The Federal Government strives to be a model equal employment opportunity (EEO) employer. Workforce data suggests that it has made significant progress toward that goal on certain measures, yet some inequalities persist. This report examines fiscal year (FY) 2021 Federal sector workforce demographics and indicators of EEO commitment. The data and recommendations provided in this report are designed to support Federal agencies in their missions to improve EEO.

Main Findings

This report is divided into three sections: (1) composition of the Federal workforce by race, ethnicity, and gender, (2) composition of the Federal workforce by disability status and targeted disability, and (3) demonstrated commitment to EEO.

Highlights from the section on race, ethnicity, and gender[1] include:

In FY 2021, most (but not all) race/ethnicity by gender groups were employed in the Federal workforce at rates higher than they were in the civilian labor force (CLF).
Of groups with participation rates below the CLF, Hispanic/Latino men, Hispanic/Latina women, and men of Two or More Races saw substantial participation rate increases between FY 2016 and FY 2021. However, the participation rate of White women decreased during that same period.
Most demographic groups had their highest participation rates in the lower General Schedule (GS) 1-10 grade band. The exceptions were White men, Asian men, Asian women, and Hispanic/Latino men.

Highlights from the section on persons with disabilities include:

For the first time, the Federal Government reached its 2 percent participation goal for persons with targeted disabilities[2] (PWTD).
The participation rate of persons with disabilities (PWD) increased from 8.70 percent in FY 2016 to 10.51 percent in FY 2021.
The participation rates of PWD and PWTD were higher in the GS 1-10 grade band than in the GS 11 through Senior Executive Service and Senior Pay grade band.

Lastly, highlights from the section on EEO commitment indicators include:

Compared to FY 2020, a marginally greater proportion of agencies demonstrated commitment to EEO as measured by the four selected indicators.
Almost all agencies (93.1 percent) reported prominently posting reasonable accommodation procedures for individuals with disabilities.
In about 66.4 percent of Federal agencies, the EEO Director reported directly to the agency head.

The results of this report inform Federal agencies and the public about the progress made toward EEO in the Federal workforce. To demonstrate EEO within their ranks, Federal agencies must identify racial, ethnic, and gender groups with participation rates below their representation in the CLF and strive to address the root causes of apparent inequalities. Also, agencies must work towards meeting the 12 percent PWD participation rate goal and the 2 percent PWTD goal at both the lower and higher grade levels.

The recent increases in the participation rates of Hispanic/Latino men, Hispanic/Latina women, men of Two or More Races, PWD, and PWTD are encouraging. Federal agencies should identify promising practices for recruitment and retention based on the increasing participation rates in these groups. In addition, improved career development and mentoring programs may help equalize participation inequities across grade bands. The EEOC is committed to continuing to help agencies ensure an equitable Federal workforce.

Introduction

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States, with over 2.9 million[3] employees. Despite the significant progress made in promoting all areas of equal employment opportunity (EEO), workforce data suggests that some inequities persist in the Federal sector. For example, although the Federal workforce has grown more diverse in recent years, diversity at senior leadership levels remains low compared to the diversity found in lower grade bands.

The data presented in this report comes from 217 Federal agencies and subcomponents that filed and certified fiscal year (FY) 2021 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715 Reports).[4] The EEOC intends this report to serve as a resource for agencies to proactively prevent employment discrimination and strive to become model employers that promote an inclusive work culture.

Scope

This report, submitted to the President and Congress, aims to promote awareness of both the accomplishments and challenges in Federal sector EEO. Increasing awareness of challenges in the Federal Government may better equip the EEOC and Federal agencies to successfully prevent EEO violations from occurring.

This report also provides benchmarks against which individual Federal agencies can gauge their performance. As such, this report presents data in the following manner:

Governmentwide aggregate data are reported.[5] (Detailed data for individual agencies can be found in the online appendices at eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports.)
Federal workforce data is compared to the general population using the 2014-18 EEO Tabulation civilian labor force (CLF).
Trends from FY 2016 through FY 2021 are shown, where possible.
Participation rates in grade bands are examined.

This report is split into three sections. The first section looks at the Federal workforce’s racial, ethnic, and gender[6] characteristics and the governmentwide participation rates of EEO groups. Similarly, the second section describes the participation rates of persons with disabilities and targeted disabilities (severe disabilities associated with high rates of unemployment and underemployment).[7] The last section examines agencies’ demonstrated commitment to EEO, including governmentwide compliance with MD-715 guidance. The report concludes by highlighting key findings and recommendations for further improving Federal sector EEO.

Limitations

This report only includes data from agencies that submitted and certified MD-715 Reports. A complete list of the 48 agencies[8] that were required to but did not submit and certify FY 2021 MD-715 Reports is provided with the Annual Report Workforce Tables found on the EEOC’s Federal Sector Reports webpage (https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports). Missing MD-715 Reports cause inaccuracy and annual fluctuations in the governmentwide data reported in the Annual Report on the Federal Workforce. This is most problematic when large agencies, such as cabinet departments, do not certify their reports. For FY 2021, all cabinet departments certified department-wide reports.[9]

Readers should exercise caution when comparing current data to data from prior years. In FY 2018, the types of disabilities categorized as targeted disabilities changed in the EEOC’s Federal sector data collection. Similarly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) revised the Self-Identification of Disability form in October 2016, adding more categories under targeted disabilities.

Furthermore, in earlier versions of the OPM form, respondents had the choice to select “I do not wish to identify my disability status.” That category was replaced with “I do not wish to identify my disability or serious health condition.” This change affects any longitudinal analysis and interpretation of data drawn from that form. This EEOC report refers to both categories as “Not Identified.”

