Improving the Participation Rate of People with Targeted Disabilities in the Federal Work Force

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Background

I.  Agencies Required Under Law to Be Model Employers of PWTD

1. Affirmative Action Program
2. Individuals with a Reportable Disability
3. Individuals with a Targeted Disability
4. Initiatives to Improve Equal Opportunity for People with Disabilities

II. Statistics Related to PWTD in the Federal Workforce

1. Participation Rate of PWTD Has Fallen to 0.94% of Total Work Force
2. Federal Agencies Are Not Establishing Goals for PWTD
3. Participation Rate for PWTD Among Cabinet Level Agencies
4. PWTD Are Employed at Grade Levels Below Government-Wide Average
5. Mental Illness and Deafness Represent 42% of All Targeted Disabilities
6. Schedule A Hiring Authority Under Utilized
7. Separations of PWTD Are Close to Twice the Rate of New Hires
8. Promotions for PWTD Decreased Disproportionately as Compared to the Federal Work Force
9. PWTD Received a Smaller Increase in the Percentage of Awards as Compared to the Total Work Force
10. Harassment Is Most Frequently Alleged Issue in Disability-Related EEO Complaints

III. Findings and Recommendations: Suggestions for Overcoming Impediments to the Employment of People with Targeted Disabilities in the Federal Work Force

1. Improve Coordination Among Partner Agencies
2. Combat Myths and Stereotypes About Employing PWTD
3. Demonstrate Top-Level Commitment for Employing PWTD
4. Improve the Daunting Application Process for Federal Employment
5. Encourage Persons With Disabilities to Self-Identify, and Ensure This Information is Kept Confidential
6. Provide Managers with Training on Special Hiring Authorities for PWTD
7. Provide Managers with Training on Reasonable Accommodation
8. Enhance Clout of Disability Programs Within Federal Agencies
9. Ensure Accountability
10. Recognize Success

Conclusion

Appendix

Executive Summary

As a part of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) responsibility to monitor federal agency compliance with Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) has prepared this report on the participation of people with targeted disabilities^[1] (PWTD) in the federal work force.  The purpose of this report is to educate the public about recent disability initiatives in the federal sector, highlight data showing the declining participation rate of PWTD in the federal government, and provide recommendations that may improve employment opportunities for PWTD in the federal government.  The ultimate goal is to make the federal government the employer of first choice for PWTD. 

Despite the initiatives of multiple administrations and the efforts of various agencies charged with administering programs for the employment of PWTD (partner agencies), the percentage of federal employees with targeted disabilities has declined each year since reaching a peak of 1.24% in fiscal years (FY) 1993 & 1994.  In FY 2006, the participation rate of PWTD fell to 0.94% of the federal government’s total work force, the lowest participation rate in 20 years.  Similarly, the participation rate for the federal government’s permanent workforce also declined in FY 2006, to 0.97%.  Moreover, despite medical and technological advancements that afford greater opportunities for PWTD to work, the participation rate of PWTD has declined while the federal workforce overall has actually grown.  As noted in the EEOC’s Annual Report on the Federal Workforce for FY 2006, from FY 1997 to FY 2006, the Total Work Force increased by 135,732 employees, a net change of 5.48%.  However, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities decreased from 28,671 in FY 1997 to 24,442 in FY 2006, a net change of –14.75%.

Given the federal government’s mandate to be a model employer, OFO undertook this review to examine impediments in the federal sector to the hiring and advancement of PWTD.^[2]  It is imperative that people with disabilities who can and want to work are supported in their efforts to do so.  In the Findings and Recommendations section of this report, OFO addresses some conditions that are deemed to be systemic impediments to the employment of PWTD and incorporates best practices and innovative measures that some agencies have taken to improve the participation rate of PWTD.  Several common obstacles are highlighted below:

• There is inadequate coordination between the federal agencies and/or programs that were created specifically to meet the employment needs of individuals with disabilities;
• Within the federal government, unfounded fears, myths and stereotypes persist regarding the employment of people with disabilities.  These beliefs may unlawfully influence some employment decisions;
• Few agencies have developed strategic plans to improve the recruitment, hiring and retention of PWTD;
• The federal application process is daunting to most, but especially to individuals with disabilities;
• Agency officials lack knowledge about how to use/implement the Schedule A appointing authority;
• Agency officials lack knowledge about how to appropriately respond to reasonable accommodation requests and how to implement retention strategies for PWTD; and
• There is insufficient accountability among all levels of the federal government in setting and attaining goals to hire people with disabilities.  This is the case among the senior leadership of most agencies.  This is also true within agencies created to meet the employment needs of PWTD.

