The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Annual Report on the Federal Work Force
Fiscal Year 2008

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART I SUMMARY OF EEO STATISTICS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section A. Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

  1. 59% of Agencies Issued EEO Policy Statements on an Annual Basis

Section B. Integration of EEO Into Agencies’ Strategic Mission

  1. 65% of Agency EEO Directors Report to Agency Head
  2. 72% of EEO Directors Presented the State of the EEO Program to the Agency Head
  3. 87% of Agencies Provided their EEO staff with Required Training

Section C. Management and Program Accountability

  1. 83% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO
  2. 72% of Agencies Report They Have A Written Anti-Harassment Policy

Section D. Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

  1. Barrier Analysis
  2. Composition of Federal Work Force
    1. Total Work Force: Hispanics or Latinos, White Women and Persons of Two or More Races Remain Below Availability
    2. Senior Pay Levels: Incremental Improvement
    3. General Schedule and Related Positions: Hispanics or Latinos, Asian And Women Improve
    4. Federal Wage System Positions: Women and Minorities Decrease Slightly
    5. Other Pay Systems: Employees Increase by 16.33%
  3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Continues to Fall

Section E. Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

  1. Federal Agency EEO Programs:  Complaints Increase and Processing Times Continue to Exceed Regulatory Deadlines
  2. EEOC Hearings and Appeals: Processing Times Increase For Hearings and Appeals

Section F. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

  1. 78% Submitted EEOC Form 462 Reports Were Timely
  2. Almost Twice as Many Timely Submitted MD-715 Reports In FY 2008

PART II PROFILES FOR SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES

APPENDIX I  GLOSSARY / DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX II FEDERAL SECTOR EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX III FEDERAL WORK FORCE & COMPLAINTS PROCESSING TABLES

PREFACE

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD-715), issued October 1, 2003, established standards for ensuring that agencies develop and maintain model EEO programs. These standards are used to measure and report on the status of the federal government’s efforts to become a model employer. As detailed in MD-715, the six elements of a model EEO program are:

This report covers the period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008 and contains selected measures of agencies’ progress toward model EEO programs.1 Working within our mission as an oversight agency, EEOC strives to create a partnership with agencies. In FY 2008, EEOC’s Relationship Management program comprised 10 Cabinet/Mid-Size agencies and continued its small agency program with 14 agencies.

The FY 2008 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, submitted to the President and Congress, presents a summary of selected EEO program activities in the federal government, including work force profiles of 59 federal agencies. The report provides valuable information to all agencies as they strive to become model employers.

To prepare this report, the Commission relied on the following data: 1) work force data, as of September 30, 2008, obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)2 supplemented with data provided by the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Department of State, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United States Postal Service (USPS); 2) data from the 2000 EEO Special Files; 3) EEO complaint processing data submitted and certified as accurate by 122 federal agencies in their fiscal year (FY) 2008 Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints (EEO 462 reports); 4) hearings and appeals data obtained from EEOC’s internal databases; and 5) EEO program data submitted and certified as accurate by 172 of 198 federal agencies and subcomponents in their FY 2007 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715 reports).3

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

Finally, the Commission would like to extend its thanks to: 1) OPM for providing the work force data from the CPDF; 2) AAFES, FERC, the Department of State, TVA, and USPS for providing their work force data; and 3) those agencies that timely submitted accurate and verifiable EEO complaint processing data.

This year the Commission again provided agencies an opportunity to comment on the draft of this report. The Commission thanks those agencies that submitted comments and suggestions for assisting in the publishing of a more accurate report. Agencies are encouraged to submit all Reports to the Commission in a timely and accurate manner to ensure that the state of EEO in the federal work force is reflected correctly.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Part I
Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

Section A - Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership


Now, more than ever before, with the increasing expectations of government institutions, federal agencies must position themselves to attract, develop and retain a top-quality work force in order to ensure our nation’s continued growth, security and prosperity. To develop this competitive, highly qualified work force, federal agencies must fully utilize the talents of all employees, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or disability. In order to assist agencies in attaining these goals, on October 1, 2003, MD-715 became effective and set forth “policy guidance and standards for establishing and maintaining effective affirmative programs of equal employment opportunity under Section 717 of Title VII and effective affirmative action programs under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.”

MD-715 requires agency heads and other senior management officials to demonstrate a firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment. Agencies must promote and safeguard equal employment opportunity into everyday practice and make those principles a fundamental part of agency culture. MD-715 reports are not currently submitted electronically; therefore the only FY 2008 data in this report regards timeliness of report submission. All other MD-715 data reported in this document reflect submitted FY 2007 MD-715 reports.

1. 59% 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.”

Figure 1 - Percent of Agencies that Issued EEO Policy Statements On an Annual Basis FY 2004 - FY 2007

Chart

Figure 1 above shows that the number of agencies that issued its EEO policy statement on an annual basis increased 2 of the 4 years since MD-715 was issued. Of the 172 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2007, only 101 (58.7%) reported that they had issued an EEO policy statement annually and would continue to do so, a decrease from the 68.3% of 167 agencies that submitted in FY 2006.

Leading Practices of Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership

In addition to ensuring that the EEO policy statement ensures equal employment opportunity for applicants and employees from all EEO groups and for individuals with targeted disabilities, is issued annually:

Establish a vibrant special emphasis program (SEP), including a SEP manager for each EEO group.

Ensure that the anti-harassment policy covers matters that are not yet severe or pervasive in an attempt to prevent harassment before employees are subject to actionable harm.

Authorize first-line supervisors to process and approve reasonable accommodation requests whenever possible; require upper level review before denying a request based on "undue hardship."

Post reasonable accommodation procedures on agency's external website.

Require managers to participate in the alternative dispute resolution program (ADR).

Section B - Integration of EEO Into Agencies’ Strategic Mission

In order to achieve its strategic mission, an agency must integrate equality of opportunity into attracting, hiring, developing, and retaining the most qualified work force. The success of an agency’s EEO program ultimately depends upon decisions made by individual agency managers. Therefore, agency managers constitute an integral part of the agency’s EEO program. The EEO office serves as a resource to these managers by providing direction, guidance, and monitoring of key activities to achieve a diverse workplace free of barriers to equal opportunity.

As part of integrating EEO into the strategic mission, Section II(B) of MD-715 instructs agencies to ensure that: (1) the EEO Director has access to the agency head; (2)the EEO office coordinates with Human Resources; (3) sufficient resources are allocated to the EEO program; (4) the EEO office retains a competent staff; (5) all managers receive management training; (6) all managers and employees are involved in implementing the EEO program; and (7) all employees are informed of the EEO program. Three aspects of this Section are highlighted below.

1. 65% of Agency EEO Directors Report to Agency Head

EEOC’s regulations governing agency programs to promote equal employment opportunity require each agency to “maintain a continuing affirmative program to promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and polices.” 29 C.F.R. 1614.102(a). To implement its program, each agency shall designate a Director of Equal Employment Opportunity who shall be under the immediate supervision of the agency head. 29 C.F.R. 1614.102(b)(4).

When the EEO Director is under the authority of others within the agency, the agency creates a potential conflict of interest where the person to whom the EEO Director reports is involved in or would be affected by the actions of the EEO Director. By placing the EEO Director in a direct reporting relationship to the agency head, the agency underscores the importance of EEO to the agency’s mission and ensures that the EEO Director is able to act with the greatest degree of independence.

Of the 97 agencies (with 100 or more employees) that were required to submit an EEOC Form 462 report in FY 2008, 63 agencies (64.94%) reported that their EEO Director reports to the agency head, up from the (60.6%) reported in FY 2007. Figure 2 below shows a five year trend.

Figure 2 - Percent of EEO Directors Who Report Directly to the Agency Head FY 2004 - FY 2008

Chart

2. 72% 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 172 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2007, 124 (72.1%) indicated that the EEO Director had conducted the briefing; up from the 63% of 105 in FY 2006.

Figure 3 - Percent of Agency Heads Briefed on State of EEO FY 2004 - FY 2007

Chart

3. 87% of Agencies Provided Their EEO Staff with Required Training

Section II(B) of MD-715 requires that agencies attract, develop and retain EEO staff with the strategic competencies necessary to accomplish the agency’s EEO mission. In order to ensure staff competency within its EEO complaint program, agencies must comply with the mandatory training requirements for EEO counselors and investigators as set forth in MD-110. Agencies using contract staff to perform these functions must also ensure that these requirements are met.

