Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD-715

The purpose of the MD 715 Workforce Data Tables is to assist agencies in identifying triggers to be explored. Agency attention should be devoted to what the compiled data reveals about the agency and its workforce. The process of barrier identification and elimination is more important than the mere completion of the workforce data tables.

The agency workforce is reviewed and generally compared to appropriate comparators to seek indications of possible triggers, which must then be investigated by the agency. All agencies are expected to investigate triggers indicating barriers for any group and report them in Form 715-01, PART I. Agencies with 1,000 or more employees are also required to describe in PART J their Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Advancement of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities.

Tables A1, B1, A8 and B8 have separate sections for permanent and for temporary employees. Those agencies with temporary employees must file two sets of Tables A4, A5, A6, A7, B4, B5, B6, and B7, one for permanent employees, and one for temporary employees. Complete Tables A2, A3-1, A3-2, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, B2, B3-1, B3-2, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, and B14 for permanent employees only.

Tenure codes 1 and 2 are considered permanent employee status. Any part time, intermittent, or seasonal employee with tenure code 1 or 2 is reported as permanent.

All analysis of the data tables should be based on the ratios,
not the numbers. The ratio for each group is computed by dividing
the number of employees in the group by the total number of
employees for that particular row. Generally, all ratios are
computed **across** the row. Thus, the number of
employees in the group is divided by the total number of employees
in the row to get the ratio for the group.

However, in Tables A3-2, A4-2, A5-2, B3-2, B4-2 and B5-2, the
distribution is computed as a ratio of the total workforce, down
the Total column. The ratios for each group is computed
**down** the column for that group and not across the
rows.

For example, Table A4-1 depicts the total number of employees at a grade level and what percent of all employees at that grade level are represented by the particular group in the column above. Accordingly, the denominator for Table A4-1 is the total number of employees in that particular grade. Table A4-2, on the other hand, depicts what percentage of the particular group are in each grade. Thus, the denominator for Table A4-2 is the total number individuals within a particular group in the agency's workforce.

The remainder of this document provides guidance for completing and analyzing each table. Employee numbers should be obtained from the agency workforce data and personnel action data. Applicant data is obtained through a separate tracking system. Ratios are calculated as described in the preceding paragraph.

Enter the current and prior year workforce numbers and
percentages. Lines should total 100% **across** rows.
Compute ratios by dividing the number in each group by the total
for that line (in the "All" column). Numbers for Current FY
Permanent, Temporary, and Non-Appropriated fund employees should
total up to the numbers in the Total-Current FY row.

In the "Difference" row, enter the difference between the prior year employee numbers and the current year employee numbers. If the current year numbers are smaller, show the difference as a negative number. On the percentage line, show the difference between the ratios for the current year and the prior year.

Compute net change by dividing difference in employment numbers (current year vs prior year) by the number of employees in the prior year. If a group decreased, the net change is a negative; add a minus sign. For a detailed explanation of computing net change and examples, please see the Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD 715 Section III, Page 14 of 15.

If a group has a net change lower than the net change for the total workforce, it is a trigger of the possible existence of a barrier. A current workforce ratio below the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) for any group is another trigger.

Complete the tables and do the analysis in the same manner as for Table A1, except the ratio of employees with targeted disabilities is compared to the prior year's Federal high. (In FY 2003, the Federal high was 2.27%.) A ratio of employees with targeted disabilities below the Federal high is a trigger. A lower net change for targeted disabilities is also a trigger, indicating a possible barrier.

The purpose of **Tables A2 and B2**
is to compare the permanent workforce distribution within each
component with the availability rate (the Civilian Labor Force), to
determine if possible hiring or retention barriers exist in
specific components.

Please note that all agencies must report their components on Table 2, regardless of whether the components are included on the list of second level agencies that must report.

Enter total workforce distribution and distribution by
component. For most agencies, components are the major agency
segments. Depending on the agency, these are Regions, Bureaus,
Operating Divisions, or Services, etc. Numbers for the components
should total up to the Total for the agency. Ratios are computed
**across** rows. When one or more components has a
lower ratio of a group than the other components, it is a
trigger.

Complete the same way as A2. All agencies with a ratio of employees with targeted disabilities below the Federal high are expected to report barriers for this group. When one or more components has a lower ratio of employees with targeted disabilities than the other components, it is a trigger.

Employees with supervisory or managerial status are reported in the first occupational category - supervisors and managers. The number and ratio of supervisors who are at GS 15 and above are listed in the first two lines. The number and ratio of supervisors in GS 13 and 14 are reported in the second two lines. The number and ratio of supervisors who are at GS 12 and below are reported in the third two lines. An agency may also choose to place employees who have significant policy-making responsibilities, but do not supervise other employees, in these three sub-categories.

