Skip to content

Print   Email  Share

Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Part II
Work Force Statistics
Fiscal Year 2013

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. SUMMARY OF WORKFORCE STATISTICS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section A. Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

1. 78% of Agencies Issued EEO Policy Statements on an Annual Basis

2. 90% of Agencies Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures On the External Websites

Section B. Integration of EEO Into Agencies' Strategic Mission

1. 83% of EEO Directors Presented the State of the EEO Program to the Agency Head

Section C. Management and Program Accountability

1. 84% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

Section D. Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

1. Barrier Analysis

2. Composition of Federal Work Force

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

b. Senior Pay Levels: A New Data Source

c. General Schedule Positions

d. Federal Wage System Positions

e. Other Pay Systems

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Increases Slightly

Section E. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

1. 83% of Agencies and Subcomponents Timely Submitted MD-715 Reports

APPENDIX I GLOSSARY / DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX II FEDERAL SECTOR EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX III FEDERAL AGENCIES PROGRAM STATUS

APPENDIX IV FEDERAL WORK FORCE TABLES

PREFACE

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) was established bythe Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, with the mission of eradicating discrimination in the workplace. In the federal sector, EEOC enforces Title VII, as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age or older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees and applicants with disabilities and requires that reasonable accommodations be provided; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of genetic information.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD-715), issuedOctober 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, 2012, through September 30, 2013 and contains selected measures of agencies' progress toward model EEO programs.[1] The FY 2013 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.

Working within our mission as an oversight agency, EEOC strives to create a partnership with agencies. To prepare this report, the Commission relied on the following data: 1) work force data, as of September 30, 2013, obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI)[2] supplemented with data provided by the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Foreign Service, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United States Postal Service (USPS); 2) data from the 2010 EEO Special Files, and 3) EEO program data submitted by 178 federal agencies and subcomponents in their FY 2013 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715 reports).[3]

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

Beginning in FY 2011, the work force data is broken down by the following pay stems: 1) Senior Pay Level (computed using agencies' submitted and certified MD-715 Tables A & B-4 reporting and supplemented with CPDF data); 2) General Schedule rather than General Schedule and Related; 3) Federal Wage Schedule and 4) Other Pay Systems. All data for General Schedule and Other Pay Systems was revised to reflect the change in pay system categories reported in an effort to maintain the ability to track trends.

Finally, the Commission would like to extend its thanks to: 1) OPM for providing the work force data from the EHRI; 2) AAFES, FERC, Foreign Service, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), TVA, and USPS for providing their work force data; and 3) those agencies that timely submitted accurate and verifiable EEO program analysis data.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  • In FY 2013, there were over 2.7 million women and men employed by the federal government across the country and around the world.
    • 56.17% were men and 43.83% were women; the participation rate for women remained the same as last year's 43.83%.
    • 64.04% were White, 18.52% were Black or African American, 8.36% were Hispanic or Latino, 6.09% were Asian, 1.51% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.06% were persons of Two or More Races and 0.41% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
  • Between FY 2012 and FY 2013, women generally, including White and Hispanic or Latino women and also Hispanic or Latino men, remained below their overall availability in the national civilian labor force, as reported in the 2010 census (CLF).
  • Although the total number of federal employees with targeted disabilities declined in in FY 2013, their participation rate increased to 0.93% due to even larger declines in the total federal work force compared to the prior year. While the population of federal employees with targeted disabilities fell 0.32%, the total work force contracted by 2.21%. Although this marks the second straight year of increase, after a decade of declines, the work force participation rate of federal employees with targeted disabilities still fell far short of the 2.00% goal set by EEOC's LEAD initiative.
  • Of the total work force, 0.39% continued to hold senior pay level positions.
  • Of the total work force, 53.25% of employees occupied General Schedule (GS) pay system positions.
  • The average grade for permanent and temporary GS employees was 10.3. The following groups of employees had average grades lower than the government-wide average: Hispanic or Latino employees (10), Black or African American employees (9.6), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (9.1), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.7) and employees of Two or More Races (9.9). The average grade for Asian employees (10.8) and White employees (10.6) exceeded the government-wide average.[4]
  • The average GS grade for women increased to 9.8, still one grade below the average grade level for men of 10.8.
  • The average GS grade for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities remained 8.8, nearly one and a half grades below the government-wide average (for permanent and temporary employees) of 10.3.
  • Of the total work force, 9.35% of employees occupy positions in the Federal Wage System in FY 2013.
  • In FY 2013, of the total work force, 37.01% of employees occupied positions in Other Pay Systems (i.e. other than Senior Pay, GS and Federal Wage Systems).[5]
  • Of the 178 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2013 MD-715 report, 139, or 78.1% reported that they had issued an EEO policy on an annual basis, in comparison to 150, or 77.7% of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2012.
  • In FY 2013, agencies reported that reasonable accommodation procedures were posted on 161 or 90.5% of 178 federal agency and subcomponent's external websites up from the 72% or 139 found in FY 2012.
  • A state of the agency briefing to the agency head, required by MD-715, was conducted by 148 or 83.15% of the 178 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2013 MD-715 report, up from the 144 (74.6%) of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2012 MD-715 report.
  • In FY 2013, 149 (83.7%) of the 178 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports reported rating its managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO, in comparison to 150 (78%) of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2012.
  • In FY 2013, 70.2% or 125 of the 178 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports did so in a timely manner with extension granted to all agencies.[6] In FY 2012, 83% or 160 of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so by the September 30, 2013 extended deadline.