Chapter 2, Section II of MD-110 requires that new EEO counselors receive thirty-two hours of EEO counselor training and thereafter eight hours of training each year. Likewise, new EEO investigators are required to have thirty-two hours of EEO investigator training and thereafter eight hours of training each year as set forth in Chapter 6, Section II of MD-110.

Of the 100 agencies with 100 or more employees that filed an EEOC Form 462 report in FY 2008, 87% ensured their EEO staff received the required regulatory training up from the 85% that reported providing the training in FY 2007. Agencies trained 1,691 new EEO counselors and 160 new EEO investigators. Agencies also provided the required eight hour annual refresher training to 3,113 EEO counselors and 1,659 EEO investigators. Additionally, agencies reported providing thirty-two hour training to 303 EEO counselor/investigators and eight hour training to 79 EEO counselor/investigators.

Leading Practices for Integration of EEO into Agencies Strategic Mission

Establish a strategic plan for EEO and diversity goals, linking the plan to the agency's mission and include outcome-based objectives. Objectives should be specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.

Treat EEO as any other important part of the agency business plan: Develop a business case for promoting diversity within the workforce.

Provide periodic training to all employees regarding the anti-harassment policy and procedures and their role in the complaint process.

Improve coordination between the Disability Program Managers and the Selective Placement Coordinators by including them in strategic planning, succession planning, and recruitment meetings.

Establish an annual numerical goal for hiring people with targeted disabilities and clearly communicate this goal to managers.

Partner with the Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) to obtain services assistive technology and services for individuals with disabilities at no cost.

Section C - Management and Program Accountability

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

1. 83% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

Section II(C) of MD-715 provides that a model EEO program must “evaluate managers and supervisors on efforts to ensure equality of opportunity for all employees.” The success of an agency's EEO program ultimately depends on individual decisions made by its managers and supervisors. Therefore, agency managers and supervisors constitute an integral part of the agency's EEO program. As such, MD-715 makes clear that all managers and supervisors share responsibility with EEO program and human resources officials for the successful implementation of EEO programs. The EEO office serves as a resource to these managers by providing direction, guidance and monitoring of key activities to achieve a diverse workplace free of barriers to equal opportunity. In this regard, the EEO office should inform managers and supervisors that a positive evaluation will include an assessment of how that manager contributes to the agency's EEO program by emphasizing to managers and supervisors that equality of opportunity is essential to attracting, developing and retaining the most qualified workforce, with such a workforce being essential to ensuring the agency's achievement of its strategic mission.

In FY 2007, 143 (83.1%) of the 172 agencies that submitted MD-715 reports indicated that its managers and supervisors were rated on their commitment to EEO, up from the 117 (70%) of the 167 agencies that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2006.

2. 72% of Agencies Report They Have A Written Anti-Harassment Policy

Sections II(A) and (C) of EEOC’s MD-715 provide that model EEO programs should “issue a written policy statement expressing their commitment to . . . a workplace free of discriminatory harassment” and “establish procedures to prevent . . . harassment.”4 In order to ensure that the agency’s anti-harassment policy is enforced, Section II(C) requires agencies to establish procedures to prevent harassment and to take immediate corrective action if harassment is found. These procedures are separate from the federal sector administrative EEO complaint process.

EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment makes clear that agencies can be held liable for harassment based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, protected activity, age (40 and over), or disability, and not merely for harassment that is of a sexual nature. Accordingly, the policy guidance emphasizes that agencies should establish written anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures covering unlawful harassment on all bases.

In FY 2007, 124 (72.1%) of the 172 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports reported they had a written anti-harassment policy, up from the 96 (57.5%) of the 167 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2006, and the 101 of 158 agencies (64%) in FY 2005.

Leading Practices for Management and Program Accountability

In addition to evaluating managers and supervisors on EEO and issuing a written anti-harassment policy:

Conduct ongoing MD-715 audits (i.e. more than once per year) to assess whether the agency has made a good faith effort to identify and remove EEO program deficiencies and barriers to equality of opportunity in the workplace.

Provide managers with negotiation training and conflict coaching training to improve their ability to resolve disputes.

Provide mandatory training on disability-related issues to all employees, including module on overcoming stereotypes about people with targeted disabilities, detailed instructions on special hiring authorities (for managers), and reasonable accommodation procedures.

Hold management officials accountable for harassing conduct in their program areas and for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassment.

Identify an agency official who is responsible for the implementation of the anti-harassment program.

The Americans with Disabilities Act: Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees With Disabilities

EEOC's guidance affirms agencies have the right to apply the same performance and conduct standards to all employees, including those with disabilities. However, the guidance also stresses that agencies will provide reasonable accommodations to assist a disabled employee to meet those standards. Performance management systems that involve explicit performance expectations, clear performance standards, accurate measures, reliable performance feedback and consistent application of these standards help reduce the chances of discriminatory ratings.

When an agency has to address performance deficiencies or misconduct issues, the agency's comments should be a clear explanation of the employee's performance deficiencies or misconduct and what is expected of the employee to improve. Agencies should discuss problems before they become too serious in order to give the employee an opportunity to address the agency's concerns. An employee who is on notice about a performance or conduct problem and who believes the disability is contributing to the problem should evaluate whether a reasonable accommodation would be helpful. For answers to additional questions and multiple scenarios see the entire fact sheet at http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/performance-conduct.html .

Section D - Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

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

1. Barrier Analysis

Pursuant to Section II(D) of MD-715, a model EEO program “must conduct a self-assessment on at least an annual basis to monitor progress and identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups.” Part A(II) of MD-715 provides that “where an agency’s self-assessment indicates that a racial, national origin, or gender group may have been denied equal access to employment opportunities, the agency must take steps to identify and eliminate the potential barrier.” Of the 172 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2007 MD-715 report, 109 (63.4%) reported addressing potential barrier(s), down from the 143 of 167 (85.6%) in FY 2006.

Barriers are defined as policies, procedures, practices, or conditions that limit or tend to limit employment opportunities for members of a particular race, ethnic or religious background, gender, or for individuals with disabilities. While some barriers are readily discernable, most are embedded in the agency’s day-to-day employment policies, practices and programs, including: recruitment; hiring; career development; competitive and noncompetitive promotions; training; awards and incentive programs; disciplinary actions; and separations.

Leading Practices for Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

Establish a Diversity Council consisting of the EEO Director, Human Resources (HR) Director and senior level management officials from all program offices to analyze, plan, and implement strategies that will identify and eliminate barriers to EEO.

Establish an annual civil rights award for managers and employees in recognition of their efforts.

Utilize hiring panels when interviewing job applicants to minimize bias.

Participate in the Minority Servicing Institutions (MSI) internship program to develop a feeder pool for future vacancies and to provide students with work experience necessary to find permanent employment in the federal sector.

2. Composition of the Federal Work Force

With the increasing number of new grade and pay systems being adopted throughout the federal government, this year’s report provides statistics on the composition of the Total Work Force as well as statistics on employees in four pay structures:

Senior Pay Level pay structures were created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which established the Senior Executive Service (SES) as a separate personnel system covering a majority of the top managerial, supervisory, and policy-making positions in the Executive Branch of government.

The General Schedule pay system was created by the Classification Act of 1949, which created a centralized job evaluation for all White-Collar positions and merged several separate schedules into one.

The Federal Wage System was established by Public Law 92-392 in 1972 to standardize pay rates for Blue-Collar federal employees.

Today, many alternative pay plans are being used and proposed across the federal government. In this report they are identified as “Other Pay Systems.” These systems include pay-banding systems, the Market-Based Pay system of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, and include such agencies as the United States Postal Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Table 1 below shows the representation rates for each of these pay structures.

Table 1 - FY 2008 Federal Work Force Pay Structure Participation Levels
# Work Force % of Total Work Force

Total Work Force

2,763,183  

Senior Pay Level

20,407 0.74

General Schedule and Related

1,297,866 46.97

Federal Wage System

195,073 7.06

Other Pay Systems

1,249,837 45.23
a. Total Work Force: Hispanic or Latinos, White Women and Persons of Two or More Races Remain Below Availability

In FY 2008, the federal government had a Total Work Force of 2,763,183 employees, compared to 2,462,152 in FY 1999. Table 2 shows the participation rate of the identified groups below, as compared to the civilian labor force (CLF). Table A-1 in Appendix III, located at http://www.eeoc.gov/, provides ten-year trend data.