Highlighted below are several of the recommendations agencies should consider to improve the hiring and advancement of PWTD. 

It is recommended that partner agencies consider:

• Establishing a cross-agency task force among partner agencies and private organizations, with the goal of improving the hiring, promotion, and advancement of PWTD in the federal government;
• Appointing a single disability coordinator to serve as a point of contact for all agencies and the public, as well as a clearinghouse of information on PWTD in the federal government;
• Developing a disability training CD/DVD for distribution to all management officials in the federal government;
• Publishing guidance for applicants on how to prepare an application for a federal job.  Such guidance should include tips on how to use USAJOBS and how to write effective Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSA) responses;
• Developing a single online application bank to store the resumes of PWTD, by job category/occupational series; and
• Establishing an award to recognize agencies that have increased the percentage of PWTD in their work force.

It is recommended that all agencies consider:

• Establishing numerical hiring goals for PWTD on an annual basis, and incorporating those goals into the strategic mission of the agency.  Indeed, this task is required by EEOC Management Directive 715;
• Providing mandatory training on disability for all management officials.  This training should include information on the agency’s current hiring goals, special hiring authorities (including Schedule A), reasonable accommodation, and advancement/retention strategies for PWTD;
• Developing procedures for ensuring management accountability, as well as verification that goals are obtained;
• Ensuring that a diversity element is included in senior leaders’ performance appraisals, making EEO a critical element; and
• Issuing a policy statement from the agency head, emphasizing the agency’s policy of providing equal employment opportunity for applicants and employees with disabilities, and encouraging managers to increase their use of special hiring authorities to fill vacancies.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Consistent with its responsibility to evaluate federal agencies' equal employment opportunity (EEO) programs, operations, and activities, the EEOC’s OFO conducted an evaluation to (1) educate the public about the history of recent disability initiatives in the federal sector; (2) highlight data regarding PWTD in the federal government; and (3) provide recommendations that may improve employment opportunities for PWTD in the federal government.  Moreover, this report is to serve as the foundation for further evaluation of employment trends for PWTD in the federal government.  The ultimate goal is to make the federal government the employer of first choice for PWTD. 

Initially, OFO conducted trend analysis of work force data contained in EEOC’s Annual Report on the Federal Work Force (Annual Report), paying particular attention to the trends among the largest agencies.  OFO subsequently interviewed officials from 12 entities (federal and state) to collect information concerning perceived impediments to equal employment opportunity for PWTD and best practices for improving the hiring and advancement of PWTD in the federal work force.  OFO also reviewed various executive orders involving PWTD in the federal work force, and reports generated by federal agencies, the National Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities, and Cornell University.  In addition, OFO examined EEOC Form 715-01 PART J (Part J) of the FY 2005 MD-715 reports that agencies submitted to EEOC.  Finally, OFO considered the issues raised in formal complaints that were filed against federal agencies alleging discrimination based on mental and/or physical disability.

Part I of this report provides an overview of the various laws and initiatives that exist within the federal government to provide and improve PWTD participation rates.  Part II provides statistical data on PWTD in the federal workforce.  Part III of the report contains our findings and recommendations.

Background

Despite initiatives and efforts by numerous administrations and federal agencies, there has been no appreciable improvement in the hiring and advancement of PWTD in the federal work force since OFO began monitoring their progress.  In fact, the percentage of federal employees with targeted disabilities has declined each year since reaching a peak of 1.24% in FYs 1993 & 1994.  In FY 2006, the participation rate of PWTD fell to 0.94% of the federal government’s total work force, the lowest participation rate in over 20 years.

The decline is evident from numerous perspectives.  When looking at the total work force, we note that while the total work force increased by 135,732 employees between FY 1997 and FY 2006, a net change^[3] of 5.48%, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities still decreased during the same ten year period from 28,671 in FY 1997 to 24,442 in FY 2006, representing a net change of -14.75%.

