urban Development

#

144

137

137

136

138

148

139

134

130

126

%

1.53%

1.45%

1.39%

1.40%

1.41%

1.45%

1.36%

1.35%

1.32%

1.31%

5. Labor

#

197

185

186

190

184

221

206

207

186

193

%

1.29%

1.21%

1.19%

1.19%

1.16%

1.40%

1.30%

1.35%

1.21%

1.25%

6. Interior

#

530

579

603

609

598

702

692

678

684

700

%

0.94%

1.02%

1.05%

1.03%

0.99%

1.15%

0.89%

0.88%

0.94%

0.97%

7. Agriculture

#

1,041

1,013

1,001

988

990

1077

1068

1,000

1,009

965

%

1.21%

1.19%

1.17%

1.12%

1.09%

1.20%

0.95%

0.91%

0.96%

0.93%

8. Health & Human Services

#

567

567

574

614

619

673

651

624

576

596

%

1.15%

1.13%

1.12%

1.18%

1.14%

1.27%

1.02%

0.97%

0.91%

0.81%

9. Defense

#

8,245

7,827

7,526

7,133

6,922

6,021

5,747

5,643

6,053

5,817

%

1.18%

1.16%

1.13&

1.08%

1.05%

0.89%

0.84%

0.81%

0.86%

0.83%

10.  Commerce

#

321

338

340

341

313

334

319

358

334

323

%

0.98%

0.99%

1.00&

0.97%

0.87%

0.94%

0.84%

0.89%

0.82%

0.78%

11.  Energy

#

124

116

129

128

127

122

119

116

111

122

%

0.78%

0.75%

0.84%

0.82%

0.81%

0.80%

0.79%

0.77%

0.74%

0.82%

12.  Transportation

#

338

333

334

356

498

307

322

298

285

302

%

0.53%

0.53%

0.54%

0.55%

0.49%

0.53%

0.56%

0.55%

0.53%

0.56%

13.  Homeland Security

#

--

--

--

--

--

756

740

720

709

674

%

--

--

--

--

--

0.69

0.45%

0.44%

0.42%

0.41%

14.  Justice

#

474

500

493

485

485

396

406

406

413

412

%

0.40%

0.42%

0.41%

0.40%

0.39%

0.40%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

15.  State

#

63

63

69

64

67

93

93

90

88

84

%

0.54%

0.53%

0.52%

0.48%

0.49%

0.53%

0.39%

0.37%

0.36%

0.33%

Total Work Force

#

28,035

27,601

27,231

26,834

26,230

25,551

25,917

25,142

24,442

23,993

%

1.13%

1.13%

1.11%

1.10%

1.07%

1.05%

0.99%

0.96%

0.94%

0.92%

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

Imagen

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.

Table 9 –Agencies with the Highest Counseling Rate In FY 2007
Agency Total Work Force Percentage of Individuals
Who Completed
Counseling

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

   

U.S. Postal Service

777,352 2.0%

Department of Education

4,327 1.6%

Department of Housing & Urban Development

8,747 1.5%

Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

   

Broadcasting Board of Governors

1,764 4.4%

Federal Trade Commission

1,108 2.7%

Government Printing Office

2,289 2.6%

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.

Table 10 - Agencies with the Highest Complainant Rate in FY 2007
Agency Total Work Force Complainants as %
of Total Work Force

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

   

Department of Education

4,327 1.2%

Department of Housing & Urban Development

8,747 0.9%

Department of Transportation

57,363 0.8%

Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

   

Government Printing Office

2,289 1.1%

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2,198 1.1%

Court Services & Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia

1,152 0.9%
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.

Table 11 -   Highest ADR Participation Rate in the Pre-Complaint Process
FY 2007
Agency Total Work Force Completed/
Ended
Counselings
Participation in ADR Participation Rate

 Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

 

U.S. Postal Service

777,352 17,285 13,157 76.1%

Department of Housing and Urban Development

8,747 140 69 49.3%

Department of the Air Force

174,435 1,175 466 39.7%

 Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

12,571 147 50 34.0%

General Services Administration

12,130 125 41 32.8%

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2,198 54 15 27.8%

EEO Program Tip

To improve ADR programs:

Create a website that features ADR news, announcements of ADR events, ADR champions' statements, ADR policy statements, and a link for ADR contact information, i.e., address, phone and fax numbers.