In MD-715 Reports, agencies have some liberty in deciding what they report as a Senior Pay position. In this report, workforce participation in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Pay positions reflects the sum of the SES and Other Senior Pay rows on MD-715 Reports, Workforce Tables A/B4P: Senior Pay & General Schedule Grades.

Federal Workforce by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

To work toward the Federal Government’s goal of becoming a model employer, agencies must offer equal opportunity for individuals to participate and advance in the Federal workforce. This section summarizes governmentwide participation rates by race, ethnicity, gender, and grade band in FY 2021.

Comparing overall participation rates in the Federal sector to CLF participation rates measures how well the Federal workforce reflects the diversity of the Nation as a whole. Knowing how closely the Government's workforce reflects the Nation as a whole gives insight into the Government's commitment to EEO. Trend analysis from FY 2016 through FY 2021 helped evaluate the Federal Government’s progress toward EEO. The report also examined whether there is proportional representation across ranks by comparing participation rates in General Schedule (GS) grades 1-10, GS 11 through Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Pay, and SES and Senior Pay Alone.

Compared to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF)

Table 1 shows that, overall, men participated in the Federal sector at a rate higher than their CLF rate in FY 2021 (54.5 percent of the Federal workforce vs. 51.8 percent of the CLF). In contrast, women participated at a lower rate than in the CLF (45.5 percent vs. 48.2 percent).

Federal participation rates for 8 out of 14 demographic groups were substantially higher[10] than their rates in the CLF. This included men and women of the following races: Black/African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native. Of these groups, Black/African American women had the biggest difference between rates (12.1 percent of the Federal workforce vs. 6.6 percent of the CLF), followed by Black/African American men (8.5 percent vs 5.7 percent) and Asian men (3.9 percent vs. 2.2 percent).

Some groups participated at rates below their CLF rates. White women had the biggest difference between rates (23.5 percent of Federal workforce vs. 31.8 percent of the CLF), followed by Hispanic/Latina women (4.4 percent vs. 6.2 percent) and Hispanic/Latino men (5.9 percent vs. 6.8 percent). Men of Two or More Races’ Federal workforce participation rate (0.9 percent) was more than 5 percent lower than their CLF participation rate (1.0 percent); however, these small numbers make it difficult to tell if this was a meaningful difference.

White men (35.5 percent vs. 35.7 percent) and women of Two or More Races (1.1 percent vs. 1.1 percent) participated in the Federal workforce at rates similar to their CLF rates.^[11]

Table 1. Participation in the Federal Sector and Civilian Labor Force (CLF) by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, FY 2021

All Women

Demographic Group	FY 2021 Federal Sector		2014–18 CLF
All Men	55.4%	>	51.8%
All Women	45.5%	<	48.2%
Hispanic/Latino Men	5.9%	<	6.8%
Hispanic/Latina Women	4.4%	<	6.2%
White Men	34.2%	≈	35.7%
White Women	23.5%	<	31.8%
Black/African American Men	8.5%	>	5.7%
Black/African American Women	12.1%	>	6.6%
Asian Men	3.9%	>	2.2%
Asian Women	3.3%	>	2.2%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Men	0.3%	>	0.1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Women	0.3%	>	0.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native Men	0.7%	>	0.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native Women	0.9%	>	0.3%
Two or More Races Men	0.9%	<	1.0%
Two or More Races Women	1.1%	≈	1.1%

Notes: Data include permanent and temporary employees. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Orange icons (>) mean that the Federal sector participation rate is greater than the CLF by at least 5 percent. Blue icons (<) mean that the Federal sector participation rate is less than the CLF by at least 5 percent. Black icons (≈) mean that the Federal sector participation rate is within +/-5 percent of the CLF.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2021 Management Directive 715, Workforce Table A1 and EEO Tabulation 2014-18 (5-year American Community Survey data), Table EEO-CIT02R—Occupation by Sex and Race/Ethnicity for Residence Geography, Citizen.

Participation Rate Trends, FY 2016–2021

Since FY 2016, the participation rates of some groups have significantly increased in the Federal sector (Table 2). Notably, the participation of Hispanic/Latino men increased from 5.2 percent in FY 2016 to 5.9 percent in FY 2021, while the participation of Hispanic/Latina women increased from 3.7 percent to 4.4 percent. The participation rates of men of Two or More Races and women of Two or More Races also increased, but their small numbers in the total workforce make it difficult to tell if this reflected a meaningful increase. In contrast, the participation rate of White men fell from 36.3 percent in FY 2016 to 34.2 percent in FY 2021.

Table 2. Federal Participation Rates by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, FY 2016–21

Demographic Group	FY 2016	FY 2017	FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021
All Men	55.2%	54.3%	54.8%	*57.1%	56.6%	54.4%	-1.2%
All Women	44.8%	*45.7%	45.2%	42.9%	43.4%	45.5%	1.5%
Hispanic/Latino Men	5.2%	5.4%	5.5%	6.2%	*6.4%	5.9%	14.9%
Hispanic/Latina Women	3.7%	3.9%	4.1%	4.4%	*4.5%	4.4%	16.6%
White Men	36.3%	34.7%	35.1%	*36.5%	35.5%	34.2%	-5.8%
White Women	*24.7%	24.6%	24.1%	22.5%	22.4%	23.5%	-9.3%
Black/African American Men	8.3%	8.5%	8.5%	8.5%	*8.6%	8.5%	2.2%
Black/African American Women	11.2%	*11.8%	11.7%	11.4%	11.7%	*12.1%	7.6%
Asian Men	3.6%	3.8%	3.7%	4.1%	*4.2%	3.9%	7.5%
Asian Women	3.0%	*3.1%	3.1%	2.9%	3.0%	*3.3%	8.1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Men	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	*0.3%	0.3%	7.8%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Women	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	*0.3%	8.7%
American Indian/Alaska Native Men	0.8%	0.7%	0.8%	0.8%	*0.8%	0.7%	-1.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native Women	0.9%	0.9%	0.9%	0.8%	*0.9%	0.9%	-2.5%
Two or More Races Men	0.8%	*0.8%	0.8%	0.6%	0.7%	*0.9%	22.0%
Two or More Races Women	0.9%	*1.1%	1.0%	0.5%	0.6%	*1.1%	15.3%