The picture is even less promising when looking solely at the permanent work force.  The number of PWTD in the permanent federal work force declined at a much sharper rate than that of the overall permanent federal work force.  From FY 1997 to FY 2006, the participation rate for PWTD saw a net change of -18.1%.  This was disproportionately higher than the net change of -1.75% for the overall permanent work force.  Moreover, it is notable that although the permanent work force increased in five of the ten years from FY 1997 to FY 2006, the participation rate of PWTD decreased every year.  Essentially, during the last decade, the federal government has lost more PWTD each year than it has hired.

I. Agencies Required Under Law to Be Model Employers of PWTD

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 establishes that the federal government may not discriminate against people with disabilities in the workplace.^[4]  Various laws and regulations also require federal agencies to attain model employer status for people with targeted disabilities.  Specifically, the Rehabilitation Act provides that affirmative action program plans must be an integral part of ongoing agency personnel management programs, with the goal of hiring, placement, and advancement of persons with disabilities.  29 U.S.C. § 791(b).  EEOC’s regulations similarly establish that the federal government become a model employer of individuals with disabilities, and give full consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities.  29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a).  Moreover, federal agencies must promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program for people with disabilities.  29 C.F.R. § 1614.101(a). 

Each agency must maintain a continuing affirmative program to promote equal opportunity and eliminate discriminatory practices and policies.  29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(a).  Such affirmative employment programs shall communicate the agency’s EEO policy and program, and its employment needs, to all sources of job candidates without regard to disability.  29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(a)(4). 

A. Affirmative Action Program

EEOC Management Directive 715 (MD-715), which became effective on October 1, 2003, provides policy guidance and standards for establishing and maintaining an effective affirmative action program for the hiring, placement, and advancement of people with disabilities.  See MD-715, Part B(I).  To become a model employer of people with disabilities, the federal government must take proactive steps to ensure equal employment opportunity for people with disabilities.  Id. On an annual basis, agencies must conduct an internal review and analysis of the effects of all policies, practices, procedures, and conditions that, directly or indirectly, relate to the employment of people with disabilities.  MD-715, Part B(III).  When conducting the analysis, EEOC encourages agencies to evaluate themselves against the work force profile of the federal government overall, as well as that of agencies ranked highly in EEOC’s most recent Annual Report.  Id.  When an agency's self-assessment indicates that qualified individuals with disabilities may have been denied equal access to employment opportunities, the agency must take steps to identify and eliminate the potential workplace barriers.  MD-715, Part B(IV).  EEOC requires agencies with 1,000 or more employees to maintain a special recruitment program for PWTD, and to establish specific goals for the employment and advancement of such individuals.  MD-715, Part B (VI).  All agencies, regardless of their size or ranking, should ensure that goals “are set and accomplished in such a manner that will affect measurable progress from the preceding fiscal year.”  Id. 

B. Individuals with a Reportable Disability

This report refers to “individuals with a disability,” “individuals with reportable disabilities” and “people with targeted disabilities.”  Reportable disabilities are those that can be disclosed through the use of Standard Form 256 (SF-256).  Thus, individuals who have self-identified their disability to a reporting agency on the SF-256 are “individuals with a reportable disability.”  PWTD are a subset of this group, in that targeted disabilities are also reported on the SF-256. 

The final group, “individuals with disabilities,” has a more extensive definition that is used to establish who is covered by the Rehabilitation Act (and the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.).  Pursuant to EEOC’s regulations, an Aindividual with a disability@ is a person who has, has a record of, or is regarded as having a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of that person's major life activities, e.g., caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.  See 29 C.F.R. ' 1630.2(g).  An impairment is considered substantially limiting when it prevents an individual from performing a major life activity or when it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a major life activity as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population to perform the activity.  29 C.F.R. ' 1630.2(j).  The individual also must show that s/he is a "qualified" individual with a disability within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. ' 1630.2(m).  With respect to employment, the phrase "qualified individual with a disability" is defined as a person who, with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position held or desired.  Id. 

C. Individuals with a Targeted Disability

The term “targeted disabilities” was first officially recognized by EEOC in MD-703, which was approved on December 6, 1979.  Individuals with a targeted disability are a subset of those people who have a reportable disability, as defined above.  Criteria used to select the nine disabilities that make up the group of targeted disabilities included the severity of the disability, the feasibility of recruitment, and the availability of work force data for individuals with targeted disabilities.  EEOC recognizes that there are disabilities that are not designated as a “targeted disability,” but may nevertheless be just as severe, or more severe, than some targeted disabilities.  Nonetheless, employment statistics are only collected and maintained for the nine individual targeted disabilities.  The purpose of focusing on targeted disabilities is to encourage the hiring, placement, and advancement of selected individuals with disabilities in affirmative action planning.  