Create an online introduction to ADR that introduces the viewer to ADR theories, techniques and uses of ADR with video clips of the agency head and EEO director advocating the use of ADR.

Develop ADR marketing strategies such as: flyers on bulletin boards, ADR brochure produced and disseminated to EEO counselors and ADR coordinators, ADR exhibit booth displays, ADR information disseminated at employee events, and ADR information in new employee orientation materials.

Ensure that management officials attending ADR sessions obtain settlement authorization from their supervisors prior to the session in order that a settlement can be reached at "the table."

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.

Table 12 – Highest Pre-Complaint Resolution Rates
FY 2007
Agency Total Work Force Completed Counselings Total Resolved Resolution Rate

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

       

Defense National Guard Bureau

62,496 174 147 84.5%

Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Service

34,269 410 298 72.7%

U.S. Postal Service

777,352 17,285 11,102 64.2%

Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

       

Federal Reserve System - Board of Governors

1,903 35 34 97.1%

Federal Trade Commission

1,108 30 29 96.7%

Broadcasting Board of Governors

1,764 84 69 82.1%

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.

Table 13 – Highest Pre-Complaint ADR Resolution Rates
FY 2007
Agency Total Work Force ADR Closures ADR Resolutions ADR Resolution Rate

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

       

Defense Army & Air Force  Exchange Service

34,269 51 38 74.5%

U.S. Postal Service

777,352 13,157 9,795 74.5%

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

18,520 32 21 65.6%

Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

       

Defense Finance & Accounting Service

12,571 50 30 60.0%

General Services Administration

12,130 41 16 39.0%
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.

Table 14 – Monetary Benefits Awarded In Settlements During the Pre-Complaint Stage of the EEO Process
FY 2003 – FY 2007
FY Completed Counselings Total Resolutions Total Settlements Total Settlements with Monetary Benefits Settlement Monetary Benefits Average Award per Resolution with Monetary Benefits
# % # % # %
2003

45,030

28,011

62.2

8,199

18.2

621

7.6

$3,160,565

$5,089

2004

42,412

21,520

50.7

7,856

18.5

603

7.7

$3,137,911

$5,203

2005

41,070

22,038

53.7

7,652

18.7

585

7.7

$1,703,626

$2,912

2006

38,824

21,430

55.2

7,424

19.1

622

8.4

$1,666,651

$2,680

2007

37,809

21,029

55.6

7,454

19.7

687

9.2

$2,300,700

$3,349

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).

Table 15 – Top 3 Bases in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2003 – FY 2007
Basis FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Reprisal

8,111 7,782 7,105 6,535 6,960

Age

5,774 5,449 5,088 4,769 4,851

Disability (Physical)

        4,123

Race – Black

5,279 5,021 4,478 4,125  

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

Table 16 – Top 3 Issues in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2003 – FY 2007
ISSUE FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Harassment – Non-Sexual

5,689 5,175 4,550 4,544 4,951

Promotion/Non-Selection

4,435 3,892 2,937 2,793 2,719

Terms/Conditions

2,541 2,474 2,300 2,390 2,149
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

Imagen

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 several reasons for untimely investigations: poorly staffed EEO offices, unnecessary and time-consuming procedures,[15] delays in obtaining affidavits, and inadequate tracking and monitoring systems.  For more information, see EEOC's Federal Sector Investigations – Time and Cost, issued June 2004 and Attaining a Model Agency Program: Efficiency at www.eeoc.gov/federal/efficiency.html.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Completed the Highest Percentage of Timely Investigations

As shown in Table 17, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration timely completed 100% of its investigations.[16]  Significantly the US Postal Service timely completed 99.0% of its 4,669 investigations in FY 2007.  Among medium agencies the General Services Administration reported the highest timely completed investigation rate (94.3%).  Agencies that had completed fewer than 25 investigations were not included in the ranking.  Table B-9 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

Table 17 – Highest Percentage of Timely Completed Investigations for FY 2007
Agencies Total Work Force # Completed Investigations # Timely Completed % Timely

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

       