Notes: Data includes permanent and temporary employees. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. The highest value in each row is marked with a star (^*) and shaded green. Up arrows indicate an increase by more than 5 percent since 2016, horizontal arrows indicate a change (increase or decrease) of less than 5 percent, and down arrows indicate a decrease greater than 5 percent.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2016–21 Management Directive 715, Workforce Table A1.

Composition by Grade Band

Examining Federal sector participation rates within grade bands offers insight into the Federal workforce's distribution of positions up to those in higher GS grades and senior positions. Table 3 shows FY 2021 participation rates in General Schedule (GS) grades 1-10, GS grade 11 through SES and Senior Pay levels, and SES and Senior Pay levels alone. Shaded cells represent the highest participation rate for each demographic group.

Overall, men disproportionately held higher level positions—accounting for 54.7 percent of GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay positions and 61.9 percent of SES and Senior Pay Alone positions. In contrast, women held over half (57.9 percent) of GS 1-10 positions.

Table 3. Federal Participation Rates Within Grade Bands by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, FY 2021

Demographic Group	GS 1-10	GS 11-SES & Senior Pay	SES & Senior Pay Alone
All Men	42.1%	54.7%	*61.9%
All Women	*57.9%	45.3%	38.1%
Hispanic/Latino Men	4.9%	*5.3%	3.2%
Hispanic/Latina Women	*5.8%	3.6%	2.0%
White Men	24.5%	37.5%	*49.6%
White Women	*28.3%	26.1%	26.8%
Black/African American Men	*8.5%	6.3%	4.9%
Black/African American Women	*17.6%	1.2%	6.2%
Asian Men	2.5%	*4.2%	3.1%
Asian Women	3.0%	*4.1%	2.4%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Men	*0.3%	0.2%	0.1%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Women	*0.3%	0.2%	0.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native Men	*1.0%	0.7%	0.7%
American Indian/Alaska Native Women	*2.2%	0.7%	0.5%
Two or More Races Men	*0.5%	0.4%	0.2%
Two or More Races Women	*0.6%	0.4%	0.2%

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2021 Management Directive 715, Workforce Table A4P: Senior Pay & General Schedule Grades.

Almost all demographic groups had their highest participation rates in GS grades 1-10. There were four exceptions: Hispanic/Latino men (5.3 percent), Asian men (4.2 percent), and Asian women (4.1 percent) had their highest participation rates in the GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay grade band. White men were also highly represented in that same grade band (37.5 percent), but their participation rate in SES and Senior Pay Alone positions was even higher. They accounted for nearly half (49.6 percent) of SES and Senior Pay Alone positions.

Summary

In FY 2021, most demographic groups participated in the Federal workforce at rates higher than their CLF participation rates. Notably, Hispanic/Latino men and Hispanic/Latina women (groups with participation rates below the CLF) have increased their participation in the Federal sector since FY 2016. However, White women’s participation rate has not increased since FY 2016, and their participation rate remains below the CLF. Finally, participation rates differed across grade bands.

Infographic 1. FY 2021 Federal Sector and Civilian Labor Force Participation Rates by Gender

Federal Workforce by Disability Status and Targeted Disability

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities (PWD) in the Federal sector. In addition, it mandates that Federal agencies integrate affirmative action program plans as part of ongoing agency personnel management programs to provide adequate hiring, placement, and advancement for PWD.

The EEOC issued a final rule on January 17, 2017, titled Affirmative Action for Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Government. This rule clarifies “the obligation that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 imposes on Federal agencies, as employers, that are over and above the obligation not to discriminate on the basis of disability” (82 FR 654). This final rule amended 29 CFR 1614.203 and requires Federal agencies to take steps to gradually increase the number of employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities. People with targeted disabilities (PWTD) have severe disabilities associated with high rates of unemployment and underemployment.

In addition, the final rule requires agencies to set specific goals for the participation of PWD and PWTD in two grade bands: GS 1 through GS 10 and GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay. In each grade band, agencies must aim to have a 12 percent participation rate for PWD and a 2 percent participation rate for PWTD. To measure the progress that the Federal Government has made towards these goals, this section examines trends from FY 2016 through FY 2021 in the participation rates of PWD and PWTD, and within grade brands.[12]

Participation Rate Trends, FY 2016–21

Table 4 shows that the participation rate of PWD in the Federal sector increased from 8.70 percent in FY 2016 to 10.51 percent in FY 2021. This remains below the 12 percent Federal sector goal.

However, for the first time, the Federal Government has reached its 2 percent participation goal for PWTD. Their participation more than doubled from 1.01 percent in FY 2016 to 2.12 percent in FY 2021. The substantial increase in the overall participation rate of PWTD was mostly driven by greater participation from persons with deafness or serious difficulty hearing (0.13 percent in FY 2016 to 0.57 percent in FY 2021), significant psychiatric disorder (0.43 to 0.62 percent) and blindness or serious difficulty seeing (0.09 percent to 0.25 percent). In contrast, the participation rates of dwarfism and partial or complete paralysis decreased over the same period.