Several partner agencies have questioned whether the definition of targeted disabilities adopted in 1979 should be reviewed, given current health issues as well as advances in medicine and technology.  Further discussion of this issue can be found under Finding 1.

D. Initiatives to Improve Equal Opportunity for People with Disabilities

This section describes select initiatives that were enacted to improve the hiring and advancement of PWTD in the federal work force.

The Rehabilitation Act: Interagency Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities

Pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, the Interagency Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (ICEPD) was established in 1973 to provide a focus for federal employment of people with disabilities and review the adequacy of hiring, placement, and advancement practices affecting people with disabilities.  The ICEPD was required to periodically provide recommendations for legislative and administrative changes to the EEOC, which would then transmit the recommendations to Congress.  Agencies in the ICEPD have included the EEOC, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the General Services Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services.  See Section 501 of Rehabilitation Act; Executive Orders 11830, 12106, 12450, and 12704. 

Executive Order 12640: President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities

On May 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12640, which established the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities.  The purpose of this Committee was to provide advice and information on the development of maximum employment opportunities for people with physical or mental disabilities.  In particular, the Committee was responsible for advising the President about information that could be used by employers, labor unions, and organizations, suggesting programs for public education, and suggesting methods of enlisting cooperation among the various organizations and agencies.  The Committee was comprised of a Chair, up to four Vice Chairs, and associate members consisting of heads of federal departments or agencies.  The Committee also had the authority to invite representatives of business, industry, labor, private organizations, and individuals with disabilities to attend the meetings.  On January 10, 2001, the Committee was replaced by the President’s Disability Employment Partnership Board in Executive Order 13187.

Executive Order 13078:  National Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities

On March 13, 1998, President William J. Clinton issued Executive Order 13078, which established the National Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. ^[5]  This order sought to ensure that the federal government is a model employer of people with disabilities.  The Task Force was instructed to review federal government personnel laws, regulations, and policies in order to recommend changes necessary to improve federal employment policies for people with disabilities.  The Task Force issued reports in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2002, which provided many recommendations to the President for improving the representation of PWTD in the federal workforce.

Executive Order 13163:  Plan to Increase Employment of People with Disabilities

On July 26, 2000, President William J. Clinton issued Executive Order 13163 to encourage the hiring of 100,000 people with disabilities at all levels and occupations of the federal government, and to support the goals articulated in Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Based on findings that qualified persons with disabilities were refused employment, the Executive Order required agencies to:  (1) use available hiring authorities; (2) expand their outreach efforts; and (3) increase their efforts to accommodate people with disabilities.  To accomplish these goals, agencies were required to submit a plan to the OPM that outlined their strategies to increase the employment opportunities for people with disabilities within their respective agencies. The goals of this executive order were to be carried out over the five years following its issuance.

Executive Order 13164:  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures

Also on July 26, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13164 to promote a model federal workplace that provides reasonable accommodations for: (1) individuals with disabilities in the application process for federal employment; (2) federal employees with disabilities in performing the essential functions of a position; and (3) federal employees with disabilities to enjoy benefits and privileges of employment equal to those enjoyed by employees without disabilities.  To accomplish these goals, the order requires that executive branch agencies establish effective written procedures for processing reasonable accommodation requests under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The purpose of such procedures is to provide employees, as well as supervisors and managers, with an easy-to-understand, step-by-step explanation of the reasonable accommodation process.  Each agency (and agency sub-components, if appropriate) may design procedures that best suit its organizational needs, and submit the procedures, and any subsequent modifications, to EEOC for review and comment.  To date, EEOC has received 123 reasonable accommodation procedures from federal agencies and subordinate components.

Executive Order 13187:  President’s Disability Employment Partnership Board

On January 10, 2001, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13187, which established the President’s Disability Employment Partnership Board in place of the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities.  In promoting the employment of people with disabilities, the Board was ordered to (1) develop and submit to the Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy a comprehensive written plan for joint public-private efforts to promote employment opportunities for people with disabilities, and improve their access to financial institutions and commercial and business enterprises; (2) identify strategies that may be used by employers, labor unions, national and international organizations, and federal, state, and local officials to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities; and (3) submit annual written reports to the President on its activities, progress, and problems relating to maximizing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.  The Board is comprised of 15 members, including representatives from business, labor organizations, state or local government, people with disabilities, organizations serving people with disabilities, disabled veterans, and researchers or academics.  The Chairperson of the Board also serves as a member and Vice Chair of the National Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. 