I - Summary of EEO Statistics in the
Federal Government

Section A - Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

Federal agencies must be forward-thinking in positioning themselves as the nation's employer of choice. Reaching all segments of our diverse population only strengthens an agency's ability to achieve its mission. EEOC's Management Directive 715 sets forth policy guidance and standards for establishing and maintaining effective affirmative programs of equal employment opportunity under Section 717 of Title VII and effective affirmative action programs under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

MD-715 requires agency heads and other senior management officials to demonstrate a firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment. Agencies must safeguard the principles of equal employment opportunity and ensure they become a part of everyday practices and a fundamental part of the agency's culture. All agency leaders must "own" their agencies' EEO program.

1. 78% of Agencies Issued EEO Policy Statements on an Annual Basis

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


Figure 1 - Percent of Agencies that Issued EEO Policy Statements On an Annual Basis FY 2009 - FY 2013

image003

Figure 1 above shows the number of agencies that issued EEO policy statements on an annual basis. Of the 178 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2013, 139 (78.1%) reported that they had issued an EEO policy statement annually and would continue to do so, in comparison to the 150 or 77.7% of 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted in FY 2012. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

2. 90.5% of Agencies Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures on the External Websites

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

Part G of the MD-715 report, the Self-Assessment Checklist, provides agencies with a comprehensive listing of the kinds of agency documents and systems that should be in place to operate a model EEO program. For example, the checklist asks, "Have the procedures for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities been made readily available/accessible to all employees by disseminating such procedures during orientation of new employees and by making such procedures available on the World Wide Web or Internet?" Of the 178 agency and sub-component MD-715 reports submitted, 161 or 90.45% reported they had posted the procedures on the external website.

Figure 2 below shows the number of agencies that posted reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites for the last five years. As shown, in FY 2013, the percentage of agencies that posted their reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites increased by 28.74 percentage points over FY 2009. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 2 - Percent of Agencies that Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures on the External Website FY 2009 - FY 2013

image004


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

1. 83% 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 178 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report for FY 2013, 148 (83.2%) indicated that the EEO Director had conducted the briefing, up slightly from the 144 (74.6%) of 193 in FY 2012. Figure 3 below shows the percentage of Agency Heads that were briefed on the state of EEO over the last five years. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 3 - Percent of Agency Heads Briefed on State of EEO FY 2009 - FY 2013

image006


Section C - Management and Program Accountability

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

1. 84% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

Section II(C) of MD-715 provides that a model EEO program must "evaluate managers and supervisors on efforts to ensure equality of opportunity for all employees." The success of an agency's EEO program ultimately depends on individual decisions made by its managers and supervisors. MD-715 makes it clear that all managers and supervisors share responsibility for the successful implementation of EEO programs. The EEO office serves as a resource for the managers and supervisors by providing direction, guidance and monitoring of key activities to achieve a diverse workplace free of barriers to equal opportunity. In evaluating managers and supervisors on these efforts, it is essential that such an evaluation include an assessment of how the manager contributes to the agency's EEO program.

Figure 4 - Percent of Agencies that Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on their Commitment to EEO FY 2009 - FY 2013

image008


In FY 2013, 149 (83.7%) of the 178 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports indicated that its managers and supervisors were rated on their commitment to EEO, in comparison to the 150 (77.7%) of the 193 agencies that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2012. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' statuses.