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

18,520 25 25 100.0%

United States Postal Service

777,352 4,669 4,624 99.0%

Department of Labor

15,495 102 86 84.3%

Medium Agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees)

       

General Services Administration

12,130 53 50 94.3%

Tennessee Valley Authority

11,993 27 25 92.6%

Defense Finance & Accounting Service

12,571 36 29 80.6%

In FY 2007, the government-wide average cost for contracting out complaint investigations $2247.02 increased by 6.3% from the FY 2006 average cost of $2113.26.  However, the FY 2007 average cost of agency (in-house) investigations ($4753.30) was down 7% from the FY 2006 average cost of $5111.93.  Average costs to contract out investigations in FY 2007 were approximately 52.7% (down from the 58.7%[17] difference in FY 2006) less than the average costs of agency (in-house) investigations,

Final Agency Actions

EEOC regulations require an agency to take a final action on each formal complaint filed.  Table 18 below provides a breakdown with processing time for all final agency actions.  Agencies may issue a decision dismissing a complaint on procedural grounds such as untimely EEO counselor contact or failure to state a claim.  Government-wide, agencies took an average of 125 days to issue a decision dismissing a complaint on procedural grounds. EEOC maintains that, in general, acceptance letters/dismissal decisions should be issued well in advance of the 180-day time limit to complete an investigation.  A suggested practical method of procedure is to issue these actions within 60 days of the filing of the formal complaint.

Table 18 – EEO Complaint Closures by Type with Government-Wide Average Processing Times in Days (APD) in FY 2003 – FY 2007
FY Complaint Closures Merit Final Agency Actions With AJ Decisions Merit Final Agency Decisions Without AJ Decisions Procedural Dismissals Settlements Withdrawals
Total APD Total APD from Comp. Filed Total APD APD from Date Required % Timely Total APD Total APD Total APD

2003

19,772 541 3,893 796 5,287 598 -- -- 2,723 207 5,573 507 2,296 380

2004

23,153 469 4, 478 743 6,167 601 200 43.6% 5,444 150 4,469 473 2,325 308

2005

22,974 411 4,832 669 6,381 479 191 59.1% 5,510 127 4,264 436 1,997 294

2006

19,119 367 4,283 624 4,857 426 135 62.3% 4,895 118 3,490 378 1,594 236

2007

15,805 355 3,228 585 4,445 403 120 63.4% 3,290 125 3,262 363 1,580 210

-- EEOC did not collect data showing the timely merit Final Agency Decisions until FY 2004.

An agency may also issue a decision after an investigation, either finding discrimination or finding no discrimination.  In FY 2007, agencies timely issued 63.4% of their final agency merit decisions, an increase from the 62.3% timely completed in FY 2006.  Commission regulations require agencies to issue final decisions within 60 days of a complainant's request for such a decision or Administrative Judge's remand for a final agency decision.  In addition, regulations require agencies to issue a final agency decision within 90 days after completion of an investigation if the complainant has not requested either a final decision or an EEOC hearing.  In FY 2007 agencies issued merit final agency decisions without an Administrative Judge's decision in an average of 120 days down from 135 days in FY 2006.

U. S. Postal Service Issued the Highest Percentage of Timely Merit Decisions Without an Administrative Judge Decision

In FY 2007, the U. S. Postal Service reported the highest percentage (96.9%) of timely issued merit decisions without an Administrative Judge decision.  The FY 2007 government-wide average timely issued merit decision percentage was 63.4% with the U.S. Postal Service and dropped to 41.6% without the U.S. Postal Service.  See Table 19 below.[18]  Agencies that issued fewer than 25 merit decisions without a hearing were not included in the ranking.  In FY 2007, there were no agencies smaller than cabinet/large (15,000 or more employees) that issued 25 or more merit decisions without an Administrative Judge Decision. See Table B-14 in Appendix III for this information on all agencies located at www.eeoc.gov.