Changes in the EEOC’s data collection in 2018 added four new targeted disabilities: Developmental disability (0.03 percent of the Federal sector in FY 2021), traumatic brain injury (0.11 percent), significant mobility impairment (0.11 percent), and significant disfigurement (0.04 percent).

Table 4. Federal Sector Participation Rates by Disability Status and Targeted Disability, FY 2016–21

Disability Status or Targeted Disability	FY 2016	FY 2017	FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021	Percent Change Since 2016
No Disability	*87.23%	86.50%	85.10%	84.83%	83.95%	82.27%		-5.7%
Not Identified	4.07%	4.45%	5.25%	6.03%	*6.60%	*7.23%		77.6%
Disability	8.70%	8.97%	*9.49%	9.13%	9.45%	*10.51		20.7%
Targeted Disability	1.01%	1.35%	1.61%	1.80%	*1.84%	*2.12		108.5%
Developmental Disability	-	-	0.01%	0.03%	0.03%	*0.03%	N/A
Traumatic Brain Injury	-	-	0.05%	0.06%	*0.08%	*0.11	N/A
Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing	0.13%	0.30%	0.37%	0.58%	*0.58%	0.57%		327.8%
Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing	0.09%	0.16%	0.17%	*0.28%	0.27%	0.25%		186.7%
Missing Extremities	0.04%	0.04%	0.04%	0.05%	0.05%	*0.05%		32.2%
Significant Mobility Impairment	-	-	*0.12%	0.11%	0.11%	0.11%	N/A
Partial or Complete Paralysis	0.14%	*0.15%	0.14%	0.13%	0.12%	0.13%		-7.3%
Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders	0.12%	0.12%	*0.13%	0.12%	0.12%	0.13%		0.6%
Intellectual Disability	0.04%	*0.04%	0.04%	0.04%	0.04%	*0.06%		49.6%
Significant Psychiatric Disorder	0.43%	0.46%	*0.49%	0.36%	0.39%	*0.62%		45.4%
Dwarfism	*0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%		-32.1%
Significant Disfigurement	-	-	*0.04%	0.04%	0.04%	0.04%	N/A

Notes: FY = Fiscal Year. The participation rate is the number of people from a demographic group in the workforce divided by the total workforce. Data include only permanent employees. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. The highest value in each row is marked with a star (^*) and shaded green. Up arrows indicate an increase by more than 5 percent since FY 2016, horizontal arrows indicate a change (increase or decrease) under 5 percent, and down arrows indicate a decrease greater than 5 percent. Targeted disabilities are severe disabilities associated with high rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), FY 2021 Management Directive 715, Workforce Tables B1 and B2, and EEOC calculations using data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's September 2021 Enterprise Human Resources Integration-Statistical Data Mart.

Overall, the participation rate of persons reporting no disability decreased from 87.23 percent in FY 2016 to 82.27 percent in FY 2021. The percentage of employees with a “Not Identified” disability status increased from 4.07 percent in FY 2016 to 7.23 percent in FY 2021. However, the October 2016 change to the SF-256 Self-Identification of Disability form may have affected this. Data collected on this form in FY 2016 used the wording, “I do not wish to identify my disability status.” After October 2016, it read, “I do not wish to identify my disability or serious health condition.”

Composition by Grade Band

Federal agencies must not only aim to increase the participation of PWD and PWTD, but also set and assess goals for the participation of PWD and PWTD in lower and higher pay grades. Table 5 reports the FY 2021 participation rates by grade band of PWD and PWTD with data for specific targeted disabilities broken out (also see Figure 1).

In the GS 1-10 grade band, Federal agencies met their goals for the participation rates of PWD (13.55 percent vs. 12 percent goal) and PWTD (2.92 percent vs. 2 percent goal). However, they fell just short of meeting their goals for GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay. In these higher grades, 11.24 percent of employees were PWD and 1.96 percent were PWTD.

Although there are no regulatory goals for the participation of PWD and PWTD in the SES and Senior Pay Alone grade band, equitable participation is also important in authority positions. Table 5 shows that participation rates for PWD, PWTD, persons not identifying their disability status, and most types of targeted disabilities were lowest in the SES & Senior Pay Alone grade band and highest in the GS 1-10 grade band.

Table 5. Federal Sector Participation Rates within Grade Bands by Disability Status and Targeted Disability, FY 2021

Disability Status or Targeted Disability	GS 1-10	GS 11-SES & Senior Pay	SES & Senior Pay Alone
No Disability	77.58%	82.55%	*87.33%
Not Identified	*8.66%	5.87%	4.35%
Disability	*13.55%	11.24%	8.33%
Targeted Disability	*2.92%	1.96%	1.43%
Developmental Disability	*0.05%	0.03%	-
Traumatic Brain Injury	*0.17%	0.11%	0.02%
Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing	*0.63%	0.57%	0.55%
Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing	*0.29%	0.22%	0.25%
Missing Extremities	0.06%	0.06%	*0.08%
Significant Mobility Impairment	*0.18%	0.14%	0.11%
Partial or Complete Paralysis	*0.20%	0.16%	0.13%
Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders	*0.20%	0.13%	0.06%
Intellectual Disability	*0.07%	0.01%	-
Significant Psychiatric Disorder	*1.00%	0.49%	0.18%
Dwarfism	*0.02%	0.01%	-
Significant Disfigurement	0.05%	0.04%	0.02%

Notes: GS = General Schedule. SES = Senior Executive Service. FY = Fiscal Year. Participation rates are calculated by dividing the number of employees within demographic group and grade band by the total number of employees in that grade band. Data include only permanent employees. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Small values are suppressed to prevent the disclosure of individuals. The highest value in each row is marked with a star (^*) and shaded green. Targeted disabilities are severe disabilities associated with high rates of unemployment and underemployment. The Federal Government, as a matter of policy, has identified these disabilities for special emphasis.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2021 Management Directive 715 (MD-715), Workforce Table B4P: Senior Pay & General Schedule Grades.