Section D - Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

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

1. Barrier Analysis

Pursuant to Section II(D) of MD-715, a model EEO program "must conduct a self-assessment on at least an annual basis to monitor progress and identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups." Part A(II) of MD-715 provides that "where an agency's self-assessment indicates that a racial, national origin, or gender group may have been denied equal access to employment opportunities, the agency must take steps to identify and eliminate the potential barrier." Similarly, Part B(IV) of MD-715 sets forth the same requirement to identify and eliminate barriers to individuals with disabilities.

EEOC defines barriers 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 discernible, most are embedded in the agency's day-to-day employment policies, practices and programs, including: recruitment; hiring; career development; competitive and noncompetitive promotions; training; awards and incentive programs; disciplinary actions; and separations.

2. Composition of the Federal Work Force

This year's report provides statistics on the composition of the Total Work Force as well as statistics on employees in four pay structures:

Senior Pay Level pay structures created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 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 created by the Classification Act of 1949, created a centralized job evaluation for all White-Collar positions and merged several separate schedules into one.

The Federal Wage System established by Public Law 92-392 in 1972 standardized 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 2013 Federal Work Force Pay Structure Participation Levels
# in Work Force % of Total Work Force
Total Work Force 2,743,527
Senior Pay Level 10,766 0.39
General Schedule and Related 1,460,893 53.25
Federal Wage System 256,454 9.35
Other Pay Systems 1,015,414 37.01

a. Total Work Force: Hispanics or Latinos, White Women Remain Below Availability

In FY 2013, the Federal Government had a Total Work Force of 2,743,527 employees, compared to 2,606,903 in FY 2004. Table 2 shows the participation rate of the identified groups below, as compared to the civilian labor force (CLF). Table A-1 in Appendix IV, located at https://www.eeoc.gov/, provides ten-year trend data.

Table 2 - Composition of Federal Work Force -
Ten-Year Trend: Some Progress, Little Overall Change
FY 2004 - FY 2013[7]
Work Force Participation Rate 2010 CLF
FY 2013 FY 2004 % FY 2013 %
Men

1,540,944

57.10

56.17

51.84

Women

1,202,583

42.90

43.83

48.16

Hispanic or Latino Men

136,220

4.48

4.97

5.17

Hispanic or Latino Women

93,134

2.98

3.39

4.79

White Men

1,052,100

40.71

38.35

38.33

White Women

704,975

26.19

25.70

34.03

Black or African American Men

218,019

7.81

7.95

5.49

Black or African American Women

290,061

10.37

10.57

6.53

Asian Men

94,417

3.32*

3.44

1.97

Asian Women

72,697

2.46*

2.65

1.93

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

6,364

*

0.23

0.07

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

4,924

*

0.18

0.07

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

18,353

0.77

0.67

0.55

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

23,119

0.90

0.84

0.53

Two or More Race Men

15,461

**

0.56

0.26

Two or More Race Women

13,673

**

0.50

0.28

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

25,608

0.99

0.93

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 of Appendix IV, located at https://www.eeoc.gov.[8]

b. Senior Pay Levels: A New Data Source

Beginning with the FY 2011 report the Senior Pay Level (SPL) data was primarily derived from agencies' submitted and certified MD-715 report Tables A & B-4 supplemented with SES data from OPM's CPDF. The change in data source requires caution when comparing data from FY 2010 or earlier against data from FY 2011 or later. With a total of 10,766 employees, the Senior Pay Level (SPL) positions comprise 0.39% of the total work force. SPL positions include the SES, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15, step 10 of the General Schedule. Table 3 below reflects the SPL representation. Table A-2 of Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/ contains additional data.