Table 19 – Agencies With the Highest Percentage of Timely Issued Merit Decisions (Without an Administrative Judge Decision) in FY 2007
Agencies Total Work Force Merit Decisions without an AJ Decision
# Timely %

U.S. Postal Service

777,352 1,746 1,692 96.9%

Department of the Navy

204,751 130 125 96.2%

Department of Housing and Urban Development

8,747 35 30 85.7%

Defense Commissary Agency

15,714 26 21 80.8%

Department of Veterans' Affairs

252,661 511 335 65.6%

Finally, when an EEOC Administrative Judge has issued a decision, the agency must issue a final order either implementing the Administrative Judge's decision or not implementing and simultaneously appealing to EEOC.  In FY 2007, agencies issued 3,310 final orders implementing and 73 orders not implementing the Administrative Judge's decision.  Commission regulations require agencies to issue an order within 40 calendar days of receiving the Administrative Judge's decision or the decision becomes the agency's final decision.  In FY 2007, agencies issued orders in an average of 585 days after the complaint was filed, a significant drop from 796 days in FY 2003.

h. % of Findings of Discrimination and Monetary Benefits on the Rise

After declining for the first time in five years in FY 2006, the percentage of findings of discrimination rose in FY 2007 to 2.9%.  However, Table 20 below shows that both the total number of merit decisions and the number of findings of discrimination have decreased this year.

Table 20 – Amounts Awarded in Resolution of Formal EEO Complaints Before Appeals FY 2003 – FY 2007
Total Complaint Closures Findings of Discrimination Settlements Monetary Benefits
FY # Total Merit Decisions # % of Merits Decisions # % of Total Closures # Total Complaint Closures with Benefits % of Total Complaint Closures with Benefits Total (in millions) Per Capita

2003

19,772 9,180 264 2.9% 5,573 28.2% 5,823 29.5% $40.3 $6,926

2004

23,153 10,915 321 2.9% 4,469 19.3% 4,739 20.5% $29.7 $6,266

2005

22,974 11,213 345 3.1% 4,264 18.6% 4,525 19.7% $51.7 $11,417

2006

19,119 9140 224 2.5% 3,490 18.3% 3,634 19.0% $32.6 $8,978

2007

15,805 7,673 216 2.8% 3,262 20.6% 3,414 21.6% $36.4 $10,658

Average monetary benefits awarded in resolution of formal EEO complaints increased by 18.7% between FY 2006 and FY 2007 and by 53.9% from FY 2003.  Table 20 above shows the total monetary benefits awarded during the formal complaint process for the past five fiscal years, while Figure 4 indicates what portion of these benefits were for compensatory damages, attorney's fees and lump sum payments. 

Figure 4 – Monetary Benefits Awarded in the Formal Complaint Stage
FY 2003 – FY 2007

Imagen
i. Affirmation Rate of Final Agency Decisions on Appeal

As demonstrated by the Table 21 below, 68% of final agency decisions (FADs), excluding those in which an AJ issued a decision, were affirmed on appeal in FY 2007.  This represents an 8.8% increase from FY 2006 affirmation rate and a 12.1% decrease from FY 2003 affirmation rate.

Table 21 – Affirmation Rate of Final Agency Decisions on Appeal
FY 2003 – FY2007
Fiscal Year FADs Decided on Appeal FADs Affirmed on Appeal Percentage of FADs Affirmed on Appeal

FY 2003

3,599 2,888 80.2%

FY 2004

3,563 2,876 80.7%

FY 2005

3,316 2,595 78.3%

FY 2006

3,785 2,257 59.6%

FY 2007

2,591 1,773 68.4%

2. EEOC Hearings and Appeals: More Efficient Processing Times for Hearings and Lower Appellate Inventory

By federal regulation, EEOC becomes involved in the handling of an EEO complaint from a federal employee after the case initially has been processed by the employing agency and a hearing has been requested before an EEOC Administrative Judge or an appeal from a final agency action has been filed.

If a complainant requests a hearing, an EEOC Administrative Judge may oversee discovery between the parties and hold a hearing or issue a decision on the record.  If a hearing is held, the Administrative Judge will hear the testimony of witnesses, review relevant evidence, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a decision issued to the parties.  In appropriate cases, an Administrative Judge may, in lieu of holding a hearing, procedurally dismiss a case or issue a decision by summary judgment.

