The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) was established by theCivil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, with the mission of eradicating discrimination in the workplace. In the federal sector, EEOC enforces Title VII, as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age or older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), as amended which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees and applicants with disabilities and requires that reasonable accommodations be provided; and beginning November 21, 2009 the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of genetic information.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD-715), 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:

Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership,
Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission,
Management and program accountability,
Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination,
Efficiency, and
Responsiveness and legal compliance.

This report covers the period from October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011 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.

The FY 2011 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 65 federal agencies.

To prepare this report, the Commission relied on the following data: 1) work force data, as of September 30, 2011, 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 Foreign Service, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United States Postal Service (USPS); 2) data from the 2000 EEO Special Files, and 3) EEO program data submitted and certified as accurate by 189 of 190 federal agencies and subcomponents in their FY 2011 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715 reports).^[3]

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

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

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

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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

In FY 2011, there were over 2.8 million women and men employed by the federal government across the country and around the world.
- 56.19% were men and 43.81% were women; after a slow but steady increase, the participation rate for women fell slightly again from last year's 43.97%.
- 7.95% were Hispanic or Latino, 65.20% were White, 17.97% were Black or African American, 5.95% were Asian, 0.38% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 1.56% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.98% were persons of Two or More Races.
Between FY 2010 and FY 2011, Women, Hispanic or Latino men and women and White women remained below their overall availability in the national civilian labor force, as reported in the 2000 census (CLF).
The participation rate of employees with targeted disabilities in the total federal work force rose to 0.90% in FY 2011, after a steady decline lasting ten years, followed by three years of holding steady. Despite a modest net gain of 268 employees in FY 2011, Individuals with Targeted Disabilities still fell far short of the 2.00% goal set by EEOC's LEAD Initiative.
Of the total work force, 0.61% held senior pay level positions.
Of the total work force, 51.36% of employees occupied General Schedule (GS) pay system positions.
The average grade for permanent and temporary GS employees was 10.2. The following groups Hispanic or Latino employees (9.9), Black or African American employees (9.4), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (8.8), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.6) and employees of Two or More Races (9.5) had average grades lower than the government-wide average. The average grade for Asian employees (10.5) and White employees (10.4) exceeded the government-wide average.[4]
The average GS grade for women increased to 9.6, still more than one grade below the average grade level for men of 10.7.
The average GS grade for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities held steady at 8.7, nearly one and a half grades below the government-wide average (for permanent and temporary employees) of 10.2.
Of the total work force, 7.24% of employees occupy positions in the Federal Wage System in FY 2011.
In FY 2011, of the total work force, 40.79% of employees occupied positions in Other Pay Systems (i.e. other than Senior Pay, GS and Federal Wage Systems).[5]
Of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2011 MD-715 report, 56% reported that they had issued an EEO policy on an annual basis, a decrease from the 85% of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2010.
In FY 2011, reasonable accommodation procedures were posted on 79% of 190 federal agency and subcomponent's external websites up from the 67% found in FY 2010.
A state of the agency briefing to the agency head, required by MD-715, was conducted by 86% of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2011 MD-715 report, down from 88% of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2010 MD-715 report.
In FY 2011, 89% of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports reported rating its managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO, which falls short of the 91% of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2010.
Of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2011 MD-715 report, 87% reported it maintained a written anti-harassment policy, down slightly from the 89% of 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2010.
In FY 2011, 8% of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that were required to do so by MD-715 included comprehensive applicant flow data, decreasing from the 22% of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2010.
In FY 2011, 81% or 153 of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports did so in a timely manner. In FY 2010, 88% or 169 of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so by the February 4, 2011 deadline and agencies that participated in EEOC's pilot project involving the electronic filing of MD-715 data received an extension until February 28, 2011.
In FY 2011, 87% or 165 of the 190 agencies and subcomponents posted the required Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act data on their external websites, up from the 81.4% or 157 of the 194 found in FY 2010.

I - Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

Section A - Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

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

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

1. 56% of Agencies Issued EEO Policy Statements on an Annual Basis

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

Figure 1 - Percent of Agencies that Issued EEO Policy Statements On an Annual Basis FY 2007 - FY 2011

Figure 1 above shows the number of agencies that issued EEO policy statements on an annual basis. Of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2011, 106 (56.38%) reported that they had issued an EEO policy statement annually and would continue to do so, a decrease from the 85.42% of 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted in FY 2010. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

2. 79% of Agencies Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures on the External Websites

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

Part G of the MD-715 report, the Self-Assessment Checklist, provides agencies with a comprehensive listing of the kinds of agency documents and systems that should be in place in order to operate a model EEO program. These measures include "Have the procedures for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities been made readily available/accessible to all employees by disseminating such procedures during orientation of new employees and by making such procedures available on the World Wide Web or Internet?" Of the 190 agency and sub-component websites visited, the reasonable accommodation policies of 150 agencies and sub-components were located.

Figure 2 below shows the number of agencies that posted reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites for the last five years. As shown, in FY 2011, 27.12% more agencies posted their reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites than did in FY 2007. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 2 - Percent of Agencies that Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures on the External Website FY 2007 - FY 2011

Section B - Integration of EEO Into Agencies' Strategic Mission

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

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

1. 86% 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 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report for FY 2011, 161 (85.63%) indicated that the EEO Director had conducted the briefing, down slightly from the 169 (88.02%) of 192 in FY 2010. Figure 3 below shows the percentage of Agency Heads that were briefed on the state of EEO over the last five years. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 3 - Percent of Agency Heads Briefed on State of EEO FY 2007 - FY 2011

EEO Program Tip

Special Emphasis Programs

Special Emphasis Programs (SEP) are an essential component of an EEO program and are designed to ensure equal employment opportunities are afforded to individuals within the workforce. A well-implemented SEP seeks to improve employment and advancement opportunities for SEP groups in the federal service by educating federal employees and managers about the extent of various forms of discrimination within the federal service. The primary role of the SEP manager (SEPM) is to identify barriers to the hiring, development and advancement of SEP groups for the Affirmative Employment Program. SEPMs should develop and implement special program initiatives that will enhance the employment and advancement of their particular group and identify ways to ensure equal consideration for promotions, training, and awards and monitor separation and disciplinary actions to ensure they are given in a nondiscriminatory manner. SEPMs should be able to relate to the agency's larger organizational mission, and focus the SEP on "employment related" activities such as recruitment and hiring within major occupations, career development opportunities and succession planning. The SEP manager should work in partnership with its targeted group and the agency's affirmative employment preparer.

Section C - Management and Program Accountability

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

1. 89% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

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

EEO Program Tip

Communicating EEO Goals to Managers and Supervisor

MD-715 is an agency-wide affirmative employment program managed through the EEO office. The EEO office's responsibility is to communicate how the vision and goal of the EEO program directly relates to the larger agency mission. Assuring communication does take place may prove challenging for EEO professionals because misconceptions and/or ambiguities about management duties and responsibilities may occasionally complicate the process; especially when discussing topics such as barrier identification and elimination. While developing a strategy to communicate EEO goals, the EEO professional should strive to construct a message that the non-EEO manager can easily understand.

There are many factors to consider when developing an effective communication strategy. These are a few steps to consider:

Create a clearly defined definition of a model EEO workplace that includes the agency's EEO goal;
Identify no more than three topics for discussion;
Keep the message simple and relevant to the larger mission;
Conclude with a specific action item or a call to action for management and
Utilize multiple communication vehicles (for example, a newsletter, an E-mail blast or blog).

Figure 4 - Percent of Agencies that Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on their Commitment to EEO FY 2007 - FY 2011

In FY 2011, 168 (89.36%) of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports indicated that its managers and supervisors were rated on their commitment to EEO, down from the 174 (90.6%) of the 192 agencies that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2010. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

2. 87% of Agencies Report Having 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."[6] 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 and in addition to the 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, age (40 and over), disability, or protected activity (opposition to discrimination or participation in proceedings covered by the anti-discrimination statutes) and is not limited to 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.