Table 3 - Senior Pay Level Representation
FY 2004 / FY 2013
Senior Pay Level (SPL) Positions
FY 2004 FY 2013
# in SPL % of SPL % of TWF # in SPL % of SPL % of TWF
Total SPL Work Force (#) 19,117 2,606,903 10,766 2,743,527
Men 14,194 74.25 57.10 7,327 68.06 56.17
Women 4,923 25.75 42.90 3,439 31.94 43.83
Hispanic or Latino 656 3.43 7.46 427 3.97 8.36
Hispanic or Latino Men 472 2.47 4.48 278 2.58 4.97
Hispanic or Latino Women 184 0.96 2.98 149 1.38 3.39
White 16,458 86.09 66.91 8,715 80.95 64.04
White Men 12,436 65.05 40.71 6,103 56.69 38.35
White Women 4,018 21.02 26.19 2,612 24.26 25.70
Black or African American 1,243 6.50 18.29 1,045 9.71 18.52
Black or African American Men 726 3.80 7.86 570 5.29 7.95
Black or African American Women 516 2.70 10.37 475 4.41 10.57
Asian 608* 3.18* 5.79* 389 3.61 6.09
Asian Men 445* 2.33* 3.32* 243 2.26 3.44
Asian Women 163* 0.85* 2.46* 136 1.26 2.65
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ** ** ** 14 0.13 0.41
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men ** ** ** 13 0.12 0.23
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women ** ** ** 1 0.01 0.18
American Indians or Alaska Native 155 0.81 1.67 105 0.98 1.51
American Indians or Alaska Native Men 113 0.59 0.77 68 0.63 0.67
American Indians or Alaska Native Women 40 0.21 0.90 37 0.34 0.84
Two or More Races ** ** ** 92 0.85 1.06
Two or More Races Men ** ** ** 63 0.59 0.56
Two or More Races Women ** ** ** 29 0.27 0.50
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 84 0.44 0.99 50 0.46 0.93

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

  • From FY 2004 to FY 2013, the Total SPL Work Force decreased by 8,351 employees, a net change of -43.68%. Comparatively, the number of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the SPL work force decreased from 84 in FY 2004 to 50 in FY 2013, a net change of -40.48%[9].
  • The participation rate for women in the SPL work force increased 24% over the ten-year period from 25.75% in FY 2004 to 31.94% in FY 2013, while women increased their participation rate in the total work force by 2.2% over the same ten-year period, from 42.90% in FY 2004 to 43.83% in FY 2013.[10]
  • Between FY 2004 and FY 2013, the participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in Senior Pay Level positions increased 15.7% over the ten-year period from 3.43% in FY 2004 to 3.97% in FY 2013. During the same period, the overall participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in the total work force increased 12.1%, from 7.46% in FY 2004 to 8.36% in FY 2013, although still remaining below the 2010 CLF. [11]
  • Over a ten-year period in the SPL, participation rates increased from 0.44% to 0.46% for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities, from 6.50% to 9.71% for Black or African American employees, from 3.18% to 3.74% for Asian employees, [12] and from 0.81% to 0.98% for American Indian or Alaska Native employees. The participation rate for White employees decreased from 86.09% in FY 2004 to 80.95% in FY 2013.

c. General Schedule Positions

  • With a total of 1,460,893 employees, the General Schedule (GS) positions comprised 53.25% of the total work force in FY 2013. GS positions are mostly comprised of positions whose primary duty requires knowledge or experience of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature. GS figures no longer include employees in other pay systems that easily converted to GS by OPM. The GS participation rate reflects an increase due in part to the conversion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) employees in military components back to the GS pay system.
Table 4 - General Schedule (GS) Representation FY 2004/ FY 2013
GS Positions
FY 2004 FY 2013
Number % of GS Number % of GS
Total GS Work Force 1,295,438 1,460,893
Men 639,817 49.36 763,879 52.29
Women 655,621 50.61 696,996 47.71
Hispanic or Latino 96,381 7.44 122,081 8.36
Hispanic or Latino Men 50,263 3.88 67,941 4.65
Hispanic or Latino Women 46,118 3.56 54,140 3.71
White 878,307 67.86 943,626 64.59
White Men 477,369 36.85 538,787 36.89
White Women 400,938 30.95 404,839 27.71
Black or African American 234,474 18.10 272,566 18.66
Black or African American Men 72,545 5.60 98,225 6.72
Black or African American Women 161,929 12.50 174,341 11.93
Asian 59,590* 4.60* 75,145 5.08
Asian Men 29,406* 2.27* 37,828 2.59
Asian Women 30,184* 2.27* 37,828 2.49
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ** ** 5,391 0.37
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men ** ** 2,775 0.19
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women ** ** 2,616 0.18
American Indian or Alaska Native 27,204 2.10 25,990 1.78
American Indian or Alaska Native Men 10,363 0.80 9,741 0.67
American Indian or Alaska Native Women 16,841 1.30 16,249 1.11
Two or More Races ** ** 17,094 1.17
Two or More Races Men ** ** 8,600 0.59
Two or More Races Women ** ** 8,494 0.58
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 16,840 1.13 16,127 1.10