New Freedom Initiative

On February 1, 2001, President George W. Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative to promote the full integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of American life.  The goals of this Initiative include expanding educational and employment opportunities, increasing access to assistive technologies and public accommodations, and providing accessible transportation and housing options for people with disabilities.  The EEOC has taken a lead role in implementing the following activities, as part of the Initiative:

• States' Best Practices Project:  EEOC initiated a partnership with several states to promote the hiring of people with disabilities in state government jobs.  In addition to reviewing each state's practices with respect to hiring, retention, advancement, and reasonable accommodation, the Commission provides consultation, outreach and technical assistance to the participating states.  EEOC issued a final report that highlights best practices and barriers that were uncovered.  The four states covered in the interim report—Florida, Maryland, Vermont, Washington—were joined by Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Utah in the final report, dated October 2005. 
• Free workshops:  EEOC conducts free workshops on the ADA for small businesses and individuals with disabilities. These workshops, which include information on tax incentives, community resources, and the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, are aimed at encouraging businesses with 15 to 100 employees to hire individuals with disabilities and assisting individuals who are entering the work force to better understand the ADA.
• Outreach Speakers:  In addition to ongoing ADA outreach efforts, EEOC also offers free outreach speakers for various types of events for individuals with disabilities and employers.
• Corporate Leadership Conferences:  EEOC will work with employers to hold corporate leadership conferences to advance the hiring of people with disabilities in their regions.
• Reference and research on the Web:  EEOC has developed and placed on its website at http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html information about the ADA:  Reasonable Accommodation for Attorneys; The Americans With Disabilities Act: A Primer for Small Business; Telework Fact Sheet; Job Applicants and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and How to Comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Guide for Restaurants and Other Food Service Employers.  The website also includes the following information on specific types of disabilities: Blindness and Vision Impairments in the Workplace and the ADA; the Association Provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Diabetes in the Workplace and the ADA; Epilepsy in the Workplace and the ADA, Persons with Intellectual Disabilities in the Workplace and the ADA; and Cancer in the Workplace and the ADA.

Additional EEOC Initiatives

In addition to the activities listed above, the EEOC has established programs to ensure that all applicants and employees enjoy the freedom to compete on a level playing field and advance in the workplace as far as their talents and abilities allow.  The LEAD Initiative focuses on the employment and advancement of PWTD in the federal workforce, while the Freedom to Compete Initiative addresses employment and advancement opportunities for all individuals, including people with disabilities.

• LEAD (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities): Implemented in June 2006, the LEAD Initiative addresses the declining number of employees with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce.  LEAD efforts focus on outreach to senior leaders at federal agencies to enhance their awareness of both the employment challenges faced by PWTD and policies and practices that can reverse the decline of PWTD in the federal work force population.
• Freedom to Compete: Implemented in 2002, the Freedom to Compete Initiative is an outreach, education and partnership campaign designed to emphasize the importance of providing equal access to employment opportunities for all individuals, including individuals with disabilities.  As part of the Initiative, EEOC has engaged stakeholders regarding the need to proactively address 21^st century workplace needs, established alliances with new organizational partners, created a series of public service announcements, and presented a series of panel discussions to explore existing and emerging employment trends affecting specific segments of the population, including individuals with disabilities.

Cornell University Survey

Pursuant to a grant funded by the Task Force under Executive Order 13078, Cornell University conducted a survey of 1,001 supervisors concerning the hiring and advancement of people with disabilities.  See Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in Employment of People with Disabilities, Bruyère, S., Erickson, W., &; Horne, R., (2002) [Cornell University Survey].  The supervisors were employed by the seventeen executive branch agencies that served as members of the Task Force.  The Task Force agencies comprised 948,867 (54%) of the total employees in the federal government in 2002, including 63,424 people with disabilities, of which 11,790 were PWTD.  Cornell University published the results of the survey in 2002.  The findings pertinent to this report indicated the following:

• Three out of five respondents (60%) were unaware of Executive Order 13163, requiring the hiring of 100,000 qualified individuals with disabilities over a five-year period.
• Two out of five supervisors surveyed reported being aware of the EEOC guidelines for federal agencies to establish written procedures to facilitate the provision of reasonable accommodation (Executive Order 13164).  Nearly half of those aware of this provision indicated that it had influenced their supervisory practice either “a great deal” or “somewhat.”  The level of awareness and influence was higher for those who had experience supervising employees with disabilities.
• Over half of the supervisors involved in recruitment reported being very familiar or somewhat familiar with the special hiring authorities for the federal government that promote hiring disabled veterans.  However, only approximately one-third were familiar with hiring readers/interpreters and other personal assistants for employees with disabilities, and the special hiring authorities for hiring people with disabilities.
• Respondents indicated visible top management commitment and skills/training for employees with disabilities were the most effective means of reducing remaining barriers to employment or advancement of people with disabilities.

Model Federal Agency Plan for the Employment of People with Disabilities

Based upon the plans that OPM received from agencies pursuant to Executive Order 13163, OPM issued the Model Federal Agency Plan for the Employment of People with Disabilities in August 2004.  The plan identifies six best practices that agencies have used to increase the hiring and advancement of people with disabilities, including:

• Recruiting widely for positions at all levels, utilizing a recruitment plan;
• Providing opportunities for students with disabilities in collaboration with colleges and universities;
• Giving consideration to employees with disabilities for inclusion in developmental opportunities;
• Collecting and maintaining data to monitor progress;
• Providing reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants and employees with disabilities, consistent with each agencies' reasonable accommodation policies as well as the guidance from OPM and EEOC; and
• Providing appropriate training to senior leadership and managers to ensure that they understand the agency's commitment to employ people with disabilities and that they can use special programs to recruit, appoint, and provide reasonable accommodation.

In summary, various agencies, initiatives and task forces have studied the issue of employment of individuals with disabilities.  Many recommendations for improving the hiring and advancement of PWTD in the federal work force followed.  Although it is unclear to what extent agencies have implemented the recommendations, data in Section II of this report makes clear that, despite the studies and initiatives, the participation rate of PWTD has steadily declined.

II. Statistics Related to PWTD in the Federal Workforce

To understand the status of PWTD in the federal work force, we have collected data from the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF),^[6] maintained by OPM, as well as reports that agencies have submitted to EEOC, including Form 462 reports and MD-715 reports.  In the tables below, we provide data, and where appropriate, trend analysis on the following topics: (1) PWTD in the federal work force; (2) goals for recruitment of PWTD; (3) ranking of cabinet level agencies by percentage of PWTD; (4) grade groupings of PWTD; (5) participation of PWTD by type of targeted disabilities; (6) new hires of PWTD; (7) separations of PWTD; (8) promotions of PWTD; (9) awards for PWTD; and (10) most frequently raised issues in complaints alleging disability discrimination.

A. Participation Rate of PWTD Has Fallen to 0.94% of Total Federal Work Force

Based upon CPDF data from the OPM, the participation rate of PWTD in the total federal work force fell to 0.94% in FY 2006, the lowest participation rate in 20 years.  See FY 2006 Annual Report.  The participation rate of PWTD peaked at 1.24% in FYs 1993 & 1994.  When looking strictly at those employed permanently, the decline is more pronounced.  The participation rate for PWTD in the permanent work force fell to 0.97% in FY 2006, the lowest since 1985.  See Table 1.

Table 1 shows that since FY 1985, the participation rate of permanently employed PWTD has decreased at a disproportionately higher rate than that of the federal government’s overall permanent work force.  Although the permanent work force has decreased by 15.9% since FY 1985 and by 3.2% since FY 1995, the participation rate of PWTD declined by 19.78% and 22.18% during those respective time frames. 

Table 1 also shows that even when the workforce increases, the population of PWTD still declines.  Between FY 1997 and FY 2006, the permanent work force increased in five of the ten years.  The participation rate of PWTD during that same ten year period nonetheless decreased every year.  Moreover, in the five years when the size of the permanent work force decreased between FY 1997 and FY 2006, the participation rate for PWTD had a disproportionately higher decrease.  For example, from FY 2002 to FY 2003, the permanent work force declined by 1.27%, but PWTD declined by twice as much at 2.59%.  Overall, the federal government is losing more PWTD than it is hiring each year. 