Table 2 - Composition of Federal Work Force Ten-Year Trend: Some Progress, Little Overall Change FY 1999 - FY 20085
Work Force Participation Rate 2000 CLF
FY 2008 FY 1999 % FY 2008 %  

Men

1,543,699 57.89 55.87 53.23

Women

1,219,484 42.11 44.13 46.77

Hispanic or Latino Men

129,823 4.10 4.70 6.17

Hispanic or Latino Women

89,538 2.59 3.24 4.52

White Men

1,073,313 41.97 38.84 39.03

White Women

733,424 26.11 26.54 33.74

Black or African American Men

215,673 8.15 7.81 4.84

Black or African American Women

289,988 10.55 10.49 5.66

Asian Men

92,018 2.97* 3.33 1.92

Asian Women

70,161 2.14* 2.54 1.71

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Men

4,670 * 0.17 0.06

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Women

3,767 * 0.14 0.05

American Indian/Alaska Native Men

20,290 0.69 0.73 0.34

American Indian/Alaska Native Women

24,927 0.73 0.90 0.32

Two or More Race Men

7,912 ** 0.29 0.88

Two or More Race Women

76,79 ** 0.28 0.76

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

24,427 1.12 0.88 CLF NOT AVAILABLE

*Asians, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander data included in Asian data  **Data not available.

A comparison of the data on the participation rates of persons in particular agency components or specific major occupations can serve as a diagnostic tool to help identify possible areas where barriers to equal opportunity may exist within an agency.

Participation rate information is located in Tables A-1a, A-6b and A-6c of Appendix III, located at http://www.eeoc.gov.6

Recent Initiative Reports

Report on the Hispanic Employment Challenge in the Federal Government by the Federal Hispanic Work Group

Hispanic participation is lacking in the major (mission-critical or dominant) job series at most agencies, according to the MD-715 data. Although some agencies have excellent Hispanic participation numbers, upon closer examination, MD-715 reports reveal that Hispanics are not equally participating throughout the organizations. Instead, Hispanics are clustered within specific job categories, or occupational niches, and are disproportionately hired in some agencies and occupations more than others.

This work group report includes findings and recommendations for six specific aspects of the challenge: 1) recruitment and hiring; 2) retention; 3) leadership development; 4) Hispanic Employment Program Managers; 5) accountability; and 6) science, technology, engineering and mathematics occupations. For complete report contents see http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/report/hwg.html.

Asian American and Pacific Islander Work Group Report to the Chair of the EEOC

There are limitations to what agencies can provide. AAPI affinity groups can serve as the eyes and ears for the EEO/Diversity offices as well as advocates for their constituency. Affinity groups can play a role as the focal point for the concerns of constituents, provide educational forums for employees and managers, develop liaisons in line organizations, assist in recruitment efforts, work proactively to help resolve problems affecting constituents, and contribute to the development of action plans designed to address barriers to recruitment, hiring, advancement, or retention of constituents.

By working with other groups and understanding their issues and concerns AAPIs can find common ground and increase visibility of their issues. Partner with other groups and host joint career development and training opportunities. An example of an affinity group that has developed career programs is the Patent and Trademark Office's Asian Pacific American Network (APANet). The mission of the APANet is to support diversity, educate employees and assist members with professional development. This organization has received much attention particularly due to its commitment to professional development through career development seminars. See the full report at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/report/aapi.html.

b. Senior Pay Levels: Continued Improvement

With a total of 20,407 employees, the Senior Pay Level (SPL) positions comprise 0.74% of the total work force. SPL positions include the SES, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15 of the General Schedule. Table 3 below reflects the SPL representation. Table A-2 of Appendix III at contains additional data.

Table 3 - Senior Pay Level Representation
FY 1999 / FY 2007
Senior Pay Level Positions
FY 1999 FY 2008
# in SPL % of SPL % of TWF # in SPL % of SPL % of TWF

Total SPL Work Force (#)

15,972   2,462,152 20,407   2,763,183

Men

12,228 76.56 57.89 14,754 72.30 55.87

Women

3,744 23.44 42.11 5,653 27.70 44.13

Hispanic or Latino

489 3.06 6.69 738 3.62 7.94

White

13,913 87.11 68.08 17,471 85.61 65.39

Black or African American

1,107 6.93 18.70 1,363 6.68 18.30

Asian

342* 2.14* 5.11* 811 3.97 5.87

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

** ** ** 8 0.04 0.31

American Indians/Alaska Native

121 0.76 1.42 154 0.75 1.64

Two or More Races

** ** ** 36 0.18 0.56

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

65 0.41 1.12 104 0.51 0.88

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

c. General Schedule and Related Positions: Hispanic or Latino, Asian and Women Improve
Table 4 - General Schedule & Related (GSR) Representation FY 1999 / FY 2008
GSR Positions
FY 1999 FY 2008
Number % of GSR Number % of GSR

Total GSR Work Force

1,239,935   1,297,866  

Men

645,315 52.07 656,755 50.60

Women

594,008 47.93 641,111 49.40

Hispanic or Latino

81,919 6.61 103,886 8.00

White

854,389 68.94 859,063 66.19

Black or African American

226,548 18.28 236,667 18.24

Asian

50,564* 4.08* 63,674 4.91

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

** ** 2,732 0.21

American Indian/Alaska Native

25,778 2.08 26,864 2.07

Two or More Races

** ** 4,980 0.38

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

15,368 1.24 13,430 1.03

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

Figure 4 - Average Grade in the General Schedule and Related Positions FY 2008

Chart
d. Federal Wage System Positions: Women and Minorities Decrease Slightly
Table 5 - Federal Wage System (FWS) Representation FY 1999 / FY 2008
Federal Wage System (FWS) Positions
FY 1999 FY 2008
Number % of FWS Number % of FWS

Total FWS Work Force

223,421   195,073  

Men

198,956 89.05 173,816 89.10

Women

24,465 10.95 21,257 10.90

Hispanic or Latino

17,270 7.73 15,059 7.72

White

147,480 66.01 129,973 66.63

Black or African American

42,182 18.88 35,560 18.23

Asian

10,523* 4.71* 7,722 3.96

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

* * 1,333 0.68

American Indian/Alaska Native

5,965 2.67 4,727 2.42

Two or More Races

* * 699 0.36

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

3,240 1.45 2,132 1.09

* Includes data for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander until separate data in FY 2006 data.

e. Other Pay Systems: Employees Increase By 16.33%
Table 6 - Other Pay Systems (OPS) Representation FY 1999 FY 2008
Other Pay Systems (OPS) Positions
FY 1999 FY 2008
Number % of OPS Number % of OPS

Total OPS Work Force

985,787   1,249,837  

Men

590,388 59.89 698,374 55.88

Women

395,399 40.11 551,463 44.12

Hispanic or Latino

70,287 7.13 99,678 7.98

White

639,776 64.90 800,404 64.04

Black or African American

200,706 20.36 232,071 18.57

Asian

66,048* 6.70* 89,972 7.20

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

** ** 4,364 0.35

American Indian/Alaska Native

8,971 0.91 13,472 1.08

Two or More Races

** ** 9,876 0.79

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

9,168 0.93 8,761 0.70

*Includes both Asian and Pacific Islander employees;  ** Included with Asian employees

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Continues to Fall

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

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

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

2,205 65 2.95

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

11,932 243 2.04

Social Security System

63,990 1,289 2.01

Army & Air Force Exchange Service

35,277 706 2.00
Table 8 - Ranking Cabinet Level Agencies by IWTD FY 1999 FY 2008 8
Agencies Fiscal Year (FY)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1.   Treasury *