Figure 5 - Percent of Agencies that Maintain an Anti-Harassment Policy
FY 2007 - FY 2011

In FY 2011, 164 (87.23%) of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports reported they had a written anti-harassment policy, down from the 171 (89.06%) of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2010. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

EEO Program Tip

Effective Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedure

It is critical that agencies establish an anti-harassment policy and procedure to protect themselves from liability for all forms of unlawful harassment. See Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). An effective policy should cover sexual and nonsexual harassment on every protected basis and clearly communicate established procedures to employees. At a minimum, an anti-harassment policy should include the following elements:

A clear explanation of prohibited conduct;
Assurance of protection from retaliation for employees who make claims of harassment or provide information related to such claims;
A clearly described complaint process that provides accessible avenues for employees;
Assurance that the agency will protect the confidentiality of the individuals bringing harassment claims to the extent possible;
A complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation and,
Assurance that when it is determined that harassment occurred the agency will take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

The anti-harassment process and EEO process have two separate goals and should therefore be separate. The anti-harassment process is to prevent harassing conduct before it can become "severe or pervasive." The intent of an agency's anti-harassment program is to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including the use of disciplinary actions, to eliminate harassing conduct regardless of whether the conduct violated the law. Whereas the EEO process is available to make individuals whole for discrimination that has already occurred and to prevent the recurrence of unlawful discriminatory conduct through damage awards and equitable relief,

As a final consideration, EEO officials should not act as the decision-maker for the EEO process and the anti-harassment program. The decision-maker in the EEO process must decide whether a violation of law occurred, while management implements the anti-harassment policy and takes corrective actions for matters that may not constitute legal harassment. More information about effective anti-harassment programs is available on our website at http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/model_eeo_programs.cfm.

Section D - Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

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

1. Barrier Analysis

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

EEOC defines barriers as policies, procedures, practices, or conditions that limit or tend to limit employment opportunities for members of a particular race, ethnic or religious background, gender, or for individuals with disabilities. While some barriers are readily 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.

2. Composition of the Federal Work Force

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1 - FY 2011 Federal Work Force Pay Structure Participation Levels
	# in Work Force	% of Total Work Force
Total Work Force	2,843,417
Senior Pay Level	17,269	0.61
General Schedule and Related	1,460,434	51.36
Federal Wage System	205,828	7.24
Other Pay Systems	1,159,886	40.79

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

In FY 2011, the Federal Government had a Total Work Force of 2,843,417 employees, compared to 2,459,505 in FY 2002. Table 2 shows the participation rate of the identified groups below, as compared to the civilian labor force (CLF). Table A-1 in Appendix IV, located at 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 2002 - FY 2011[7]
	Work Force	Participation Rate		2000 CLF
	FY 2011	FY 2002 %	FY 2011 %
Men	1,597,778	57.57	56.19	53.23
Women	1,245,639	42.43	43.81	46.77
Hispanic or Latino Men	134,022	4.33	4.71	6.17
Hispanic or Latino Women	91,961	2.77	3.23	4.52
White Men	1,108,339	41.28	38.98	39.03
White Women	745,524	26.03	26.22	33.74
Black or African American Men	219,285	8.07	7.71	4.92
Black or African American Women	291,759	10.56	10.26	5.75
Asian Men	95,343	3.16*	3.35	2.03
Asian Women	73,954	2.29*	2.60	1.82
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men	6,144	*	0.22	0.06
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women	4,707	*	0.17	0.06
American Indian or Alaska Native Men	19,761	0.72	0.69	0.55
American Indian or Alaska Native Women	24,631	0.79	0.87	0.51
Two or More Race Men	14,884	**	0.52	0.47
Two or More Race Women	13,103	**	0.46	0.38
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities	25,485	1.07	0.90	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 IV, located at http://www.eeoc.gov.[8]

b. Senior Pay Levels: A New Data Source

Beginning with this year's report the Senior Pay Level (SPL) data was primarily derived from agencies' submitted and certified MD-715 report Tables A & B-4 supplemented with SES data from OPM's CPDF. The change in data source requires caution when making comparisons with past years of data. With a total of 17,269 employees, the Senior Pay Level (SPL) positions comprise 0.61% of the total work force. SPL positions include the SES, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15, step 10 of the General Schedule. Table 3 below reflects the SPL representation. Table A-2 and Table A-2a of Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/ contains additional data.