Figure 1 below shows the participation rates of individuals with different targeted disabilities within different pay grade bands. In FY 2021, only persons with missing extremities had their highest participation rate in the SES and Senior Pay Alone grade band. They made up 0.08 percent of the SES and Senior Pay Alone grade band, compared to 0.06 percent of the GS 1-10 and 0.06 percent of GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay grade bands.

Figure 1. Federal Sector Participation Rates within Grade Bands by Targeted Disability, Fiscal Year (FY) 2021

Federal Sector Participation Rates within Grade Bands by Targeted Disability, Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Bar Graph

See Table 5 for data.

Targeted Disability	GS 1-10	GE 11-SES & Senior Pay	SES & Senior Pay Alone
Developmental Disability	0.05%	0.03%	0.00%
Traumatic Brain Injury	0.17%	0.11%	0.02%
Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing	0.63%	0.57%	0.55%
Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing	0.29%	0.22%	0.25%
Missing Extremities	0.06%	0.06%	0.08%
Significant Mobility Impairment	0.18%	0.14%	0.11%
Partial or Complete Paralysis	0.20%	0.16%	0.13%
Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders	0.20%	0.13%	0.06%
Intellectual Disability	0.07%	0.01%	0.00%
Significant Psychiatric Disorder	1.00%	0.49%	0.18%
Dwarfism	0.02%	0.01%	0.00%
Significant Disfigurement	0.05%	0.04%	0.02%

Notes: GS = General Schedule. SES = Senior Executive Service. Participation rates are calculated by dividing the number of employees within demographic group and grade band by the total number of employees in that grade band. Data include only permanent employees. Small values suppressed for confidentiality.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2021 Management Directive 715, Workforce Table B4P: Senior Pay & General Schedule Grades.

Summary

Federal agencies have made progress increasing the participation rates of PWD and PWTD since FY 2016. However, their participation in FY 2021 was concentrated in lower pay grades. Federal agencies must continue their efforts to recruit, advance, and retain employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities. Infographic 2 summarizes Federal participation rate trends for employees by disability and targeted disabilities status.

Infographic 2. Federal Employees with Targeted Disabilities, FY 2021

Demonstrated Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunities

Previous research has shown that employers who demonstrate commitment to EEO through their policies and practices have better EEO outcomes. For example, managerial involvement in EEO efforts and placing those with EEO responsibilities in high-ranking position have been shown to improve diversity and inclusion.[13] In addition, reasonable accommodations for PWD not only increase workplace diversity, but improve retention and morale.[14] Using measures related to these effective practices, this report assesses compliance with MD-715 and 29 CFR § 1614 requirements designed to improve EEO.

To assess the Federal Government’s commitment to EEO, this report examined four measures related to the prevention of discrimination found in Part G of EEOC Form 715-02, the Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report. Agencies that completed that form answered yes, no, or not applicable to the following questions:

Do all managers and supervisors have an element in their performance appraisal that evaluates their commitment to agency EEO policies and principles and their participation in the EEO program? (Question C.3.a)
Does the agency prominently post the following information throughout the workplace and on its public website: Reasonable accommodation procedures? (Question A.2.b.3)
Do senior managers participate in the barrier analysis process? (Question B.6.b)
Is the agency head the immediate supervisor of the person (“EEO Director”) who has day-to-day control over the EEO office? (Question B.1.a)

The EEOC considered agencies that answered yes to these questions to be demonstrating commitment to EEO. Figure 2 shows that reporting agencies demonstrated commitment on these measures to varying degrees. In FY 2021, 92.6 percent of agencies evaluated managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO. In addition, 93.1 percent of agencies made reasonable accommodations procedures readily available and accessible. This measure is crucial to attract and retain persons with disabilities within the Federal workforce.

By comparison, at 78.3 percent of Federal agencies in FY 2021, senior managers participated in the barrier analysis process. Leadership’s involvement in promoting EEO is crucial to creating a workplace culture that does not tolerate discrimination.

Figure 2. Federal Agencies' Demonstrated Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Fiscal Year 2021

Federal Agencies' Demonstrated Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Fiscal Year 2021 Bar graph. See Text in this section for data.

	Agency Evaluated Managers and Supervisors on Commitment to EEO	Reasonable Accommodation Procedures for Individuals with Disabilities Prominently Posted	Senior Managers Participate in the Barrier Analysis Process	Agency Head is the Immediate Supervisor of the EEO Director
Percent of Agencies	92.6%	93.1%	78.3%	66.4%

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2021 Management Directive 715, Part G.

Federal agencies scored lowest on having the agency head be the immediate supervisor of the EEO Director, with about 66.4 percent of agencies having a direct reporting structure in FY 2021.

Not including the EEO Director among senior management may suggest to employees that the agency does not consider EEO a priority. For years, regulations found in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(4) and further described in MD-110 have mandated that the EEO Director report directly to the agency head.[15] With the enactment of the Elijah J. Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2021, the requirement that the head of each Federal agency’s EEO Program report directly to the head of the agency is now law.