#

2,167

2,144

2,204

2,150

2,157

2,105

1,964

1,842

1,748

1,827

%

1.55%

1.54%

1.53%

1.53%

1.99%

1.90%

1.82%

1.73%

1.70%

1.73

2.   Veterans Affairs

#

3,517

3,512

3,501

3,399

3,623

3,692

3,566

3,566

3,758

3,985

%

1.80%

1.79%

1.74%

1.69%

1.75%

1.56%

1.52%

1.49%

1.48%

1.43%

3.   Education

#

79

81

74

73

73

73

63

59

59

59

%

1.81%

1.85%

1.68%

1.69%

1.73%

1.59%

1.42%

1.36%

1.36%

1.36%

4.   Labor

#

185

186

190

184

221

206

207

186

193

188

%

1.21%

1.19%

1.19%

1.16%

1.40%

1.30%

1.35%

1.21%

1.25%

1.22%

5.   Housing & Urban Development

#

137

137

136

138

148

139

134

130

126

116

%

1.45%

1.39%

1.40%

1.41%

1.45%

1.36%

1.35%

1.32%

1.31%

1.19%

6.   Interior

#

579

603

609

598

702

692

678

684

700

689

%

1.02%

1.05%

1.03%

0.99%

1.15%

0.89%

0.88%

0.94%

0.97%

0.93%

7.   Agriculture

#

1,013

1,001

988

990

1077

1068

1,000

1,009

965

893

%

1.19%

1.17%

1.12%

1.09%

1.20%

0.95%

0.91%

0.96%

0.93%

0.85%

8.  Defense

#

7,827

7,526

7,133

6,922

6,021

5,747

5,643

6,053

5,817

5,894

%

1.16%

1.13%

1.08%

1.05%

0.89%

0.84%

0.81%

0.86%

0.83%

0.82%

9.   Health & Human Services

#

567

574

614

619

673

651

624

576

596

596

%

1.13%

1.12%

1.18%

1.14%

1.27%

1.02%

0.97%

0.91%

0.81%

0.79%

10.   Commerce *

#

338

340

341

313

334

319

358

334

323

337

%

0.99%

1.00%

0.97%

0.87%

0.94%

0.84%

0.89%

0.82%

0.78%

0.79%

11.  Energy

#

116

129

128

127

122

119

116

111

122

118

%

0.75%

0.84%

0.82%

0.81%

0.80%

0.79%

0.77%

0.74%

0.82%

0.76%

12.  Transportation *

#

333

334

356

498

307

322

298

285

302

315

%

0.53%

0.54%

0.55%

0.49%

0.53%

0.56%

0.55%

0.53%

0.56%

0.57%

13.   Homeland Security

#

--

--

--

--

756

740

720

709

674

692

%

--

--

--

--

0.69%

0.45%

0.44%

0.42%

0.41%

0.39%

14.  Justice

#

500

493

485

485

396

406

406

413

412

408

%

0.42%

0.41%

0.40%

0.39%

0.40%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.38%

15.  State

#

63

69

64

67

93

93

90

88

84

84

%

0.53%

0.52%

0.48%

0.49%

0.53%

0.39%

0.37%

0.36%

0.33%

0.34%

Total Work Force

#

27,601

27,231

26,834

26,230

25,551

25,917

25,142

24,442

23,993

24,427

%

1.13%

1.11%

1.10%

1.07%

1.05%

0.99%

0.96%

0.94%

0.92%

0.88%

* These agencies showed an increase in the number and participation rate of IWTD in FY 2008.

Table 8a - Ranking of DOD Subcomponents by IWTD FY 1999 FY 2008 9
Agencies Fiscal Year (FY)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1.  Defense Finance and Accounting Service

#

340

331

317

302

283

275

271

261

253

243

%

1.99%

2.05%

2.07%

2.11%

2.08%

2.05%

2.02%

1.99%

2.03%

2.04%

2.  Army & Air Force Exchange Service *

#

813

770

818

763

687

628

597

604

556

706

%

2.26%

2.48%

2.00%

1.87%

1.88%

1.87%

1.69%

1.65%

1.62%

2.00%

3.  Defense Logistics Agency

#

814

733

534

495

448

449

430

413

404

409

%

2.12%

2.08%

2.36%

2.28%

2.16%

2.07%

2.00%

1.92%

1.89%

1.78%

4.  Defense Contract Management Agency

#

^^

177

177

169

149

149

146

127

121

120

%

^^

1.46%

1.48%

1.49%

1.39%

1.34%

1.39%

1.29%

1.27%

1.28%

5.  Office of the Inspector General

#

15

12

14

13

14

13

13

15

18

17

%

1.23%

0.99%

1.12%

1.10%

1.19%

1.02%

0.95%

1.08%

1.28%

1.12%

6.  Defense Security Service

#

31

21

22

25

21

16

7

8

6

6

%

1.27%

0.83%

0.83%

0.98%

0.88%

0.84%

1.33%

1.47%

1.14%

1.04%

7.  Defense Information Systems Agency *

#

69

70

67

74

64

60

53

62

53

55

%

1.29%

1.16%

1.12%

1.25%

1.16%

1.15%

1.08%

1.15%

0.95%

0.97%

8.  Defense Contract Audit Agency

#

43

53

55

46

54

52

48

41

40

39

%

1.10%

1.27%

1.37%

1.13%

1.34%

1.28%

1.17%

1.02%

0.98%

0.94%

9.  Defense Commissary Agency

#

212

196

178

174

156

158

141

142

123

124

%

1.41%

1.32%

1.27%

1.42%

1.30%

1.07%

0.92%

0.92%

0.82%

0.82%

10.  Department of the Navy

#

1,928

1,810

1,732

1,724

1,620

1,562

1,500

1,430

1,380

1,398

%

1.06%

1.03%

0.99%

0.97%

0.92%

0.88%

0.86%

0.82%

0.80%

0.78%

11.  Defense Threat Reduction Agency *

#

10

9

6

6

5

7

10

10

7

9

%

1.10%

0.98%

0.64%

0.63%

0.56%

0.84%

0.90%

0.86%

0.63%

0.75%

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

#

41

43

32

32

38

39

41

45

54

60

%

0.86%

0.89%

0.71%

0.72%

0.72%

0.78%

0.71%

0.69%

0.71%

0.71%

13.  Department of the Army

#

1,999

1,930

1,857

1,793

1,689

1,710

1,756

1,724

1,719

1,714

%

0.95%

0.92%

0.89%

0.85%

0.82%

0.75%

0.74%

0.72%

0.71%

0.67%

14.  Department of the Air Force

#

1,489

1,362

1,305

1,273

1,157

1,196

1,174

1,123

1,042

953

%

0.99%

0.94%

0.90%

0.90%

0.87%

0.80%

0.75%

0.71%

0.67%

0.62%

15.  Defense Human Resource Activity *

#

4

4

4

4

6

6

4

4

3

4

%

0.60%

0.59%

0.60%

0.60%

0.82%

0.78%

0.50%

0.45%

0.34%

0.44%

16.  Defense Education Activity

#

32

35

33

36

38

56

41

44

37

37

%

0.30%

0.33%

0.30%

0.33%

0.35%

0.32%

0.25%

0.27%

0.24%

0.24%

^^Defense Contract Management Agency was a part of Defense Logistics Agency until March 27, 2000.

* These Defense Components showed an increase in the number and participation rate of IWTD in FY 2008.

Section E- Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

EEOC’s regulations provide that each agency shall assure that individual complaints are fairly and thoroughly investigated and that final action is taken in a timely manner. 29 C.F.R. 1614.102(c)(5). Section II(E) of MD-715 establishes that a model EEO program must have an efficient and fair dispute resolution process and effective systems for evaluating the impact and effectiveness of its EEO programs. In this regard, Section II(E) recommends that agencies “benchmark against EEOC regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and other federal agencies of similar size which are highly ranked in EEOC’s Annual Report on the federal sector complaints process.”

1. Federal Agency EEO Programs: Complaints Increase and Processing Times Continue to Exceed Regulatory Deadlines

Agencies process federal employees’ EEO complaints under EEOC’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Employees unable to resolve their concerns through counseling can file a complaint with their agency.10 The agency will either dismiss11 or accept the complaint. If the complaint is accepted, the agency must conduct an investigation, and, in most instances, issue the investigative report within 180 days from the date the complaint was filed.12

After the employee receives the investigative report, s/he may: (1) request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, who issues a decision that the employee or the agency may appeal to EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations; or (2) forgo a hearing and request a final agency decision. An employee who is dissatisfied with a final agency decision or the agency’s decision to dismiss the complaint may appeal to EEOC. The complainant or agency may also request EEOC to reconsider its decision on the appeal. In addition, during various points in the process, the complainant has the right to file a civil action in a federal court.