Table 3 - Senior Pay Level Representation
FY 2002 / FY 2011
	Senior Pay Level (SPL) Positions
	FY 2002			FY 2011
	# in SPL	% of SPL	% of TWF	# in SPL	% of SPL	% of TWF
Total SPL Work Force (#)	17,943		2,459,505	17,269		2,843,417
Men	13,508	75.28	57.57	12,106	70.10	56.19
Women	4,435	24.72	42.43	5,164	29.90	43.81
Hispanic or Latino	597	3.33	7.10	663	3.84	7.95
Hispanic or Latino Men	436	2.43	4.33	460	2.66	4.71
Hispanic or Latino Women	161	0.90	2.77	203	1.18	3.23
White	15,506	86.42	67.31	14,273	82.65	65.20
White Men	11,859	66.09	41.28	10,281	59.53	38.98
White Women	3,647	20.33	26.03	3,992	23.12	26.22
Black or African American	1,214	6.77	18.63	1,402	8.12	17.97
Black or African American Men	755	4.21	8.07	754	4.37	7.71
Black or African American Women	459	2.56	10.56	648	3.75	10.26
Asian	485*	2.70*	5.45*	572	3.31	5.95
Asian Men	358*	2.00*	3.16*	363	2.10	3.35
Asian Women	127*	0.71*	2.29*	209	1.21	2.60
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	**	**	**	34	0.20	0.38
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men	**	**	**	25	0.14	0.22
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women	**	**	**	9	0.05	0.17
American Indians or Alaska Native	141	0.79	1.50	141	0.82	1.56
American Indians or Alaska Native Men	100	0.56	0.72	89	0.52	0.69
American Indians or Alaska Native Women	41	0.23	0.79	52	0.30	0.87
Two or More Races	**	**	**	84	0.49	0.98
Two or More Races Men	**	**	**	54	0.31	0.52
Two or More Races Women	**	**	**	30	0.17	0.46
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities	62	0.35	1.07	110	0.64	0.90

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

From FY 2002 to FY 2011, the Total SPL Work Force decreased by 674 employees, a net change of -3.76%. Comparatively, the number of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the SPL work force increased from 62 in FY 2002 to 110 in FY 2011, a net change of 77.42%[9].
The participation rate for women in the SPL work force increased 16.44% over the ten-year period from FY 2002 (4,435) to FY 2011 (5,164), while women increased their participation rate in the total work force by only 19.36% over the same ten-year period, from 1,043,568 in FY 2002 to 1,245,639 in FY 2011.
Between FY 2002 and FY 2011, the participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in Senior Pay Level positions increased 11.06% over the ten-year period from FY 2002 (597) to FY 2011 (663). During the same period, the overall participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in the total work force increased 29.41%, although still remaining below the 2000 CLF.
Over a ten-year period in the SPL, participation rates increased from 0.35% to 0.64% for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities, from 6.77% to 8.12% for Black or African American employees, from 2.70% to 4.52% for Asian employees, and from 0.79% to 0.82% for American Indian or Alaska Native employees.[10] The participation rate for White employees decreased from 86.42% in FY 2002 to 82.65% in FY 2011.
In FY 2011, the "feeder grades" to SPL positions^[11] (GS grades 14 and 15) showed the following participation rates: men 62.23%, women 37.77%, Hispanic or Latino employees 4.52%, White employees 75.22%, Black or African American employees 12.77%, Asian employees 5.84%, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees 0.11%, American Indian or Alaska Native employees 0.87%, employees of Two or More Races 0.66% and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0.55%.
Part II of this report also contains information on the major occupations in selected government agencies. Data on participation rates of persons holding positions in an agency's major occupations can serve as a diagnostic tool to help determine possible areas where barriers to equal opportunity may exist and prevent upward mobility to SPL positions.

c. General Schedule Positions

With a total of 1,460,434 employees, the General Schedule (GS) positions comprised 51.36% of the total work force in FY 2011. GS positions are mostly comprised of positions whose primary duty requires knowledge or experience of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature. GS figures no longer include employees in other pay systems that easily converted to GS by OPM. The GS participation rate reflects an increase due in part to the conversion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) employees in military components back to the GS pay system.