EEOC is also responsible for deciding appeals from final actions issued by federal agencies on complaints of employment discrimination.  These final actions may involve an agency's decision to procedurally dismiss a complaint, a final decision on the merits of a complaint when the complainant has not requested a hearing, or a decision on whether or not to fully implement the decision of an EEOC Administrative Judge.  Once appellate decisions are issued, EEOC monitors agency compliance with all orders and takes appropriate action to enforce them.  EEOC's adjudicatory responsibilities also include resolving allegations of a breach of a settlement agreement involving a federal sector EEO complaint, as well as deciding petitions for review of decisions involving claims of discrimination by the Merit Systems Protection Board and petitions for review of final grievance decisions when claims of discrimination are permitted to be raised in the grievance procedure. 

In addition to and equally important to its adjudicatory role, is EEOC's engagement in vigorously assisting federal agencies in the proactive prevention of discrimination.  EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO) provides outreach, technical assistance and oversight to federal agencies, including conducting program reviews throughout the federal government to evaluate agencies' efforts to develop and maintain model EEO programs.  OFO monitors and evaluates agencies' activities to identify and correct barriers to equal opportunity, reasonable accommodation procedures for individuals with disabilities, and ADR programs.  OFO also gathers and analyzes data provided by federal agencies on employment trends and EEO complaint processing; issues periodic reports which are publicly available; and works with individual agencies to identify both positive and negative trends in their EEO programs.  In addition, through EEOC's Revolving Fund, OFO develops and delivers training to federal agencies and other interested parties on a wide variety of federal-sector EEO topics.

a. Hearings
i. Hearings Inventory on the Rise

The hearings inventory increased from 4,912 in FY 2006 to 5,505 in FY 2007, which represents an increase of 12.1%.  Since FY 2003, the hearings inventory has fallen by 35% from a five year high of 8,467 cases.

Figure 5 – Hearings Inventory
FY 2003 – FY 2007

Imagen
ii.  Hearing Requests Increase

Hearing requests increased by 0.8% from 7,802 in FY 2006 to 7,869 in FY 2007, and have decreased by 20.7% from FY 2003.  For comparison purposes, the 7,869 hearings requested comprised 48.1% of the total complaints filed in FY 2007.

Figure 6 – Comparison of Requests for EEOC Hearings to Complaints Filed
FY 2003 – FY 2007

Imagen
iii. Hearing Closures

During FY 2007, EEOC's Hearings Program resolved 7,163 cases, including 48 class actions, which represents a 17.5% decrease from the 8,685 cases closed in FY 2006 and a 41.4% decrease from the 12,230 cases closed in FY 2003.  Excluding the class actions, the 7,115 individual cases in FY 2007 were closed in the following manner: 12.9% were by decision following a hearing; 29.1% were by decisions on the record; 25.9% were closed by settlements; 15.0% were by procedural dismissal; and 17.1% were withdrawals.  See Table 22 for a comparison of FY 2003 – FY 2007.

Table 22 – Hearings Program Individual Case Closures: FY 2003 – FY 2007
Closure Type FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
# % # % # % # % # %

Decisions Following a Hearing

1,974 16.3 1,655 14.2 1,268 12.5 1,102 12.8 920 12.9

Decisions On the Record

2,804 23.1 3,481 30.0 3,272 32.3 2,883 33.4 2,067 29.1

Settlements

3,951 32.6 3,180 27.4 2,546 25.1 2,071 24.0 1,846 25.9

Procedural Dismissals

1,551 12.8 1,550 13.3 1,336 13.2 1,183 13.7 1,065 15.0

Withdrawals

1,844 15.2 1,760 15.1 1,721 17.0 1,380 16.0 1,217 17.1

Total Individual Case Closures

12,124   11,626   10,143   8,619   7,115  
iv. Average Processing Time for Hearings

The average processing time for hearing closures improved from 274 days in FY 2006 to 248 days in FY 2007, and represents a significant decrease from the 421 days in FY 2003.  The average age of the pending inventory increased to 276 days in FY 2007 from 202 days in FY 2006, and is still lower than the 296 days in FY 2003 and FY 2004.