As the EEO complaint process has become increasingly more costly, adversarial, and lengthy, EEOC has encouraged agencies to promote and expand the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a means of avoiding formal adjudication processes. Used properly, ADR can provide fast and cost-effective results while improving workplace communication and morale.13

a. Pre-Complaint Counselings and Complaints Increase

Completed counselings increased by 2.9% from FY 2007 to FY 2008 and decreased 8.3% from FY 2004. Formal complaints increased by 2.4% from FY 2007 to FY 2008 and decreased 12.0% from FY 2004. Of the 38,898 completed counselings, 15,539 individuals filed 16,752 formal complaints in FY 2008.14 The number of formal complaints filed represents 41.8% of all pre-complaint counseling activities in FY 2008. As Figure 5 shows, over the past five fiscal years, the number of pre-complaint counseling activities has decreased from 42,412 in FY 2004 to 38,898 in FY 2008, and likewise, the number of complaints filed by individuals decreased over the five-year period. During the same five-year period, the number of formal complaints filed continued to represent less than 50% of all pre-complaint counseling activities. See Figure 5. Significantly, while the United States Postal Service constituted 27.6% of the work force, it accounted for 47.1% of all EEO counselings, 36.6% of all complaints filed, 36.9% of all completed investigations and 40.8% of all complaints closed in FY 2008. See Tables B-1, B-9 and B-10 in Appendix III at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

Figure 5 - Completed Counseling to Formal Complaints Filed/Complainants FY 2004 - FY 2008
FY 2003 - FY 2007

chart

Table 9 below shows that among the cabinet/large (15,000 or more employees) agencies, in FY 2008, the USPS reported the highest percentage (2.2%) of its work force that completed counseling, while the government-wide average was 1.2%. Among the medium sized agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees), Broadcasting Board of Governors reported the highest percentage (4.1%) of its work force completed counseling. Agencies that had fewer than 25 completed/ended counselings were not included in the ranking. Small and Micro agencies (1-999 employees) typically have fewer than 25 completed/ended counselings and therefore are not ranked. Table B-1 in Appendix III lists this information for all agencies and is located at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

Table 9 –Agencies with the Highest Counseling Rate In FY 2008
Agency Total Work Force Percentage of Individuals
Who Completed
Counseling

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

   

U.S. Postal Service

759,453 2.2%

Department of Education

4,344 1.8%

Department of Housing & Urban Development

8,613 1.4%

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

   

Broadcasting Board of Governors

1,765 4.1%

Government Printing Office

2,392 3.1%

Federal Reserve System - Board of Governors

1,945 2.4%

As shown in Table 10 below, in FY 2008, among the cabinet/large (15,000 or more employees), the Department of Housing and Urban Development reported the highest complainant rate (1.0%), while the government-wide average was 0.5%. Among the medium sized agencies (1,000 to 14,999 employees), the Broadcasting Board of Governors reported the highest complainant rate of (1.7%). Agencies that had fewer than 25 complaints filed were not included in the ranking. Table B-1 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

Table 10 - Agencies with the Highest Complainant Rate in FY 2008
Agency Total Work Force Complainants as %
of Total Work Force

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

   

Department of Housing & Urban Development

8,613 1.0%

Department of Education

4,344 0.9%

U.S. Postal Service

759,453 0.8%

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

   

Broadcasting Board of Governors

1,765 1.70%

Government Printing Office

2,392 1.67%

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2,208 1.63%
b. Pre-Complaint ADR Usage – Higher Rates in Two Major Categories

Beginning in FY 2006, ADR offer and participation rates were measured in completed/ended counselings at the end of the fiscal year to ensure greater uniformity, consistency, and quality in the reporting and utilization of ADR data.

Therefore, comparison of FY 2006 through FY 2008 data with prior year’s data is not possible. In FY 2008, the government-wide offer rate was 81.3% based upon 31,607 ADR offers made in 38,898 completed/ended counselings. Of these offers, 19,267 were accepted into agencies’ ADR programs, resulting in a 49.5% participation rate in FY 2008, up from the 48.3% reported for FY 2007.

Twenty-six agencies had 100% offer rates in FY 2007. The agencies were the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Central Intelligence Agency, Commission on Civil Rights, Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Defense Human Resources Activity, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Defense Office of the Secretary/Wash. Hqtrs. Services, Defense Security Service, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Farm Credit Administration, Federal Election Commission, Federal Reserve System-Board of Governors, Federal Trade Commission, Government Printing Office, International Boundary and Water Commission, International Trade Commission, National Credit Union Administration, National Gallery of Art, National Labor Relations Board, National Reconnaissance Office, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Securities & Exchange Commission and the Smithsonian Institution.

The U.S. Postal Service Again Had the Highest ADR Participation Rate

In FY 2008, the U.S. Postal Service reported the highest ADR participation rate in the pre-complaint process (74.1%) among the cabinet/large agencies, while the government-wide average was 49.5%. Among the medium sized agencies EEOC reported the highest pre-complaint ADR participation rate (34.6%). The government-wide average falls to 27.7% without the U.S. Postal Service. No other agency with 25 or more completed/ended counselings had a participation rate greater than fifty percent. See Table 11. Agencies that had fewer than 25 completed/ended counseling were not included in the ranking. See Tables B-1 and B-4 in Appendix III for information on all agencies, which is located at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

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

 Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

 

U.S. Postal Service

759,453 18,307 13,560 74.1%

Department of the Treasury

119,633 844 372 44.1%

Department of Veterans' Affairs

227,361 3,993 1,755 44.0%

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

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2,208 52 18 34.6%

Smithsonian Institution

6,162 29 10 34.5%

General Services Administration

12,000 148 45 30.4%
c. Agencies Meet Counseling Deadlines in 91.2% of Cases

On average, in FY 2008 agencies met timeliness requirements for EEO counseling in 91.2% of all completed/ended counselings, an improvement from 90.0% in FY 2007 and more successful then the 76.3% that were timely in FY 2004. Agencies are required to complete counseling in 30 days except when there is a 60-day extension due to an ADR election or the complainant agrees in writing to an extension.

d. Agencies Pre-Complaint Resolution Rate in FY 2008 Falls

During counseling and ADR in the pre-complaint stage, EEO disputes can be resolved by either a settlement or a decision not to file a formal complaint. In FY 2008, the government-wide resolution rate average was 55.1%, down from 55.6% in FY 2007.

National Endowment for the Arts Holds the Highest Pre-Complaint Resolution Rate

In FY 2008, the National Endowment for the Arts again reported the highest pre-complaint resolution rate (100%) among agencies with more than 25 completed/ended counselings. Among cabinet/large agencies, Defense National Guard Bureau reported the highest pre-complaint resolution rate (86.1%). See Table 12. The Federal Reserve System Board of Governors reported the highest pre-complaint resolution rate (91.3%) among the medium sized agencies. Agencies that had fewer than 25 completed/ended counselings were not included in the ranking. However eight agencies, African Development Foundation, Committee for Purchase from Blind and Severely Disabled, Farm Credit Administration, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Housing Finance Board, Federal Maritime Commission, International Boundary and Water Commission, Office of Government Ethics and the U. S. Tax Court in this category had 100% resolution rates. Table B-3 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

Table 12 Highest Pre-Complaint Resolution Rates FY 2008
Agency Total Work Force Completed Counselings Total Resolved Resolution Rate

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

       

Defense National Guard Bureau

58,685 180 155 86.1%

Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Service

35,277 396 293 74.0%

U.S. Postal Service

759,453 18,307 12,042 65.8%

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

       

Federal Reserve System - Board of Governors

1,945 46 42 91.3%

Federal Trade Commission

1,126 25 22 88.0%

Broadcasting Board of Governors

1,765 78 47 60.3%

Defense National Guard Bureau Had the Highest ADR Resolution Rate in FY 2008

In FY 2008, the Defense National Guard Bureau reported the highest ADR resolution rate in the pre-complaint process (100%), whereas the government-wide average was 66.6%. See Table 13. When the U.S. Postal Service resolution rate (74.87%) is excluded from the government-wide average, the government-wide ADR resolution rate decreased to 46.9% in FY 2008. Agencies that had fewer than 25 ADR closures were not included in the ranking. Table B-5 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov/.

Table 13 Highest Pre-Complaint ADR Resolution Rates FY 2008
Agency Total Work Force ADR Closures ADR Resolutions ADR Resolution Rate

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

       

Defense National Guard Bureau

58,685 31 31 100%

Defense Logistics Agency

25,240 62 48 77.4%

U.S. Postal Service

759,453 13,560 10,153 74.9%

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

       

Defense Finance & Accounting Service

12,033 31 21 67.7%

General Services Administration

12,000 45 25 55.6%
e. Monetary Benefits in Pre-Complaint Phase Almost Doubles

Monetary benefits awarded in settlements during the pre-complaint phase, shown in Table 14, have surpassed the FY 2004 benefits amount. The data showed an increase in the average amount of monetary benefits from $3,349 in FY 2007 to $6,112 in FY 2008.