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

  • In FY 2013, the GS participation rate for each group was Hispanic or Latino employees 8.36%; White employees 64.59%; Black or African American employees 18.66%; Asian employees 5.08%; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees 0.37%; American Indian or Alaska Native employees 1.78%; persons of Two or More Races 1.17%, and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 1.10%. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/, for the entire ten-year trend in the GS pay systems.
  • Women held 47.71% of all GS positions in FY 2013, a drop from the 50.61% held in FY 2004. Over the ten-year period, Hispanic or Latino employees, Black or African American and Asian employees gradually increased their representation rates in the GS work force.
  • Despite an upward trend in the last two years, the percentages of individuals with targeted disabilities have not recovered to where they were at the start of the decade. Over the ten year period, the participation rate for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the total work force declined from 0.99% to 0.93%, as their participation rate in the GS workforce declined from 1.13% to 1.10%.

Figure 5 - Average Grade in the General Schedule Positions
FY 2013

image010


  • The average GS grade level for Hispanic or Latino employees (10), Black or African American employees (9.6), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (9.1), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.7) and persons of Two or More Races (9.9) was lower than the government-wide average grade level (10.3) for the permanent and temporary work force.
  • The average GS grade for women rose to 9.8, more than half a grade below the government-wide average of 10.3, and one grade below men (10.8).
  • The average GS grade level for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities rose to 8.8, almost one and a half grades below the government-wide average. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/.

d. Federal Wage System Positions

  • With a total of 256,454 employees, Federal Wage System (FWS) positions comprised 9.35% of the total work force in FY 2013. FWS (Blue-Collar) positions are mostly comprised of trade, craft and labor occupations.
  • FY 2013 FWS positions increased 30.8% from FY 2004. Despite the increase, since FY 2004, the participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (6.67%); Whites (65.84%) and Black or African American employees (16.20%) have declined. See Table A-4 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/ for the complete ten-year trend.
Table 5 - Federal Wage System (FWS) Representation FY 2004 / FY 2013
Federal Wage System (FWS) Positions
FY 2004 FY 2013
Number % of FWS Number % of FWS
Total FWS Work Force 196,114 256,454
Men 174,914 89.19 204,093 79.58
Women 21,200 10.81 52,361 20.42
Hispanic or Latino 15,434 7.87 17,093 6.67
Hispanic or Latino Men 13,885 7.08 14,721 5.74
Hispanic or Latino Women 1,549 0.79 3,182 1.24
White 130,278 66.43 168,855 65.84
White Men 119,335 60.85 138,195 53.89
White Women 10,943 5.58 30,660 11.96
Black or African American 35,967 18.34 41,554 16.20
Black or African American Men 29,143 14.86 31,480 12.28
Black or African American Women 6,844 3.49 10,074 3.93
Asian 9,276* 4.73* 15,750 6.14
Asian Men 8,237* 4.20* 11,115 4.33
Asian Women 1,039* 0.53* 4,635 1.81
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ** ** 2,150 0.84
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men ** ** 1,820 0.71
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women ** ** 330 0.13
American Indian or Alaska Native 5,138 2.62 7,688 3.00
American Indian or Alaska Native Men 4,295 2.19 4,783 1.87
American Indian or Alaska Native Women 843 0.43 2,905 1.13
Two or More Races ** ** 2,554 1.00
Two or More Races Men ** ** 1,979 0.77
Two or More Races Women ** ** 575 0.22
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 2,412 1.23 2,631 1.03

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

  • In FY 2013, the participation rate of men in the FWS pay system was 27.29 percentage points higher than the participation rate of men in the GS pay system. Comparatively, FWS participation rates for White employees, Asian employees, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees, and American Indian or Alaska Native employees were higher than the GS participation rates, while the FWS work force participation rates for women, Black or African American employees, and Hispanic or Latino employees, and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were again lower than their respective GS participation rates.