The fourth sub-category, called "Other," contains employees in a number of different occupations which are primarily business, financial and administrative in nature, and do not have supervisory or significant policy responsibility. The number and ratio of employees in the "Other category (in occupational series that are in EEO category one but are not supervisors/policy makers) go in the next lines. The total for these four sub-categories is reported on the line "Officials and Managers TOTAL"

In **Table A3-1**, the ratios are computed
**across** the rows, because it compares the total
number of employees in an occupational category and what percentage
of all employees in that occupational category are represented by
the particular group. In **Table A3-2**, the ratios
are computed **down** the columns because it compares
the percentage of the particular group that are in each
occupational category.

These tables are completed in the same manner as A3-1 and A3-2, respectively. Ratios for employees with targeted disabilities are compared with ratios for employees with no disabilities. Lower ratios are triggers that must be investigated.

In **Table A4-1**, the ratios are computed
**across** the rows, because it compares the total
number of employees in a GS grade and what percentage of all
employees in that grade are represented by the particular group. In
**Table A4-2**, the ratios are computed
**down** the columns because it compares the
percentage of the particular group that are in each GS grade.

Agencies should analyze this data with an eye toward determining whether a "glass ceiling" exists for any group. In particular, low participation for a group in any of the senior grades (GS 13 and above) compared to the participation rate for the total work force in these grades is a trigger.

These tables are completed in the same manner as A3-1 and A3-2, respectively. Ratios for employees with targeted disabilities are compared with ratios for employees with no disabilities.

Agencies should analyze this data with an eye toward determining whether a "glass ceiling" exists for any group. In particular, low participation in any of the senior grades (GS 13 and above) compared to the participation rate for employees with no disabilities in these grades is a trigger.

Complete and analyze these tables in the same manner as A4-1 and A4-2, respectively. However, if an agency has more than one wage grade system and the systems are not compatible, it will be necessary to complete additional A5-1 and A5-2 Tables for each such system.

Complete and analyze these tables in the same manner as B4-1 and B4-2, respectively.

In **Tables A6 and B6**, agencies
examine the distribution of each group within major
occupations.

Every agency has employees who are in occupations that are essential to the mission of the agency. For example, at the General Accounting Office (GAO) accountants and auditors are mission related occupations and, therefore the job series for accountants (510) and auditors (511) are "major occupations" for GAO. Select five to seven of the agency's major occupations with the largest number of employees.

In the far left column, enter the job series. For each job
series, enter the employee distribution numbers and ratios, and the
appropriate CLF ratios for the occupational series. (Ratios are
calculated **across** each row.) If a group has a
participation rate below the CLF, it is a trigger.

For the same major occupations reported on Table A6, show the distribution by disability category. Compare the distribution ratio for employees with targeted disabilities with the ratio for employees with no disabilities. Lower ratios for employees with targeted disabilities compared to employees with no disabilities are triggers.

On the first line, enter the job series. Total the information
for all job announcements for that occupation/job series. Enter the
total number of applications received. On the next two lines, enter
the number and ratio of applicants who voluntarily self identified
their race/ethnicity and sex. (All ratios equal 100%
**across** the rows.) On the next lines, enter the
number and ratio of applicants who voluntarily identified and were
found to be qualified.

Discrepancies between the ratios of those who self-identified and those who were qualified are triggers indicating the possibility that barriers may exist due to, for example, inadequate recruitment activity or a problem in the screening process. Next, enter the number and ratio of individuals who were selected. A discrepancy between the ratios of those qualified and those selected is a trigger indicating the possibility that a barrier exists due to, for example, a disconnect between recruitment and hiring efforts.

As part of a long-standing effort to encourage agencies to hire
individuals with severe disabilities, the Federal government
provides special hiring options, called Special Appointing
Authorities. Schedule A is a Special Appointing Authority. These
options are for temporary appointment, with potential for
conversion to a permanent, career appointment. Individuals who do
not have a visible disability must provide documentation to show
that s/he has a severe disability. Thus, applicants for these
temporary positions self-identify. Agencies are required to track
this information and report it in Table B7. The second line
(ratios) is based on the numbers in the first line - the ratios
should equal 100% **across** the line. By comparing
the number and ratio of applications to the number and ratio of
hires, agencies can identify triggers.

Some individuals who apply competitively voluntarily identify
themselves as an individual with a disability. Of this group, those
with targeted disabilities should be reported here. The ratios
should equal 100% **across** the row. A discrepancy
between the ratio of those who applied and those hired is a
trigger.

When individuals are hired, each must be given a
self-identification form to complete. If an individual declines to
complete the form, the agency must complete it by visual
identification or, if available, information the employee provided
previously. Using information from this form, enter the number and
ratio of new hires for permanent, temporary, and non-appropriated
fund positions. Ratios should total 100% **across**
each line. Compare for each group the ratio on each line with their
ratio in the CLF, noting any discrepancies as triggers.

Complete this table the same as Table A8. Compare the ratio of individuals with targeted disabilities hired into each type of appointment with the ratios for individuals with no disabilities. Discrepancies indicate triggers.

For each of the job series, show the total number and
distribution of applications received from existing employees for
promotions in this job series. Then show the number and ratio of
those who qualified and those who were selected. The last line is
for the ratio of employees from each group who are eligible for the
vacancies (the relevant applicant pool). All ratios should total
100 percent **across** the row.