Table 14 – Monetary Benefits Awarded In Settlements During the Pre-Complaint Stage of the EEO Process
FY 2004 – FY 2008
FY Completed Counselings Total Resolutions Total Settlements Total Settlements with Monetary Benefits Settlement Monetary Benefits Average Award per Resolution with Monetary Benefits
# % # % # %
2004

42,412

21,520

50.7

7,856

18.5

603

7.7

$3,137,911

$5,203

2005

41,070

22,038

53.7

7,652

18.7

585

7.7

$1,703,626

$2,912

2006

38,824

21,430

55.2

7,424

19.1

622

8.4

$1,666,651

$2,680

2007

37,809

21,029

55.6

7,454

19.7

687

9.2

$2,300,700

$3,349

2008

38,898

21,431

55.1

7,573

19.5

659

8.7

$4,027,772

$6,112

f. The Most Frequently Alleged Basis and Issue Remain Unchanged

Of the 16,752 complaints filed in FY 2008, the basis most frequently alleged was reprisal (7,489) and the issue most frequently alleged was non-sexual harassment (4,999). As shown in Tables 15 and 16, this trend has remained unchanged for the past five fiscal years. In FY 2008, complaints filed with allegations of race (Black) again exceeded those complaints filed with allegations of disability (physical).

Table 15 Top 3 Bases in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2004 FY 2008
Basis FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

Reprisal

7,782 7,105 6,535 6,960 7,489

Age

5,449 5,088 4,769 4,851 4,977

Disability (Physical)

      4,123  

Race – Black

5,021 4,478 4,125   4,299

In FY 2008, allegations of race discrimination were made in 37.4% of all complaints, up from the 36.4% of all complaints filed in FY 2007. In FY 2008, there was an 11.9% decrease in the number of complaints filed since FY 2004, and the percentage of complaints alleging discrimination based on race decreased by 18.0%. During that same period, the percentage of complaints filed alleging discrimination based on color decreased 19.9%, from 2,183 in FY 2004 to 1,752 in FY 2008.15

In April 2006, EEOC issued Section 15 of the new Compliance Manual on “Race and Color Discrimination.” It includes numerous examples and guidance in proactive prevention and “best practices.” This Manual Section is located at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race_color.html.

Table 16 Top 3 Issues in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2004 FY 2008
ISSUE FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

Harassment – Non-Sexual

5,175 4,550 4,544 4,951 4,999

Promotion/Non-Selection

3,892 2,937 2,793 2,719 2,882

Terms/Conditions

2,474 2,300 2,390 2,149 2,606
g. Agency Investigation Times Remain within Regulatory Time Limits, Yet, Agencies Continue to Exceed Time Limits for Issuing Final Agency Decisions

Investigations

Investigations into allegations of discrimination are a key component of the formal EEO complaint process. Delays may impede the primary goal of gathering sufficient evidence to permit a determination as to whether discrimination occurred. EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. 1614.106(e)(2) requires agencies to conduct an investigation and issue a report to the complainant within 180 days of the filing of a complaint unless: 1) the parties agreed to no more than a 90-day extension (may not exceed 270 days); or 2) the complaint was amended or consolidated, which can add another 180 days to the period but may not exceed a total of 360 days.

In FY 2008, agencies timely completed investigations 73.8% of the time, slightly lower than the 73.95% timely completed in FY 2007 (including written agreements to extend the investigation and consolidated or amended complaints). When the U.S. Postal Service is not included, the percentage of timely completed investigations decreased to 58.7% government-wide. Agencies’ average time to complete investigations slipped upward in FY 2008 to the regulatory timeframe of 180 days while last year’s reported average of 176 days was the best in fourteen years. In comparison, agency investigations averaged 186 days in FY 2006 and 280 days in FY 2004. See Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 Average Processing Days for Investigations for FY 2004 FY 2008

Chart

Of those investigations required to be completed within the 180-day time limit, agency in-house investigators averaged 213 days to complete the investigation, while contract investigators averaged 165 days. Several years ago, in a review of the investigatory practices of selected agencies, EEOC identified several reasons for untimely investigations: poorly staffed EEO offices, unnecessary and time-consuming procedures,16 delays in obtaining affidavits, and inadequate tracking and monitoring systems. For more information, see EEOC’s Federal Sector Investigations Time and Cost, issued June 2004 and Attaining a Model Agency Program: Efficiency at www.eeoc.gov/federal/efficiency.html.

Tennessee Valley Authority Completed the Highest Percentage of Timely Investigations

As shown in Table 17, the Tennessee Valley Authority timely completed 100% of its investigations.17 Significantly the US Postal Service timely completed 99.5% of its 4,113 investigations in FY 2008. Among medium agencies the Tennessee Valley Authority topped the list while the General Services Administration reported the next highest timely completed investigation rate (94.1%) among those agencies which completed 25 or more investigations. Agencies that had completed fewer than 25 investigations were not included in the ranking. Table B-9 in Appendix III contains this information for all agencies and is located at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

Table 17 Highest Percentage of Timely Completed Investigations for FY 2008
Agencies Total Work Force # Completed Investigations # Timely Completed % Timely

Cabinet/Large (15,000 or more employees)

       

United States Postal Service

759,453 4,113 4,093 99.5%

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

18,779 40 38 95.0%

Department of Commerce

43,808 155 146 94.2%

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

       

Tennessee Valley Authority

11,500 37 37 100%

General Services Administration

12,000 68 64 94.1%

Defense Finance & Accounting Service

12,033 40 30 75.0%

In FY 2008, the government-wide average cost for contracting out complaint investigations $2324.00 decreased 0.98% from the FY 2007 average cost of $2347.02. However, the FY 2008 average cost of agency (in-house) investigations ($5352.26) increased 12.6% from the FY 2007 average cost of $4753.30. Average costs to contract out investigations in FY 2008 were approximately 56.6% (up from the 52.7% difference in FY 2007) less than the average costs of agency (in-house) investigations.

Final Agency Actions

EEOC regulations require an agency to take a final action on each formal complaint filed. Table 18 below provides a breakdown with processing time for all final agency actions. Agencies may issue a decision dismissing a complaint on procedural grounds such as untimely EEO counselor contact or failure to state a claim. Government-wide, agencies took an average of 88 days, a significant drop from the 125 days in FY 2007, to issue a decision dismissing a complaint on procedural grounds. EEOC maintains that, in general, acceptance letters/dismissal decisions should be issued well in advance of the 180-day time limit to complete an investigation. A suggested practical method of procedure is to issue these actions within 60 days of the filing of the formal complaint.

Table 18 EEO Complaint Closures by Type with Government-Wide Average Processing Times in Days (APD) in FY 2004 FY 2008
FY Complaint Closures Merit Final Agency Actions With AJ Decisions Merit Final Agency Decisions Without AJ Decisions Procedural Dismissals Settlements Withdrawals
Total APD Total APD from Comp. Filed Total APD APD from Date Required % Timely Total APD Total APD Total APD

2004

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

2005

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

2006

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

2007

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

2008

16,654 336 2,962 589 4,576 420 126 63.5% 4,298 87 3,249 371 1,569 219

An agency may also issue a decision after an investigation, either finding discrimination or finding no discrimination. In FY 2008, agencies timely issued 63.5% of their final agency merit decisions, a slight increase from the 63.4% timely completed in FY 2007. Commission regulations require agencies to issue final decisions within 60 days of a complainant’s request for such a decision or Administrative Judge’s remand for a final agency decision. In addition, regulations require agencies to issue a final agency decision within 90 days after completion of an investigation if the complainant has not requested either a final decision or an EEOC hearing. In FY 2008 agencies issued merit final agency decisions without an Administrative Judge’s decision in an average of 126 days up from 120 days in FY 2007.