e. Other Pay Systems

  • With a total of 1,015,414 employees, other pay systems (OPS) comprised 37.01% of the total work force in FY 2013. Other Pay Systems include pay banding and other pay-for-performance systems. The Other Pay Systems participation rate reflects a decrease due in part to the FY 2011 conversion of NSPS employees back to the GS pay system and likely due to the change in source data.
Table 6 - Other Pay Systems (OPS) Representation FY 2004 - FY 2013
Other Pay Systems (OPS) Positions
FY 2004 FY 2013
Number % of OPS Number % of OPS
Total OPS Work Force 973,289 1,015,414
Men 587,527 59.43 565,629 55.70
Women 401,076 40.57 449,788 44.30
Hispanic or Latino 76,814 7.77 88,954 8.76
Hispanic or Latino Men 49,035 4.96 53,291 5.25
Hispanic or Latino Women 27,879 2.82 35,663 3.51
White 633,002 64.03 635,885 62.62
White Men 391,882 39.64 369,021 36.34
White Women 241,120 24.39 266,864 26.28
Black or African American 194,359 19.66 192,919 19.00
Black or African American Men 98,069 9.92 87,746 8.64
Black or African American Women 96,290 9.74 105,171 10.36
Asian 74,076* 7.49* 76,840 7.57
Asian Men 43,696* 4.42* 45,231 4.45
Asian Women 30,350* 3.07* 31,609 3.11
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ** ** 3,733 0.37
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men ** ** 1,756 0.17
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women ** ** 1,977 0.19
American Indian or Alaska Native 10,380 1.05 7,689 0.76
American Indian or Alaska Native Men 4,943 0.50 3,761 0.37
American Indian or Alaska Native Women 5,437 0.55 3,928 0.39
Two or More Races ** ** 9,394 0.93
Two or More Races Men ** ** 4,819 0.47
Two or More Races Women ** ** 4,575 0.45
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 8,996 0.91 6,573 0.65

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

  • In FY 2013, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (8.76%), and Asian employees (7.57%) slowly rose over the last decade, while the participation rates for White employees (62.62%), Black or African American employees (19.00%) American Indian or Alaska Native employees (0.76%), and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (0.65%) fell from FY 2004 levels.
  • In FY 2013, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino and Asian employees were higher than in the GS and FWS pay systems. OPS participation rates for White employees, American Indian or Alaska Native employees and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were lower than those in the GS and FWS pay systems. OPS participation rates for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees were lower than those in FWS yet equal to those in the GS pay system. Black or African American employees' participation in OPS was lower than their GS participation rates, yet higher than their participation in FWS. See Table A-5 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/ for the complete ten-year trend.

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Increases Slightly

  • On July 26, 2010, the President issued Executive Order 13548, requiring federal agencies to develop a specific plan for promoting employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The plan shall include performance targets and numerical goals for employment of individuals with disabilities and sub-goals for employment of individuals with targeted disabilities.
  • From FY 2004 to FY 2013, the Total Work Force increased by 136,624 employees despite reductions the last several years, a net change of 5.24%. Comparatively, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities decreased from 25,917 in FY 2004 to 25,608 in FY 2013, a net change of -1.19%, yet resulting in a 0.93% participation rate. Only nine agencies have achieved the federal goal of at least a 2% participation rate for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities.
  • The EEOC again had the highest percentage of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (2.65%) among those agencies with 500 or more employees. Within the Defense components DFAS and AAFES also exceeded the 2% goal. 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 2,154 57 2.65
Defense Finance and Accounting Service 11,272 239 2.12
Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Service 32,161 664 2.06
Department of Veterans' Administration 337,683 6,691 1.98
Social Security Administration 62,543 1,236 1.98

Six agencies with fewer than 500 employees exceeded the 2% federal goal. They were the Architectural & Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (ACCESS Board), Committee for Purchase From People Blind or Severely Disabled, Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission, National Council on Disability, Office of National Drug Policy and Trade and Development Agency.

Table 8 below shows that the Department of Veterans' Affairs again this year had the highest participation rate (1.98%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities among the cabinet level agencies.

Table 8a below shows that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service had the highest participation rate (2.12%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities among the Department of Defense components.

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

Table 8 - Ranking Cabinet Level Agencies by IWTD
FY 2004 - FY 201[13]
Agencies Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1. Veterans Affairs*

# 3,692 3,566 3,566 3,758 3,985 4,241 4,650 5,201 5,996 6,691
% 1.56% 1.52% 1.49% 1.48% 1.43% 1.43% 1.51% 1.64% 1.85% 1.98%
2. Treasury*

# 2,105 1,964 1,842 1,748 1,827 1,864 1,918 1,865 1,804 1,723
% 1.99% 1.90% 1.82% 1.73% 1.70% 1.73% 1.75% 1.75% 1.72% 1.75%
3. Education*

# 73 63 59 59 59 55 60 61 58 59
% 1.59% 1.42% 1.36% 1.36% 1.36% 1.30% 1.32% 1.32% 1.33% 1.39%
4. Labor*

# 206 207 186 193 188 171 188 205 223 219
% 1.30% 1.35% 1.21% 1.25% 1.22% 1.07% 1.13% 1.26% 1.33% 1.35%
5. Housing & Urban Development