Figure 7 - Average Processing Days for Hearings
FY 2003 - FY 2007

Imagen
v.  Agencies Challenge Findings of Discrimination

In FY 2007, EEOC Administrative Judges issued 182 decisions finding discrimination, which was 6.1% of all decisions on the merits of complaints.  In comparison to the 203 decisions finding discrimination that Administrative Judges issued in FY 2006, the 182 decisions in FY 2007 represent a 10.3% decrease.  Agencies may either fully implement or appeal the Administrative Judge's decision to the OFO.  In FY 2007, agencies appealed only 2.2% of all Administrative Judge decisions; however, they appealed 36.8% of the cases where an Administrative Judge found discrimination.

Table 23 - Agency Actions on Administrative Judge Decisions FY 2003 - FY 2007
FY Finding Discrimination[19] Finding No Discrimination Totals
Implemented Appealed Implemented Appealed Implemented Appealed
# % # % # % # % # % # %

2003

159 63.3% 92 36.7% 3,639 99.9% 3 0.1% 3,798 97.6% 95 2.4%

2004

124 71.3% 50 28.7% 4,515 98.7% 59 0.3% 4,639 97.8% 109 2.2%

2005

182 69.7% 79 30.3% 4,567 99.9% 4 0.1% 4,749 98.3% 83 1.7%

2006

108 57.5% 80 42.5% 4,089 99.9% 6 0.1% 4,197 98.0% 86 2.0%

2007

110 63.2% 64 36.8% 3,046 99.7% 8 0.3% 3,156 97.8% 72 2.2%
vi. Monetary Benefits Decrease at Hearings

In FY 2007, Administrative Judge decisions and settlements at the hearings stage awarded $39.9 million in benefits, as compared to the $51.9 million in FY 2006 and the $52.4 million awarded in FY 2003.  Note that benefits awarded by decisions of Administrative Judges at the hearings stage are preliminary, pending a decision on implementation by the agency or on appeal.

Figure 8 - Monetary Benefits Awarded from Hearings (In Millions of Dollars)
FY 2003 - FY 2007

Imagen
vii.  High Affirmation Rate of AJ Decisions on Appeal

As demonstrated by the table below, over 94% of Administrative Judge's decisions were affirmed on appeal in FY 2007.[20]  After a three-year decline in affirmed Administrative Judge's decisions, FY 2007 saw a slight increase, up 0.4% from FY 2006.  While the number of appealed Administrative Judge's decisions decreased 26.4% over the five year period FY 2003 to FY 2007, the affirmation rate decreased by only 1.4%.

Table 24 – Affirmation Rate of AJ Decisions on Appeal
FY 2003 - FY 2007
Fiscal Year AJ Decisions Appealed AJ Decisions Affirmed on Appeal % of AJ Decisions Affirmed on Appeal
Total Appeal By Agency[21] Appeal By Appellant Total Appeal By Agency Appeal By Appellant Total Appeal By Agency Appeal By Appellant

2003

1,772 123 1,649 1,703 87 1,616 96.1% 70.7% 98.0%

2004

1,828 152 1,676 1,741 107 1,634 95.2% 70.4% 97.5%

2005

1,712 93 1,619 1,616 71 1,545 94.4% 76.3% 95.4%

2006

1,443 58 1,384 1,361 47 1,313 94.3% 81.0% 95.0%

2007

1,305 76 1,229 1,236 64 1,172 94.7% 84.2% 95.4%
b. Appeals
i. Appeals Inventory Declines

OFO's appellate inventory fell in FY 2007 to 3,496, which represents a 10.1% decrease from the 3,887 case inventory at the close of FY 2006 and an 8.7% reduction from the 3,831 case inventory at the close of FY 2003.

Figure 9 - Appellate Inventory FY 2003 - FY 2007

Imagen
ii. Appeal Receipts Continue On A Downward Trend

OFO received 5,226 appeals in FY 2007, representing a 22.5% decrease from the 6,743 appeals filed in FY 2006.  FY 2007 appeal receipts represent a 25.7% decrease from the 7,035 appeals received in FY 2003. 