The Department of the Navy Issued the Highest Percentage of Timely Merit Decisions Without an Administrative Judge Decision

In FY 2008, the Department of the Navy reported the highest percentage (97.9%) of timely issued merit decisions without an Administrative Judge decision. The FY 2008 government-wide average timely issued merit decision percentage was 59.7% with the U.S. Postal Service and dropped to 35.6% without the U.S. Postal Service. See Table 19 below.18 Agencies that issued fewer than 25 merit decisions without a hearing were not included in the ranking. In FY 2008, there were no agencies smaller than cabinet/large (15,000 or more employees) that issued 25 or more merit decisions without an Administrative Judge Decision. See Table B-14 in Appendix III for this information on all agencies located at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

Table 19 Agencies With the Highest Percentage of Timely Issued Merit Decisions (Without an Administrative Judge Decision) in FY 2008
Agencies Total Work Force Merit Decisions without an AJ Decision
# Timely %

Department of the Navy

225,231 140 137 97.9%

U.S. Postal Service

759,453 1,907 1,78 93.5%

Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Service

35,277 25 20 80.0%

Department of the Treasury

119,633 148 86 58.1%

Department of Health & Human Services

75,294 78 44 56.4%

Finally, when an EEOC Administrative Judge has issued a decision, the agency must issue a final order either implementing the Administrative Judge’s decision or not implementing and simultaneously appealing to EEOC. In FY 2008, agencies issued 3,063 final orders implementing and 64 orders not implementing the Administrative Judge’s decision. Commission regulations require agencies to issue an order within 40 calendar days of receiving the Administrative Judge’s decision or the decision becomes the agency’s final decision. In FY 2008, agencies issued orders on AJ merit decisions in an average of 583 days after the complaint was filed, a significant drop from 743 days in FY 2004.

h. % of Findings of Discrimination Decline and Monetary Benefits Highest in 5 Years

In FY 2008 the findings of discrimination dropped to the FY 2006 level of 2.5%, the percentage of findings of discrimination had risen in FY 2007 to 2.9%. However, Table 20 below shows that both the total number of merit decisions and the number of findings of discrimination have decreased this year.

Table 20 Amounts Awarded in Resolution of Formal EEO Complaints Before Appeals FY 2004 FY 2008
Total Complaint Closures Findings of Discrimination Settlements Monetary Benefits
FY # Total Merit Decisions # % of Merits Decisions # % of Total Closures # Total Complaint Closures with Benefits % of Total Complaint Closures with Benefits Total (in millions) Per Capita

2004

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

2005

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

2006

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

2007

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

2008

16,654 7,538 191 2.5% 3,249 19.5% 3,383 20.3% $41.2 $12,193

Average monetary benefits awarded in resolution of formal EEO complaints increased by 14.4% between FY 2007 and FY 2008 and by 94.6% from FY 2004. Table 20 above shows the total monetary benefits awarded during the formal complaint process for the past five fiscal years, while Figure 7 indicates what portion of these benefits were for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and lump sum payments.

Figure 7 Monetary Benefits Awarded in the Formal Complaint Stage FY 2004 FY 2008

Chart
i. Affirmation Rate of Final Agency Decisions on Appeal

As demonstrated by Table 21 below, 66.6% of final agency decisions (FADs), excluding those in which an AJ issued a decision, were affirmed on appeal in FY 2008. This represents a 1.8% decrease from the FY 2007 affirmation rate and a 14.1% decrease from the FY 2004 affirmation rate.

Table 21 Affirmation Rate of Final Agency Decisions on Appeal FY 2004 FY2008
Fiscal Year FADs Decided on Appeal FADs Affirmed on Appeal Percentage of FADs Affirmed on Appeal

FY 2004

3,563 2,876 80.7%

FY 2005

3,316 2,595 78.3%

FY 2006

3,785 2,257 59.6%

FY 2007

2,591 1,773 68.4%

FY 2008

2,746 1,828 66.6%

2. EEOC Hearings and Appeals: Processing Times Increase for Hearings and Appeals

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

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

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

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

a. Hearings
i. Hearings Inventory on the Rise

The hearings inventory increased from 5,505 in FY 2007 to 6,488 in FY 2008, which represents an increase of 17.9%. Since FY 2004, the hearings inventory has increased 8.6%.

Figure 8 Hearings Inventory FY 2004 FY 2008

Chart
ii.  Hearing Requests Increase

Hearing requests increased by 2.1% from 7,869 in FY 2007 to 8,036 in FY 2008, and have decreased by 10.9% from FY 2004. For comparison purposes, the 8,036 hearings requested comprised 47.9% of the total complaints filed in FY 2008.

Figure 9 Comparison of Requests for EEOC Hearings to Complaints Filed FY 2004 FY 2008

Chart
iii. Hearing Closures

During FY 2008, EEOC’s Hearings Program resolved 7,138 cases, including 60 class actions, which represents a 0.3% decrease from the 7,163 cases closed in FY 2007 and a 39.2% decrease from the 11,740 cases closed in FY 2004. Excluding the class actions, the 7,078 individual cases in FY 2008 were closed in the following manner: 12.9% were by decision following a hearing; 29.1% were by decisions on the record; 25.9% were closed by settlements; 15.0% were by procedural dismissal; and 17.1% were withdrawals. See Table 22 for a comparison of FY 2003 FY 2007.

Table 22 Hearings Program Individual Case Closures: FY 2004 FY 2008
Closure Type FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
# % # % # % # % # %

Decisions Following a Hearing

1,655 14.2 1,268 12.5 1,102 12.8 920 12.9 867 12.2

Decisions On the Record

3,481 30.0 3,272 32.3 2,883 33.4 2,067 29.1 1,958 27.2

Settlements

3,180 27.4 2,546 25.1 2,071 24.0 1,846 25.9 1,803 25.5

Procedural Dismissals

1,550 13.3 1,336 13.2 1,183 13.7 1,065 15.0 1,042 14.7

Withdrawals

1,760 15.1 1,721 17.0 1,380 16.0 1,217 17.1 1,408 19.9

Total Individual Case Closures

11,626   10,143   8,619   7,115   7,078  
iv. Average Processing Time for Hearings

The average processing time for hearing closures increased from 248 days in FY 2007 to 262 days in FY 2008, and represents a significant decrease from the 355 days in FY 2004. The average age of the pending inventory increased to 332 days in FY 2008 from 276 days in FY 2007, and has exceeded the 296 days in FY 2003 and FY 2004.

Figure 10 - Average Processing Days for Hearings FY 2004 - FY 2008

Chart
v.  Agencies Challenge Findings of Discrimination

In FY 2008, EEOC Administrative Judges issued 155 decisions finding discrimination, which was 5.5% of all decisions on the merits of complaints. In comparison to the 182 decisions finding discrimination that Administrative Judges issued in FY 2007, the 155 decisions in FY 2007 represent a 14.8% decrease. Agencies may either fully implement or appeal the Administrative Judge's decision to the OFO. In FY 2008, agencies appealed only 2.1% of all Administrative Judge decisions; however, they appealed 34.8% of the cases where an Administrative Judge found discrimination.

Table 23 - Agency Actions on Administrative Judge Decisions FY 2004 - FY 2008
FY Finding Discrimination19 Finding No Discrimination Totals
Implemented Appealed Implemented Appealed Implemented Appealed
# % # % # % # % # % # %

2004

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

2005

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

2006

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

2007

110 63.2% 64 36.8% 3,046 99.7% 8 0.3% 3,156 97.8% 72 2.2%

2008

107 65.2% 57 34.8% 2,794 99.9% 4 0.1% 2,901 97.9% 61 2.1%
vi. Monetary Benefits Decrease at Hearings

In FY 2008, Administrative Judge decisions and settlements at the hearings stage awarded $104.7 million in benefits, as compared to the $39.9 million in FY 2007 and the $45.9 million awarded in FY 2004.20 Note that benefits awarded by decisions of Administrative Judges at the hearings stage are preliminary, pending a decision on implementation by the agency or on appeal.

Figure 11 - Monetary Benefits Awarded from Hearings (In Millions of Dollars) FY 2004 - FY 2008

Chart
vii.  High Affirmation Rate of AJ Decisions on Appeal

As demonstrated by the table below, over 94% of Administrative Judge’s decisions were affirmed on appeal in FY 2008.21 The number of appealed Administrative Judge’s decisions decreased 29.8% over the five year period FY 2004 to FY 2008, the affirmation rate increased by only 8.6%.

Table 24 Affirmation Rate of AJ Decisions on Appeal FY 2004 - FY 2008
Fiscal Year AJ Decisions Appealed AJ Decisions Affirmed on Appeal % of AJ Decisions Affirmed on Appeal
Total Appeal By Agency22 Appeal By Appellant Total Appeal By Agency Appeal By Appellant Total Appeal By Agency Appeal By Appellant

2004

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

2005

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

2006

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

2007

1,305 76 1,229 1,236 64 1,172 94.7% 84.2% 95.4%

2008

1,284 81 1,203 1,211 64 1,147 94.3% 79.0% 94.7%
b. Appeals
i. Appeals Inventory Declines

OFO’s appellate inventory fell in FY 2008 to 3,275, which represents a 6.3% decrease from the 3,496 case inventory at the close of FY 2007 and an 9.9% reduction from the 3,634 case inventory at the close of FY 2004.