# 139 134 130 126 116 107 121 106 101 92
% 1.36% 1.35% 1.32% 1.31% 1.19% 1.12% 1.21% 1.09% 1.09% 1.05%
6. Health & Human Services

# 651 624 576 596 596 592 672 747 869 861
% 1.02% 0.97% 0.91% 0.81% 0.79% 0.75% 0.81% 0.87% 1.01% 1.00%
7. Interior*

# 692 678 684 700 689 699 750 718 727 687
% 0.89% 0.88% 0.94% 0.97% 0.93% 0.91% 0.95% 0.93% 0.94% 0.96%
8. Agriculture

# 1,068 1,000 1,009 965 893 883 924 965 971 915
% 0.95% 0.91% 0.96% 0.93% 0.85% 0.83% 0.85% 0.92% 0.96% 0.94%
9. Commerce

# 319 358 334 323 337 385 376 386 352 351
% 0.84% 0.89% 0.82% 0.78% 0.79% 0.78% 0.76% 0.81% 0.78% 0.76%
10. Defense* # 5,747 5,643 6,053 5,817 5,894 6,096 6,261 6,144 5,916 5,790
% 0.84% 0.81% 0.86% 0.83% 0.82% 0.80% 0.89% 0.76% 0.75% 0.76%
11. Energy # 119 116 111 122 118 120 124 119 109 105
% 0.79% 0.77% 0.74% 0.82% 0.76% 0.76% 0.75% 0.73% 0.76% 0.75%
12. Transportation # 322 298 285 302 315 340 404 428 413 391
% 0.56% 0.55% 0.53% 0.56% 0.57% 0.59% 0.70% 0.74% 0.72% 0.71%
13. Justice* # 406 406 413 412 408 421 452 456 469 487
% 0.39% 0.39% 0.39% 0.39% 0.38% 0.37% 0.39% 0.39% 0.40% 0.42%
14. Homeland Security # 740 720 709 674 692 727 744 775 769 739
% 0.45% 0.44% 0.42% 0.41% 0.39% 0.39% 0.39% 0.39% 0.39% 0.38%
15. State* # 93 90 88 84 84 79 88 87 86 80
% 0.39% 0.37% 0.36% 0.33% 0.34% 0.31% 0.30% 0.28% 0.27% 0.30%
Total Work Force* # 25,917 25,142 24,442 23,993 24,427 24,663 25,217 25,485 25,687 25,608
% 0.99% 0.96% 0.94% 0.92% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.90% 0.92% 0.93%

* This agency showed an increase in the number and/or participation rate of IWTD in FY 2013.

Table 8a - Ranking of DOD Sub-Components by IWTD
FY 2004 - FY 2013[14]
Agencies Fiscal Year (FY)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1.Defense Finance & Accounting Service*

# 275 271 261 253 243 238 246 238 227 239
% 2.05% 2.02% 1.99% 2.03% 2.04% 1.95% 1.91% 1.94% 1.94% 2.12%
2. Army & Air Force Exchange Service

# 628 597 604 556 706 805 847 793 728 664
% 1.87% 1.69% 1.65% 1.62% 2.00% 2.27% 2.39% 2.24% 2.12% 2.06%
3.Defense Logistics Agency*

# 449 430 413 404 409 418 416 409 410 415
% 2.07% 2.00% 1.92% 1.89% 1.78% 1.65% 1.65% 1.60% 1.62% 1.71%
4. Defense Commissary Agency*

# 158 141 142 123 124 141 170 229 219 201
% 1.07% 0.92% 0.92% 0.82% 0.82% 0.91% 1.09% 1.52% 1.54% 1.55%
5. Defense TRICARE Management Activity*

# -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 66 64 61
% -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.87% 1.09% 1.09% 1.10%
6. Defense Contract Management Agency

# 149 146 127 121 120 122 123 123 117 110
% 1.34% 1.39% 1.29% 1.27% 1.28% 1.22% 1.17% 1.20% 1.12% 0.96%
7. Office of the Inspector General

# 13 13 15 18 17 18 19 16 18 14
% 1.02% 0.95% 1.08% 1.28% 1.12% 1.14% 1.17% 1.04% 1.13% 0.90%
8. Defense Contract Audit Agency

# 52 48 41 40 39 39 41 46 44 41
% 1.28% 1.17% 1.02% 0.98% 0.94% 0.90% 0.87% 0.95% 0.85% 0.84%
9. Defense Information Systems Agency