Figure 10 – Comparison of Appeals Receipts to Complaint Closures
FY 2003 - FY 2007

Imagen
iii. Appeal Closures Remain Steady

OFO closed a total of 5,617 appellate cases in FY 2007.  Of this number, 3,690 (65.7%) alleged violations of Title VII; 1,303 (23.2%) involved the Rehabilitation Act; 1,293 (23.0%) violations of the ADEA; and 25 (0.4%) involved the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  In FY 2006, OFO closed a total of 6,466 appellate cases, of which 5,118 were Title VII cases (79.2%); 1,703 involved the Rehabilitation Act (26.3%); 1,721 alleged violations of the ADEA (26.6%); and two involved the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (0.03%).[22]  See Figure 11 for the appeal closures from FY 2003 to FY 2007.

Figure 11 - Appeal Closures FY 2003 - FY 2007

Imagen

Table 25 below provides a breakdown by appeal type of all FY 2007 receipts and closures.

Table 25 - Types of Receipts and Appeals FY 2007
Types of Appeals Receipts Closures
# % of Total # % of Total

Total

5,226   5,617  

Initial Appeals from Complainants

4,038 77.3 4,434 78.9

Initial Appeals from Agencies

82 1.6 91 1.6

Petitions to Review MSPB Decisions

127 2.4 126 2.2

Appeals from a Grievance/Arbitration of FLRA Decisions

6 0.1 2 0.04

Petitions for Enforcement

29 0.6 33 0.6

Requests for Reconsiderations

944 18.3 931 16.8

In FY 2007, OFO closed 2,298 appeals addressing the merits of the underlying discrimination claims, and made a total of 114 findings of discrimination, which represents 5.0% of the total.  In FY 2006, OFO closed 2,637 appeals addressing the merits of the underlying discrimination claims, and made a total of 134 findings of discrimination, which represented 5.1% of the total.  In FY 2007, OFO reversed 22.1% of the 2,758 appeals of procedural dismissals.

iv. Average Processing Time of Appeal Closures

The average processing time for appeal closures rose to 230 days in FY 2007, representing a 4.5% increase from 220 days in FY 2006 and a 19.3% decrease from 285 days in FY 2003. 

OFO resolved 3,413 (60.8%) of the 5,617 appeals closed in FY 2007 within 180 days.  The average age of the pending inventory at the end of FY 2007 was 305 days, a 48.8% increase from the 205-day average age at the end of FY 2006 and a 60.5% increase from the 190-day average age of the open inventory at the end of FY 2003.

Figure 12 - Average Processing Days on Appeal
FY 2003 - FY 2007

Imagen
v. Three Most Prevalent Bases and Issues on Appeal Remain Unchanged

In FY 2007, just as in FY 2006, reprisal, age and disability were the most prevalent bases of discrimination in closed appeals.  Harassment (non-sexual), promotion and removal were again the three most prevalent issues of discrimination in closed appeals.

vi. $10.7 Million Awarded on Appeal

In FY 2007, the $10.7 million in monetary benefits awarded in compliance with appellate decisions (including settlement agreements resolving appeals) is a decrease of 8.5% from the $11.7 million awarded in FY 2006 and a 48.8% decrease from the $20.9 million awarded in FY 2003.

Figure 13 - Monetary Benefits Awarded from Appeals[23]
FY 2003 - FY 2007 (In Millions of Dollars)

Imagen
vii. Training and Outreach Conducted By EEOC

In FY 2007, EEOC staff members informed a large number of federal employees of their rights and responsibilities under the EEO process, affirmative employment programs and laws that the Commission enforces.  EEOC's proactive prevention activities targeted multiple agencies, and provided to agency managers and supervisors a better understanding of how to prevent employment discrimination within their workplace.  OFO staff members as well as staff from various EEOC offices throughout the country provided these training sessions.

Specifically, staff members conducted 89 training sessions reaching 2,696 federal employees, including 209 new EEO counselors, 174 new EEO investigators and 182 EEO professionals in affirmative employment programs.  Additionally, staff members participated in 22 outreach sessions which reached another 1,655 individuals.

OFO staff members also responded to more than 8,809 calls regarding the EEO complaint/appeals process, thereby providing the federal sector EEO community and employees with timely information.  Additionally, in FY 2007 EEOC staff members provided 42 agencies and subcomponents with a written trend assessment of their FY 2006 MD-715 reports.  Staff also provided technical assistance for affirmative employment programs through 24 in-person visits and 2,273 telephonic and email responses.