Each set of ratios is useful. A discrepancy between the ratios in the relevant applicant pool and the ratios for applicants can indicate a trigger related to the methods used in publicizing the opportunity or perceptions that deterred employees from applying. A discrepancy between ratios of those who were qualified and those who applied is a trigger. It could indicate, for example, that some employees are not receiving commensurate levels of experience or that the selection criteria impacts some groups in an adverse manner. A variance between the ratios of those selected and those who are in the relevant applicant pool is also a trigger.

This Table should be completed and analyzed in the same manner as Table A9.

In the first two rows, enter the number and ratios of employees in the career ladder who are eligible for a non-competitive promotion (i.e., employees who have not reached the top grade of the career ladder).

The remaining rows are for recording information on the impact
of delays in non-competitive promotions. An agency-wide policy to
delay career ladder promotions is acceptable, but agencies must
watch for situations that lead to delays for certain groups only.
Ratios are computed **across** the rows.

To complete this table, the agency must determine its policy for career ladder promotions - what is the minimum amount of time required in grade before a career ladder employee is eligible for a promotion? In the next two rows, enter the number and ratios of employees who have been in their pay grade for the minimum amount of time plus one to twelve months. Then enter the number and ratios of employees who have been in their pay grade for the minimum amount of time plus thirteen to 24 months. In the last two rows, enter the number and ratios of employees who have been in grade for the minimum amount of time plus 25 months or more.

Discrepancies between groups indicate a trigger.

Complete Table B10 in the same manner as table A10. Any discrepancies between employees with targeted disabilities and employees with no disabilities are triggers.

To complete this form, collect by pay grade the data on internal
selections for positions at the GS 13, GS 14, GS 15, and SES
levels. For each level, list the total number of applications, the
distribution (ratio) of applications received, the number of
applicants who were found to be qualified for the position, the
ratio of those qualified, the number selected for the position, and
the ratio of those selected. Ratio (percent) rows should equal 100%
**across** the row. On the last line, show the ratios
of the relevant pool. The relevant pool includes all employees in
the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for
the position(s) announced.

A discrepancy between the ratios of the relevant pool and the distribution (ratios) of groups from whom applications were received, individuals were found to be qualified, or individuals were selected indicate a trigger.

Complete Table B11 in the same manner as Table A11.

Career Development programs are those that, upon completion, qualify a participant for a promotion. One-time training courses that are not part of such a program are not to be included on this form.

In the first space, enter the number of slots available for
career development programs. On the next line, enter the
distribution ratios for employees in GS 5 to GS 12. (Ratios are
computed **across** rows.) Then enter the number and
ratios for those who applied and for those who were chosen to
participate in the career development. Compare the ratios. Repeat
the process for GS 13, GS 14, GS 15 and SES employees.
Discrepancies between the relevant pool and those who applied or
participated is a trigger.

Complete Table B12 in the same manner as Table A12.

Use **Tables A13 and B13** to examine
the distribution of awards.

The purpose of Table 13 is to examine the distribution of awards. Time-Off awards are Nature of Action Codes (NOAC) 846 and 847. Cash awards are NOACs 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 848, 849 and 871.

The first four lines are for time-off awards of nine hours or
less. Enter the number and ratio of employees who received time off
awards of nine hours or less. Ratios should equal 100%
**across** the rows. Then enter the total number of
hours given to each group, and the average number of hours. To
compute the average number of hours, for each group divide the
total hours by the number of employees in the group (from the first
full line). Compare the average number of hours. Discrepancies are
a trigger.

Complete the rest of the form and analysis in the same manner.

Complete and analyze Table B13 in the same manner as Table A13.

The purpose of Table 14 is to examine the distribution of separations from the permanent workforce. Enter the number and ratio of employees who separated voluntarily (transfer, retirement, etc.) The Nature of Action Codes (NOAC) for voluntary separations are 300, 301, 302, 303, 317. 350, 351, 352, 353, 355, and 390.

Enter the number and ratio of employees who separated
involuntarily (disciplinary dismissal). NOACs for involuntary
separations are: 304, 312, 330, 357, and 385. Ratios are computed
**across** the rows, If the agency experienced a
Reduction in Force (RIF) or similar downsizing activity (NOAC 356),
add two lines to the Table to report separations due to RIFs
separately from the terminations due to performance or disciplinary
issues. Add the employee numbers columns to obtain the number of
employees for the Total Separations line. Compute the distribution
ratios for Total Separations.

From Table A1, obtain Permanent Current FY data and ratios, and enter in the Total Workforce lines at the bottom of Table A14. Compare the total work force ratio for each group with the group ratios for voluntary and involuntary separations. A separation ratio higher than the group's Total work force ratio is a trigger.

Complete Table B14 in the same manner as Table A14. From Table B1, obtain the Permanent Current FY data and ratios, and enter in the Total Workforce lines at the bottom of Table B14. Separation ratios for employees with targeted disabilities that are higher than separation ratios for employees with no disabilities are a trigger.

*This page was last modified on July 20, 2004.*