In addition, a 2022 EEOC report found that 92.4 percent of agencies with a direct reporting structure believe that a direct reporting structure has a positive effect on an agency’s EEO program.[16] The same report found that EEO Directors sometimes report to the heads of Human Resources, who often participate in the agency’s defense to claims of discrimination. The resulting conflict of interest may cause employees to doubt the neutrality of the EEO process, and they may hesitate to seek EEO counseling. This may lead to an increase in discriminatory conduct. All agencies with non-compliant reporting structures (33.6 percent in FY 2021) must remedy this issue.

Agencies have room for improvement, but compared to FY 2020, a marginally greater proportion of agencies demonstrated commitment to EEO on these four measures.[17] Infographic 3 summarizes data on Federal agencies’ demonstrated EEO commitment.

Infographic 3. Share of Federal Agencies Demonstrating Commitment to EEO, FY 2020

Findings and Recommendations

This FY 2021 report reviewed Federal workforce demographic trends and commitment to EEO. Recommendations based on the main findings are below.

Participation of Hispanic Men and Women Increased

Between FY 2016 and FY 2021, the Federal sector participation rates of Hispanic/Latino men and women substantially increased. Hispanic/Latino men’s rate went from 5.2 percent in FY 2016 to 5.9 percent in FY 2021. Hispanic/Latina women’s rate went from 3.7 percent to 4.4 percent. However, in FY 2021, Hispanic/Latino men and women participated in the Federal sector at rates lower than their CLF participation rates (6.8 percent for Hispanic/Latino men and 6.2 percent for Hispanic/Latina women).

The EEOC recommends that:

Federal agencies continue to identify and implement promising practices to increase the recruitment, hiring, and retention of Hispanic/Latino men and women.
Federal agencies should share promising practices with other employers, particularly those that may bring workforce compositions closer to the CLF.

Most Demographic Groups Had Lower Participation Rates in Higher Grade Bands

In FY 2021, only 4 out of 14 race/ethnicity by gender groups participated in the GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay grade band at a rate above their participation in the GS 1-10 grade band. These groups were White men, Asian men, Asian women, and Hispanic/Latino men. All other demographic groups held lower-level positions at higher rates. Overall, men accounted for 54.7 percent of the GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay grade band, but only 42.1 percent of the GS 1-10 grade band.

The EEOC recommends that:

Federal agencies should counteract existing grade band disparities through targeted recruitment for leadership vacancies and expanded career development and mentoring programs.
Federal agencies should identify and eliminate barriers that may prevent equitable participation in higher pay grades, such as in-group preferences in promotion decisions and work-life balance challenges in leadership positions.

Participation Rates of PWD and PWTD Have Increased Since FY 2016, but Grade Band Regulatory Goals Were Not Met

The participation rates of PWD and PWTD in the Federal sector continued to increase. The participation rate PWD increased their participation rate by 20.7 percent, from 8.70 percent in FY 2016 to 10.51 percent in FY 2021. During the same period, the participation rate of PWTD more than doubled, from 1.01 percent to 2.12 percent.

However, EEOC regulations set goals within grade bands to ensure equitable representation at all levels of Federal agencies. In both the GS 1-10 grade band and the GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay grade band, Federal agencies must aim to have 12 percent of their workforce be PWD and 2 percent be PWTD. PWD and PWTD participated in the GS 1-10 grade band at higher rates (13.55 percent and 2.92 percent, respectively) than in the GS 11 through SES and Senior Pay grade band (11.24 percent and 1.96 percent). Participation rates for PWD and PWTD were even lower when examining the SES and Senior Pay Alone grade band (8.33 percent and 1.43 percent).

The EEOC recommends that:

Federal agencies continue working towards meeting the regulatory goals for the participation of PWD and PWTD, focusing on equitable participation in higher grade bands.
Federal agencies that have succeeded in recruiting and retaining PWD and PWTD in the higher grade bands should share their leading practices with other Federal agencies.

Federal Agencies’ Demonstrated Commitment to EEO Increased, but Room for Improvement Remains

Compared to the prior FY, a slightly greater proportion of Federal agencies reported compliance with the four indicators of EEO commitment.[18] In FY 2021, 92.6 percent of Federal agencies evaluated managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO and 93.1 percent of agencies ensured that reasonable accommodation procedures were readily available and accessible. However, agencies scored lower at other measures of EEO commitment. Senior managers participated in the barrier analysis process at 78.3 percent of agencies, while the EEO Director reported directly to the agency head at only 66.4 percent agencies.

The EEOC recommends that:

Federal EEO programs should engage senior leadership, including their agency heads, to continue practices that increase demonstrated commitment to EEO.
Federal agencies should place the EEO Director under the immediate supervision of the agency head, as required by the Elijah J. Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2021.

Conclusion

Although progress is evident, Federal agencies should continue to strive to become model EEO employers. Participation is growing for some groups that historically have had lower than expected Federal sector employment when compared to the CLF and regulatory goals. This includes Hispanic/Latino men, Hispanic/Latina women, PWD, and PWTD. However, most demographic groups had lower participation in higher grade bands.

Compared to FY 2020, a greater proportion of agencies demonstrated commitment to EEO by implementing policies and practices associated with better EEO. However, more agencies must comply with the requirement to have the EEO director report directly to the agency head. The EEOC will continue to assist agencies through technical assistance, training, and outreach to work towards becoming model EEO employers.