# 60 53 62 53 55 53 54 56 56 51
% 1.15% 1.08% 1.15% 0.95% 0.97% 0.91% 0.87% 0.87% 0.87% 0.83%

10. Department of the Navy*

# 1,562 1,500 1,430 1,380 1,398 1,423 1,427 1,387 1,396 1,387
% 0.88% 0.86% 0.82% 0.80% 0.78% 0.75% 0.72% 0.69% 0.70% 0.71%
11. Defense Media Activity*

# -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 3 4 4
% -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.89% 0.52% 0.63% 0.66%

12. Department of the Air Force*

# 1,196 1,174 1,123 1,042 953 934 932 936 911 1,006
% 0.80% 0.75% 0.71% 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.55% 0.53% 0.53% 0.60%

13. Department of the Army

# 1,710 1,756 1,724 1,719 1,714 1,786 1,837 1,725 1,612 1,487
% 0.75% 0.74% 0.72% 0.71% 0.67% 0.65% 0.64% 0.61% 0.58% 0.57%

14. Defense Security Service*

# 16 7 8 6 6 6 6 3 4 5
% 0.84% 1.33% 1.47% 1.14% 1.04% 0.83% 0.70% 0.34% 0.46% 0.57%

15. Defense Missile Defense Agency*

# -- -- -- -- -- 10 10 12 11 13
% -- -- -- -- -- 0.69% 0.49% 0.54% 0.47% 0.53%

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

# 39 41 45 54 60 42 40 40 40 40
% 0.78% 0.71% 0.69% 0.71% 0.71% 0.71% 0.54% 0.52% 0.49% 0.46%

17. Defense Human Resource Activity*

# 6 4 4 3 4 3 7 7 5 7
% 0.78% 0.50% 0.45% 0.34% 0.44% 0.29% 0.59% 0.56% 0.33% 0.43%

18. Defense Threat Reduction Agency

# 7 10 10 7 9 10 10 9 8 5
% 0.84% 0.90% 0.86% 0.63% 0.75% 0.83% 0.76% 0.72% 0.62% 0.39%

19. Defense Education Activity

# 56 41 44 37 37 42 57 46 46 40
% 0.32% 0.25% 0.27% 0.24% 0.24% 0.28% 0.35% 0.29% 0.27% 0.26%

* These Defense Sub-Components showed an increase in the number and/or participation rate of IWTD in FY 2013. - No data available.

Section E - Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

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

1. 70% of Agencies and Subcomponents Timely Submitted MD-715 Reports

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

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

In FY 2013, 70.2% or 125 of the 178 agencies and sub-components that submitted a MD-715 report did so in a timely manner. In FY 2012, 82.9% or 160 of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so by the September 30, 2013 extended deadline. In FY 2013, agencies were granted extensions on a case-by-case basis not to exceed April 4, 2014. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' statuses.

Figure 6 - Average Grade in the General Schedule Positions
FY 2009 - FY 2013

image012


II. Profiles for Selected Federal Agencies

Profiles for select federal agencies are not available for the FY 2013 report.


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

[2] The September 30, 2013 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.

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

[5] In FY 2011, other related pay plans were no longer reclassified into the General Schedule and Related pay system and were calculated into the Other Pay Systems numbers.

[6] The deadline for submitting MD-715 reports is January 31 of each year. Extensions were granted to April 4, 2014.

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

[8] This table reports breakouts of the employment data for 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, and the United States Postal Service.

[9] The source for the FY 2012 - 2013 Senior Level Pay system changed and thus these comparisons require caution.

[10] The number women in the SPL work force decreased 30.14% over the ten-year period from FY 2004 (4,923) to FY 2013 (3,439), while women increased their numbers in the total work force by 7.53% over the same ten-year period, from 1,118,361 in FY 2004 to 1,202,583 in FY 2013.

[11] Between FY 2004 and FY 2013, the number of Hispanic or Latino employees in Senior Pay Level positions decreased 34.91% over the ten-year period from FY 2004 (656) to FY 2013 (427). During the same period, the overall number of Hispanic or Latino employees in the total work force increased 17.94%, although still remaining below the 2010 CLF.

[12] The FY 2013 participation rate for Asian employees is combined with the participation rate of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander for comparison purposes. Separate data for each group was not available until FY 2006.

[13] Table 8 identifies participation rates for FY 2004 - FY 2013 which reflects total work force numbers. The total work force figures are as reported in EHRI plus AAFES & the Foreign Service of the Department of State.

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