The Commission's training and outreach information can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/outreach.

Section F - Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

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

1. 93% of Submitted EEOC 462 Reports Were Timely

EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.602(a) requires agencies to report to the EEOC information concerning pre-complaint counseling, ADR, and the status, processing, and disposition of complaints under this part at such times and in such manner as the Commission prescribes. 

The requirement to file an EEOC Form 462 Report applies to all federal agencies and departments covered by 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(b).  This includes Executive agencies as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, military departments as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102, the Government Printing Office, the Postal Rate Commission, the Smithsonian Institution, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the United States Postal Service, and those units of the judicial branch of the federal government having positions in the competitive service.  All covered agencies must file Form 462 Reports with the Commission.  EEOC Form 462 Reports are due on or before October 31st of each year. 

In FY 2007, 94 agencies (with 100 or more employees) were required to submit an EEOC Form 462 report and 87 or 92.6% did so timely.  The percentage of timely filing is down compared to FY 2006 when 91 agencies (with 100 or more employees) were required to submit an EEOC Form 462 report and 86 or 94.5% submitted them timely.

2. 50% of Submitted FY 2006 MD-715 Reports Were Timely

EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.601(g) requires agencies to report to the EEOC "on employment by race, national origin, sex, and handicap in the form and at such times as the Commission may require."  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, eliminating barriers, and ability to conducting 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.

50% or 84 of the 167 agencies and subcomponents submitted timely MD-715 reports in FY 2006 down from the 68% or 107 of the 158 agencies and subcomponents that timely submitted in FY 2005. 


[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, 2007 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] 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).

[5] 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 Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islander."  Additionally, the remainder of the tables will not include data on persons of Two or More Races unless their participation rate was at least 0.02%.

[6] 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.

[7]  Where an EEO group has a low participation rate in the feeder grade/applicant pool, there is a strong likelihood that the group will be absent or have a low participation rate in the next higher grade level.  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).

[8]Table 8 identifies participation rates based on total work force for FY 2000 – FY 2007.  For years prior to FY 2000, the data reflects participation rates based on permanent employees only.  The total work force figures are as reported in CPDF plus AAFES & the Foreign Service.

[9] Concerns involving both claims of discrimination and agency actions appealable to the U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board follow one of the processes set forth at 29 C.F.R. §1614.302.

[10] There are several reasons an agency may dismiss a complaint, including the complainant's failure to state a claim, timely contact an EEO counselor, or failure to provide necessary information to the agency.  See 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a).

[11] The 180-day period may be extended by 90 days if both parties agree.  See 29 C.F.R. §1614.108(e).  The regulations also extend the 180-day time limit for consolidated and amended complaints to the earlier of 180 days from the date of the most recent consolidated or amended complaint, or 360 days from the date of the earliest pending complaint.  See  29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f).

[12] See Jeffery M. Senger, Federal Dispute Resolution: Using ADR with the United States Government, 1-7 (Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons, 2003).

[13] Counseling may be provided via EEO Counselor or ADR Intake Officer.

[14] Complaints may contain multiple bases and issues.

[15] For example, time-consuming procedures may appear in lengthy approval of investigative plans, or cumbersome procurement processes.

[16] Twenty one agencies with fewer than 25 total investigations timely completed 100% of their investigations.

[17] This figure was incorrectly reported as 68% in the FY 2006 Annual Report.

[18] We note that fourteen agencies issued 100.0% of their merit decisions in a timely fashion but issued fewer than 25 total merit decisions.

[19] These numbers do not parallel Administrative Judge findings of discrimination because agencies may not take final action in the same fiscal year as the decision was issued.  Also agencies may settle a complaint where the Administrative Judge has found discrimination.

[20] Administrative Judge's decisions reported here do not include Petitions for Enforcement.

[21] "Appeal By Agency" occurs when the agency does not fully implement the Administrative Judge's decision.

[22] The number and percentage of resolutions by statute is greater than the number of cases closed, because one or more statutory bases may be alleged in each appeal.

[23] It should be noted that Hearings Benefits should not be added to Appeals Benefits for a grand total, as Hearings Benefits are only preliminary.


This page was last modified on February 4, 2009.