Appendix A: Laws and the EEOC’s Role in the Federal Sector

Laws

The EEOC enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against or harass a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination, including harassment. The EEOC’s responsibilities extend not only to private employers, but also to agencies in the Federal Government.

The Federal anti-discrimination laws applicable to Federal employment are as follows:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), as amended, which prohibits paying different wages to men and women if they perform equal work in the same workplace.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age (40 years and older).
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination within the Federal Government against a qualified person with a disability and requires that reasonable accommodations be provided. The Rehabilitation Act applies the same standards as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability by private and state or local government employers.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978 Amendment to Title VII of Civil Rights Act), which prohibits discriminating against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information, including family medical history.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires a covered employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to a worker’s known limitation related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship (effective June 27, 2023).

The EEOC’s Federal Sector Role

The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to Federal agencies on all aspects of the Federal Government's EEO program. The EEOC assures Federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations, provides technical assistance to Federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, monitors and evaluates Federal agencies’ affirmative employment programs, develops and distributes Federal sector educational materials and conducts training for stakeholders, provides guidance and assistance to EEOC Administrative Judges who conduct hearings on EEO complaints, and adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by Federal agencies on EEO complaints.

Appendix B: Glossary

Agency – Military departments as defined in Section 102 of Title 5, U.S. Code and executive agencies as defined in Section 105 of Tile 5, U.S. Code, the United States Postal Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, those units of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government having positions in the competitive service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, the Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution (including those with employees and applicants for employment who are paid from non-appropriated funds).

Civilian Labor Force (CLF) – Data from the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulation reflecting persons, 16 years of age or older who were employed or seeking employment, excluding those in the Armed Services. CLF data used in this report is based on 2014-18 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data.

Disability – A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

EEO Commitment Indicators – Measures that indicate whether a Federal agency is committed to EEO and the prevention of employment discrimination. For this report, they come from Part G of EEOC Form 715-02, the Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.

General Schedule (GS) Positions – Positions OPM classifies as those whose primary duty requires knowledge or experience of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature.

Hispanic or Latino – A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

MD-110 – EEO Management Directive 110 provides policies, procedures, and guidance relating to the processing of employment discrimination complaints governed by the Commission's regulations in 29 CFR Part 1614.

MD-715 – EEO Management Directive 715 describes program responsibilities and reporting requirements relating to agencies' EEO programs.

MD-715 Report – The document which agencies use to annually report the status of their activities undertaken pursuant to their EEO program under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their activities undertaken pursuant to affirmative action obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This is formally known as The Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report or EEOC Form 715-02.

Not Identified Disability Status – Refers to the disability status of a Federal employee or applicant who selected “I do not wish to identify my disability or serious health condition” on OPM’s SF-256 (Revised October 2016), who selected “I do not wish to identify my disability status” on OPM’s SF-256 (Revised July 2010), or who was otherwise coded as such by a Federal personnel officer or OPM.

Participation Rate – The extent to which members of a specific demographic group are represented in an agency's workforce or a subset of an agency’s workforce, such as a grade band.

Permanent Workforce – Number of employees whose type of appointment is permanent status under competitive service, excepted service, or senior executive service. Includes full-time, part-time, seasonal, and intermittent employees. This report includes persons employed as of September 30, 2021.

Race/Ethnicity – See www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf181.pdf (U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 181):

American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
Persons of Two or More Races – Generally, persons who identify with two or more of the above race categories. However, according to OMB Bulletin No. 00-02 - Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement Persons, on MD-715 (the source for this report’s participation data), when a respondent reports being of one minority race and White, their data is allocated to the minority race.

In this report, people of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity are not counted in the racial categories listed above.

Senior Executive Service (SES) – A premier category of senior leaders in the Federal Government which was created to “...ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.”^[19]

Senior Pay Level Positions – Senior pay level positions include those with authority, responsibility, and pay levels comparable to positions in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and above within the agency. This may include career employees in the Executive Service, Senior Executive Service, Senior-Level and Scientific or Professional Positions, Administrative Appeals Judges, and Administrative Law Judges. Some MD-715 Report instructions list positions in GS-13 to SES as Senior Pay Grades.[20] In this report, workforce participation in SES and Senior Pay positions reflects what’s reported by Federal agencies on the Total Senior Pay row on certified MD-715 Reports, Workforce Tables A/B4P: Senior Pay & General Schedule Grades.

Subcomponent – A subordinate component of a larger Federal agency or department.

Targeted Disabilities – Disabilities that the Federal Government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis. Targeted disabilities are developmental disability, traumatic brain injury (TBI), deaf or serious difficulty hearing, blind or serious difficulty seeing, missing extremities, significant mobility impairment, partial or complete paralysis, epilepsy or other seizure disorders, intellectual disability, significant psychiatric disability, dwarfism, and significant disfigurement.

Temporary Workforce – Number of employees whose type of appointment is nonpermanent status under competitive service, excepted service, or senior executive service. Includes full-time, part-time, seasonal, and intermittent employees.

Total Workforce – All employees of an agency subject to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 regulations, including temporary and permanent employees.