Table 1: Permanent Employees with Targeted Disabilities in the Federal Work Force^[7]
FY 1985 – FY 2006

Fiscal Year (FY)	Total Perm. Work Force (PWF)		Employees with Targeted Disabilities
	#	% Change from Prior FY	#	% Change from Prior FY	% of PWF
1985	2,892,225	2.70%	29,282	8.46%	1.01%
1986	2,894,732	0.09%	30,320	3.54%	1.05%
1987	2,943,878	1.70%	32,149	6.03%	1.09%
1988	2,790,287	-5.22%	30,736	-4.40%	1.10%
1989	2,807,546	0.62%	31,956	3.97%	1.14%
1990	2,786,143	-0.76%	32,145	0.59%	1.15%
1991	2,772,396	-0.49%	32,950	2.50%	1.19%
1992	2,737,331	-1.26%	33,379	1.30%	1.22%
1993	2,656,033	-2.97%	32,989	-1.17%	1.24%
1994	2,616,393	-1.49%	32,337	-1.98%	1.24%
1995	2,512,776	-3.96%	30,185	-6.65%	1.20%
1996	2,532,507	0.79%	29,930	-0.84%	1.18%
1997	2,475,761	-2.24%	28,671	-4.21%	1.16%
1998	2,479,199	0.14%	28,035	-2.22%	1.14%
1999	2,462,152	-0.69%	27,601	-1.55%	1.13%
2000	2,442,643	-0.79%	27,231	-1.34%	1.12%
2001	2,445,335	0.11%	26,834	-1.46%	1.10%
2002	2,459,505	0.58%	26,230	-2.25%	1.07%
2003	2,428,330	-1.27%	25,551	-2.59%	1.05%
2004	2,437,458	0.38%	24,816	-2.87%	1.02%
2005	2,441,287	0.16%	24,086	-2.94%	0.99%
2006	2,432,314	-0.37%	23,490	-2.47%	0.97%

The Census Bureau provides data reflecting general and specific civilian labor force participation rates categorized by race, national origin, and gender.  There is no comparable data, however, currently collected or reported by the Census Bureau for people with disabilities.  Thus, it is difficult to conduct analysis and/or determine expected participation rates for people with disabilities, as is done for all other groups based on race and gender.  Because of the absence of Census data concerning the general availability of people with disabilities in the work force, EEOC requires agencies to benchmark themselves against both the agency with the highest percentage of PWTD, which is published in EEOC’s Annual Reports, and against its own participation rate in the previous year to determine if progress is being made.  In FY 2006, the federal high was 2.37% for agencies with 500 or more total employees.

In addition to the absence of Census availability data for people with disabilities, any statistical analysis is complicated by the fact that the types of disabilities vary tremendously, making gross statistical comparisons of limited value.  These limitations notwithstanding, analysis of the above information can help facilitate an assessment concerning the extent to which PWTD are provided equal employment opportunities within every agency.

B. Many Federal Agencies Are Not Establishing Goals for PWTD

Through MD-715, EEOC requires agencies with 1,000 or more employees to maintain a special recruitment program for PWTD and to establish specific goals for the employment and advancement of such individuals.^[8]  MD-715, Part B(VI).  Fulfillment of this requirement is monitored with the use of Part J submissions.  Agencies should set goals with an eye toward affecting measurable progress from year to year.  To accomplish hiring and/or advancement goals, agencies should, as appropriate: (1) engage in targeted outreach and recruitment; (2) take advantage of special appointing authorities; (3) create training and development plans for people with disabilities; and (4) take disability into account in selection decisions where an individual with a disability is otherwise qualified with or without a reasonable accommodation.  Id.

A review of PART Js submitted as part of FY 2005 MD-715 reports reveals that despite the declining participation rate of PWTD in the federal government, only 15.82% of agencies established a numerical goal for increasing the employment of PWTD in their work force.  A total of 41.14% of agencies reported that they established non-numerical objectives^[9] for PWTD in their work force.  These figures indicate that 43% of agencies failed to establish any type of goal to improve the employment outlook for PWTD at their agency.  This may account for why little progress is actually being realized.  According to the Cornell University Survey, only 51% of supervisors reported that their agency made a “great deal of effort” to achieve affirmative employment goals, and another 30% stated that their agency made “somewhat” of an effort to achieve the goals. 