Table 4 - General Schedule (GS) Representation FY 2002 / FY 2011
	GS Positions
	FY 2002		FY 2011
	Number	% of GS	Number	% of GS
Total GS Work Force	1,284,046		1,460,434
Men	624,945	48.67	746,738	51.13
Women	659,101	51.33	713,696	48.87
Hispanic or Latino	90,654	7.06	114,118	7.81
Hispanic or Latino Men	46,611	3.63	61,198	4.19
Hispanic or Latino Women	44,043	3.43	52,920	3.62
White	875,077	68.15	955,663	65.44
White Men	469,190	36.54	535,107	36.64
White Women	406,914	31.69	420,556	28.80
Black or African American	233,311	18.17	269,916	18.48
Black or African American Men	70,879	5.52	93,397	6.22
Black or African American Women	162,432	12.65	176,519	11.69
Asian	56,370*	4.39*	72,771	5.03
Asian Men	27,735*	2.16*	36,593	2.58
Asian Women	28,505*	2.22*	36,178	2.45
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	**	**	5,062	0.31
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men	**	**	2,571	0.16
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women	**	**	2,491	0.16
American Indian or Alaska Native	27,735	2.16	26,944	1.85
American Indian or Alaska Native Men	10,529	0.82	9,823	0.70
American Indian or Alaska Native Women	17,206	1.34	17,121	1.15
Two or More Races	**	**	15,960	0.91
Two or More Races Men	**	**	8,049	0.47
Two or More Races Women	**	**	7,911	0.44
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities	15,023	1.17	15,466	0.99

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

In FY 2011, the GS participation rate for each group was Hispanic or Latino employees 7.81%; White employees 65.44%; Black or African American employees 18.48%; Asian employees 4.98%; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees 0.35%; American Indian or Alaska Native employees 1.84%; persons of Two or More Races 1.09%, and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 1.06%. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/, for the entire ten-year trend in the GS pay systems.
Women held 48.87% of all GS positions in FY 2011, a drop from the 51.33% held in FY 2002. Over the ten-year period, Hispanic or Latino employees, Black or African American and Asian employees gradually increased their representation rates in the GS work force.
Over the ten year period, the participation rate for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the total work force declined from 1.07% to 0.90%, as their participation rate in the GS workforce declined from 1.17% to 1.06%.
The average grade level for the total GS permanent and temporary work force increased[12] to grade 10.2 in FY 2011. Of GS employees, 17.5% were in grades 1-6, 36.89% were in grades 7-11, 34.25% were in grades 12-13, and 11.36% were in grades 14-15.

Figure 6 - Average Grade in the General Schedule Positions
FY 2011

The average GS grade level for Hispanic or Latino employees (9.9), Black or African American employees (9.4), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (8.8), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.6) and persons of Two or More Races (9.5) was lower than the government-wide average grade level (10.2).
Approximately 53.7% of women employed in the GS work force were in grades 7-11. The average GS grade for women was 9.6, more than half a grade below the government-wide average of 10.2, and more than one grade below men (10.7).
The average GS grade level for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities remained 8.7, almost one and a half grades below the government-wide average. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

d. Federal Wage System Positions

With a total of 205,828 employees, Federal Wage System (FWS) positions comprised 7.24% of the total work force in FY 2011. FWS (Blue-Collar) positions are mostly comprised of trade, craft and labor occupations.
FY 2011 FWS positions increased 1.66% from FY 2002.
Since FY 2002, the participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (7.43%), Black or African American employees (17.94%), Asian employees (4.38%), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (2.68%) and women (10.31%) have declined. See Table A-4 in Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/ for the complete ten-year trend.

Table 5 - Federal Wage System (FWS) Representation FY 2002 / FY 2011
	Federal Wage System (FWS) Positions
	FY 2002		FY 2011
	Number	% of FWS	Number	% of FWS
Total FWS Work Force	202,471		205,828
Men	181,151	89.47	184,613	89.69
Women	21,320	10.53	21,215	10.31
Hispanic or Latino	15,530	7.67	15,299	7.43
Hispanic or Latino Men	14,051	6.94	13,785	6.70
Hispanic or Latino Women	1,478	0.73	1,514	0.74
White	134,340	66.35	135,520	65.84
White Men	123,406	60.95	124,655	60.56
White Women	10,933	5.40	10,865	5.28
Black or African American	37,417	18.48	36,928	17.94
Black or African American Men	30,411	15.02	30,566	14.85
Black or African American Women	7,005	3.46	6,362	3.09
Asian	9,617*	4.75*	9,016	4.38
Asian Men	8,585*	4.24*	8,014	3.89
Asian Women	1,033*	0.51*	1,002	0.49
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	**	**	1,787	0.87
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men	**	**	1,615	0.78
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women	**	**	172	0.08
American Indian or Alaska Native	5,548	2.74	5,507	2.68
American Indian or Alaska Native Men	4,967	2.32	4,451	2.16
American Indian or Alaska Native Women	871	0.43	1,056	0.51
Two or More Races	**	**	1,771	0.86
Two or More Races Men	**	**	1,527	0.74
Two or More Races Women	**	**	244	0.12
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities	2,713	1.34	2,181	1.06