Figure 12 - Appellate Inventory FY 2004 - FY 2008

Chart
ii. Appeal Receipts Continue On A Downward Trend

OFO received 5,082 appeals in FY 2008, representing a 2.8% decrease from the 5,226 appeals filed in FY 2007. FY 2008 appeal receipts represent a 35.1% decrease from the 7,831 appeals received in FY 2004.

Figure 13 Comparison of Appeals Receipts to Complaint Closures FY 2004 - FY 2008

Chart
iii. Appeal Closures Remain Steady

OFO closed a total of 5,303 appellate cases in FY 2008. Of this number, 3,395 (64.0%) alleged violations of Title VII; 1,283 (24.2%) involved the Rehabilitation Act; 1,181 (22.3%) violations of the ADEA; and 26 (0.5%) involved the Equal Pay Act of 1963. In FY 2007, OFO closed a total of 5,617 appellate cases, of which 3,690 were Title VII cases (65.7%); 1,303 involved the Rehabilitation Act (23.2%); 1,293 alleged violations of the ADEA (23.0%); and 25 involved the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (0.4%).23 See Figure 14 for the appeal closures from FY 2004 to FY 2008.

Figure 14 - Appeal Closures FY 2004 - FY 2008

Chart

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

Table 25 - Types of Receipts and Appeals FY 2008
Types of Appeals Receipts Closures
# % of Total # % of Total

Total

5,082   5,303  

Initial Appeals from Complainants

4,022 79.1 4,183 78.9

Initial Appeals from Agencies

65 1.3 81 1.5

Petitions to Review MSPB Decisions

116 2.3 115 2.2

Appeals from a Grievance/Arbitration of FLRA Decisions

13 0.3 13 0.2

Petitions for Enforcement

24 0.5 34 0.6

Requests for Reconsiderations

842 16.6 877 16.5

In FY 2008, OFO closed 2,374 appeals addressing the merits of the underlying discrimination claims, and made a total of 111 findings of discrimination, which represents 4.7% of the total. In FY 2007, OFO closed 2,298 appeals addressing the merits of the underlying discrimination claims, and made a total of 114 findings of discrimination, which represented 5.0% of the total. In FY 2008, OFO reversed 18.0% of the 2,498 appeals of procedural dismissals.

iv. Average Processing Time of Appeal Closures

The average processing time for appeal closures rose to 278 days in FY 2008, representing a 20.9% increase from 230 days in FY 2007 and a 34.3% increase from 207 days in FY 2004.

OFO resolved 3,355 (63.3%) of the 5,303 appeals closed in FY 2008 within 180 days. The average age of the pending inventory at the end of FY 2008 was 297 days, a 2.6% decrease from the 305-day average age at the end of FY 2007 and a 25.0% decrease from the 396-day average age of the open inventory at the end of FY 2004.

Figure 15 - Average Processing Days on Appeal FY 2004 - FY 2008

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

In FY 2008, just as in FY 2007, reprisal, age and disability were the most prevalent bases of discrimination in closed appeals. Harassment (non-sexual), promotion and removal were again the three most prevalent issues of discrimination in closed appeals.

vi. $12.3 Million Awarded on Appeal

In FY 2008, the $12.3 million in monetary benefits awarded in compliance with appellate decisions (including settlement agreements resolving appeals) is an increase of almost 15% from the $10.7 million awarded in FY 2007 and a 44.3% decrease from the $22.1 million awarded in FY 2004.

Figure 16 - Monetary Benefits Awarded from Appeals 24
FY 2004 - FY 2008 (In Millions of Dollars)

Chart
vii. Training and Outreach Conducted By EEOC

In FY 2008, EEOC staff members informed a large number of federal employees of their rights and responsibilities under the EEO process, affirmative employment programs and laws that the Commission enforces. EEOC’s proactive prevention activities targeted multiple agencies, and provided to agency managers and supervisors a better understanding of how to prevent employment discrimination within their workplace. OFO staff members as well as staff from various EEOC offices throughout the country provided these training sessions.

Specifically, staff members conducted 173 training sessions reaching 6,721 federal employees, including 185 new EEO counselors, 300 new EEO investigators and 65 EEO professionals in affirmative employment programs. Additionally, staff members participated in 6 outreach sessions which reached another 140 individuals.

OFO staff members also responded to more than 6,672 calls regarding the EEO complaint/appeals process, thereby providing the federal sector EEO community and employees with timely information.

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

Leading Practices for Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

Conduct trend analysis, root cause analysis, and climate assessments to locate "hot spots" and to obtain feedback on the climate in the workplace.

Implement a "three strikes and you are out" policy, which removes collateral duty EEO counselors when they submit tardy or inferior work product three times.

Endorse the use of alternative dispute resolution to increase the percentage of EEO counseling activities that do not result in the filing of a formal complaint.

Include a penalty provision in contracts to reduce the fees for untimely investigations, and include an "interruption schedule" to account for complainants that amend or withdraw their complaints.

Establish short time frames for drafting and reviewing final agency decisions, particularly if the Office of General Counsel is responsible for conducting legal sufficiency reviews.

Conduct a pre-ADR meeting with the participants to explain the ADR process, clarify the issues in dispute, and determine the scope of settlement authority.

Establish a centralized system for tracking and monitoring complaints and requests for accommodation.

Section F - Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

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

1. 78% of Submitted EEOC 462 Reports Were Timely

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

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

In FY 2008 EEOC made the EEOC Form 462 Report submission paperless for agencies by assigning a unique personal identification number (PIN) to agency EEO Directors for use as their signatures. The PIN needed to be entered on the secure web site by the October 31st deadline to be considered timely. As with any new process there was a learning curve and the number of timely submitted reports dropped from 87 or 92.6% of the 94 agencies (with 100 or more employees) in FY 2007 to 76 or 78.4% of the 97 agencies (with 100 or more employees) in FY 2008. The FY 2008 percentage of timely filing is also down compared to FY 2006 when 91 agencies (with 100 or more employees) were required to submit an EEOC Form 462 report and 86 or 94.5% submitted them timely.

2. Almost Twice as Many Timely Submitted MD-715 Reports in FY 2008

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

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

With extensions 80.7% or 117 of the 145 agencies and subcomponents submitted timely MD-715 reports in FY 2008,25 almost twice the number filed timely in FY 2007. 44.8% or 77 of the 172 agencies and subcomponents submitted timely MD-715 reports in FY 2007 down from the 50% or 84 of the 167 agencies and subcomponents that timely submitted in FY 2006 and the 68% or 107 of the 158 agencies and subcomponents that timely submitted in FY 2005.

Leading Practices for Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

Add a timeliness requirement for submitting a timely MD-715 report, 462 report and complaint files to EEO staff performance plans.

Develop a plan to enable agency to begin electronically submitting case files to EEOC.

Track compliance cases and hold managers accountable for failure to implement EEOC orders and remedies.


Footnotes

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

2 The September 30, 2008 snapshot includes only employees in pay status on that date; thus, some permanent employees, like seasonal employees or those on active military tours of duty, are not included.

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

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

5 Because separate data is unavailable, the Asian American/Other Pacific Islander data prior to 2006 throughout this report includes the data for Asian with “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders.”

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

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

8 Table 8 identifies participation rates for FY 2000 FY 2008 which reflects total work force numbers. The FY 1999 data reflects participation rates based on permanent employees only. The total work force figures are as reported in CPDF plus AAFES & the Department of State.

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

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

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

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

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

14 Counseling may be provided via EEO Counselor or ADR Intake Officer.

15 Complaints may contain multiple bases and issues.

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

17 Twenty-nine agencies with fewer than 25 total investigations timely completed 100% of their investigations.

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

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

20 The total FY 2008 award includes a large class action complaint settlement.

21 Administrative Judge’s decisions reported here do not include Petitions for Enforcement.

22 “Appeal By Agency” occurs when the agency does not fully implement the Administrative Judge’s decision.

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

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

25 MD-715 reports are not currently submitted electronically; therefore the only FY 2008 data in this report regards timeliness of report submission. All other MD-715 data reported in this document reflect submitted FY 2007 MD-715 reports.


This page was last modified on September 15, 2009.

Home Return to Home Page