C. Participation Rate for PWTD Among Cabinet Level Agencies

Cabinet level agencies play an important role in the hiring and advancement of PWTD in the federal workforce. The agencies included in Table 2 comprise 66% of the entire federal work force.^[10]  In FY 2006, only seven of the 15 cabinet agencies had a participation rate for PWTD that met or exceeded the government-wide rate of 0.94% in the total work force.  See Table 2: Ranking Cabinet Level Agencies by PWTD.^[11] 

Several cabinet level agencies had numerical increases in their populations of PWTD over the ten year period of FY 1997 to FY 2006.  However, only two cabinet level agencies realized participation rate increases over that time period: (1) Department of the Treasury increased from 1.59% to 1.73%; and (2) Department of Labor increased from 1.19% to 1.21%.

D. PWTD Are Employed at Grade Levels Below Government-Wide Average

In addition to the declining numbers of PWTD employed in the federal work force, there is also evidence that PWTD are compensated at a lower rate than other employees.  In FY 2006, the average general schedule and related (GSR) grade level for PWTD was 8.5, a full grade and a half below the government-wide average of 10.  See EEOC Annual Report (FY 2006), Table A-6a in App. III.  As noted in Table 3 below, over 51% of the federal employees with targeted disabilities were employed in GSR grades 1 to 8, as compared to only 32% of the total work force in FY 2006. See Table 3.  It is worth noting, however, that pay distribution is improving.  The participation rates for PWTD in grades 1-8 have declined from 58.95% in FY 1997 to 51.37% in FY 2006, while the participation rates for PWTD in grades 12 and above have steadily increased. During FY 2006, 6.41% of all PWTD participated in Senior Grade levels (GS-14 to Senior Pay), which is a little more than half the rate of participation for the total work force (10%).  From FY 1997 to FY 2006, the highest net change in the participation rate of PWTD occurred at the GS-14/15 pay levels (+27.59%), with the senior pay level (+13.92%) ranking second.

E. Mental Illness and Deafness Represent 42% of All Targeted Disabilities

Among all targeted disabilities, mental illness has represented the highest percentage of PWTD in the federal work force since it surpassed deafness in FY 1998.  From FY 1997 to FY 2006, federal employees with mental illness and deafness have represented at least 38% of all PWTD, combining for 42.39% in FY 2006.  See Table 4.  In contrast, employees with distortion of limb/spine have represented the fewest, at less than 3%.  Although the participation rate for all PWTD has declined overall from FY 1997 to FY 2006, the participation rates for three individual targeted disability groups increased slightly during this time period: mental illness, blindness, and convulsive disorders.  During the same time period, the individual targeted disability groups that experienced the greatest decline in participation rates were mental retardation (decrease of 23.23%), missing extremities (decrease of 12.98%), and deafness (decrease of 7.22%).  

F. Schedule A Hiring Authority is Under Utilized

Several hiring authorities designed specifically for use by and for people with disabilities are available for the federal hiring process.  The broadest of these authorities is the Schedule A appointing authority, which allows for non-competitive appointment of individuals with disabilities.  See 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u).  This non-competitive appointment authority is an alternative to the traditional, and often arduous competitive process.^[14]  Schedule A was designed to provide job opportunities to persons with severe physical disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, and/or mental retardation.^[15]  In FY 2006, 326 individuals were hired under Schedule A, which amounts to 0.14% of all new hires.  See Table 5.  This represents a slight percentage increase from 0.13% in FY 2002.  Id. 

In addition to Schedule A, there is Schedule B, another non-competitive hiring authority.  See 5 C.F.R. § 213.3202.  Schedule B applies to jobs and situations for which it is impractical to rate applicants using competitive procedures; however, applicants must meet the qualification standards for the job.  Schedule B includes hiring authorities for the Student Temporary Employment Program, the Student Career Experience Program, and the Federal Career Intern Program.  Id.  In FY 2006, 0.06% of new PWTD hires in the federal government arose through Schedule B appointment authority.  See Table 5.  This represents a decrease from the 0.07% of PWTD hired under Schedule B in FY 2002. 

From FY 2002 to FY 2006, PWTD were hired at rates well below their participation rate in the federal work force (0.94%), and well below the federal highs reported in EEOC Annual Reports.  When looking at all new hires, the rate of hire for PWTD declined from 0.60% in FY 2002 to 0.55% in FY 2006.  Further, although the total number of new hires in the federal government decreased by 15.23% from FY 2002 to FY 2006, the number of new hires of PWTD decreased at a higher rate – 23.15% – in that same period.  These figures indicate that PWTD are subjected to a disproportionate negative impact resulting from most federal employment trends.