Appendix C: Workforce (A) Tables

The data tables used in this report are available online at www.eeoc.gov/Federal-sector/reports:

Table A-1a: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-1b: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-1c: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Agency (Independent Agencies)
Table A-1d: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Agency (Independent Agencies)
Table A-2a: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Grade Band, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-2b: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Grade Band, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-2c: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Grade Band, and Agency (Independent Agencies)
Table A-2d: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Grade Band, and Agency (Independent Agencies)
Table A-3a: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Disability Type and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-3b: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Type and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-3c: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Disability Type and Agency (Independent Agencies)
Table A-3d: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Type and Agency (Independent Agencies)
Table A-4a: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Disability Type, Grade Band, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-4b: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Type, Grade Band, and Agency (Cabinet-Level Departments and Subcomponents)
Table A-4c: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Rates by Disability Type, Grade Band, and Agency (Independent Agencies)
Table A-4d: FY 2021 Federal Workforce Participation Numbers by Disability Type, Grade and, and Agency (Independent Agencies)

[1] Race, ethnicity, and gender are reported together to acknowledge the intersectional nature of EEO and due to the way the data is collected.

[2] Targeted disabilities are severe disabilities associated with high rates of unemployment and underemployment. Specifically, targeted disabilities are developmental disability, traumatic brain injury (TBI), deaf or serious difficulty hearing, blind or serious difficulty seeing, missing extremities, significant mobility impairment, partial or complete paralysis, epilepsy or other seizure disorders, intellectual disability, significant psychiatric disability, dwarfism, and significant disfigurement.

[3] Federal agencies annually file MD-715 Reports with the EEOC to report the status of their activities undertaken pursuant to their EEO program under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and pursuant to their affirmative action obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The data in this report are based on certified FY 2021 MD-715 Reports. Data include the U.S. Postal Service. The number of MD-715 Reports used in the Annual Report on the Federal Workforce fluctuates annually due to changes to which agencies submit and certify the report.

[4] For FY 2021, all executive agencies and military departments (except uniformed members) were required to file an MD-715 Report with the EEOC. This included subcomponents with 1,000 or more employees.

[5] Federal sector participation rates were calculated by aggregating data from Federal departments and independent agencies that filed and certified FY 2021 MD-715 Reports. To aggregate data from cabinet-level agencies, department-wide aggregate reports were used when available. Subcomponent data were used when department-wide reports were unavailable.

[6] The demographic groups examined in this report are those for whom data is collected by the EEOC on MD-715 Reports. Standard Form 181 (Ethnicity and Race Identification) asks employees whether they are of Hispanic or Latino origin (referred to as ethnicity). The form also asks employees to select each of the racial categories they identify with. They may select multiple racial categories. Therefore, MD-715 Reports collect data on seven racial and ethnic categories: Hispanic or Latino (regardless of race), White, Black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Island, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Two or More Races. Only non-Hispanic/non-Latino employees are reported under the racial categories.

[7] Specifically, targeted disabilities are developmental disability, traumatic brain injury (TBI), deaf or serious difficulty hearing, blind or serious difficulty seeing, missing extremities, significant mobility impairment, partial or complete paralysis, epilepsy or other seizure disorders, intellectual disability, significant psychiatric disability, dwarfism, and significant disfigurement.

[8] This represents 18 percent of the agencies required to report. The number of agencies that certified FY 2021 MD-715 reports is similar to previous years.

[9] The U.S. Department of Defense is not required to submit a department-wide report, but all its subcomponents must submit a report.

[10] The EEOC considered a group’s Federal participation rate to be substantially higher than the CLF when it was more than 5 percent higher than the CLF. Similarly, a group’s Federal participation rate was considered substantially lower when it was more than 5 percent lower than the CLF.

[11] According to OMB Bulletin No. 00-02, when a respondent reports being of one minority race and White, their data is allocated to the minority race on MD-715 (the source for this report’s participation data). However, in the 2014-18 EEO Tabulation (the source of the CLF), such multiple race responses are allocated to the “Balance of not Hispanic or Latino” category. On the 2014-18 EEO Tabulation, specific racial categories are only specified for not Hispanic or Latino individuals who reported only one race.

[12] This report does not compare the participation rates of PWD and PWTD to the CLF because the EEOC is unaware of a data source that measures disability in a manner comparable to MD-715 Reports and the SF-256.

[13] Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2021). The civil rights revolution at work: What went wrong. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 281-303. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-soc-090820-023615. Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 1014-1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415596416. Graham, M. E., Belliveau, M. A., & Hotchkiss, J. L. (2017). The view at the top or signing at the bottom? Workplace diversity responsibility and women’s representation in management. ILR Review, 70(1), 223-258. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26753850.pdf

[14] Job Accommodation Network. (2023). Accommodation and Compliance: Low Cost, High Impact. https://askjan.org/topics/costs.cfm

[15] See EEOC, MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE FOR 29 C.F.R. PART 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 1 § III.B (rev. Aug. 5, 2015).

[16] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). Status and impact of direct reporting structures for Federal agencies. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/status-and-impact-direct-reporting-structures-federal-agencies.

[17] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2023). FY 2020 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce Part 2: Workforce Statistics and EEO Commitment. https://www.eeoc.gov/fy-2020-annual-report-federal-workforce-part-2-workforce-statistics-and-eeo-commitment. In FY 2020, 88.6 percent of agencies evaluated managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO. At 91.9 percent of agencies, reasonable accommodations procedures were readily available and accessible. At 75.8 percent of Federal agencies, senior managers participated in the barrier analysis process. The agency head was the immediate supervisor of the EEO Director at 63.0 percent of reporting agencies.

[18] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2023). FY 2020 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce Part 2: Workforce Statistics and EEO Commitment. https://www.eeoc.gov/fy-2020-annual-report-federal-workforce-part-2-workforce-statistics-and-eeo-commitment.

[19] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/.

[20] https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-eeo-md-715-0.

FY 2021 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce Part 2: Workforce Statistics and EEO Commitment

Table of Contents

Executive Summary