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

In FY 2011, the participation rate of men in the FWS pay system was 38.56 percentage points higher than the participation rate of men in the GS pay system. Comparatively, FWS participation rates for White employees, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees, and American Indian or Alaska Native employees were higher than the GS participation rates, while the FWS work force participation rates for women, Asian employees, Black or African American employees, and Hispanic or Latino employees were lower. The Individuals with Targeted Disabilities participation rate remained equal.

e. Other Pay Systems

With a total of 1,159,886 employees, other pay systems (OPS) comprised 40.79% of the total work force in FY 2011. Other Pay Systems include pay banding and other pay-for-performance systems. The Other Pay Systems participation rate reflects a decrease due in part to the conversion of NSPS employees back to the GS pay system and likely due to the change in source data.

Table 6 - Other Pay Systems (OPS) Representation FY 2002 - FY 2011
	Other Pay Systems (OPS) Positions
	FY 2002		FY 2011
	Number	% of OPS	Number	% of OPS
Total OPS Work Force	993,604		1,159,886
Men	629,844	63.69	654,321	56.41
Women	363,760	36.61	505,564	43.59
Hispanic or Latino	73,815	7.43	95,903	8.27
Hispanic or Latino Men	47,436	4.77	58,579	5.05
Hispanic or Latino Women	26,379	2.66	37,324	3.22
White	642,770	64.69	748,407	64.52
White Men	401,985	40.46	438,296	37.79
White Women	239,828	24.14	310,111	26.74
Black or African American	197,184	19.85	202,798	17.48
Black or African American Men	100,315	10.10	94,568	8.15
Black or African American Women	96,868	9.75	108,230	9.33
Asian	70,761*	7.12*	86,938	7.50
Asian Men	41,131*	4.14*	50,373	4.34
Asian Women	29,501*	2.97*	36,565	3.15
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	**	**	3,968	0.34
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men	**	**	1,933	0.17
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women	**	**	2,035	0.18
American Indian or Alaska Native	10,160	1.02	11,800	1.02
American Indian or Alaska Native Men	4,820	0.49	5,398	0.47
American Indian or Alaska Native Women	5,340	0.54	6,402	0.55
Two or More Races	**	**	11,699	1.01
Two or More Races Men	**	**	5,254	0.45
Two or More Races Women	**	**	4,918	0.42
Individuals with Targeted Disabilities	8,824	0.89	7,728	0.67

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

The participation rate for women (43.59%) in OPS was lower than in the GS pay system (48.87%).
In FY 2011, the OPS participation rates for American Indian or Alaska Native employees (1.02%) held steady while Hispanic or Latino employees (8.27%), and Asian employees (7.50%), slowly rose, while the participation rates for White employees (64.52%), Black or African American employees (17.48%) and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (0.67%) fell from FY 2002 levels.
In FY 2011, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino and Asian employees were higher than in the GS and FWS pay systems. OPS participation rates for White employees, Black or African American employees, American Indian or Alaska Native employees, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were lower than those in the GS and FWS pay systems. See Table A-5 in Appendix IV at http://www.eeoc.gov/ for the complete ten-year trend.

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Increases Slightly

On July 26, 2010, the President issued Executive Order 13548, requiring federal agencies to develop a specific plan for promoting employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The plan shall include performance targets and numerical goals for employment of individuals with disabilities and sub-goals for employment of individuals with targeted disabilities.
From FY 2002 to FY 2011, the Total Work Force increased by 383,912 employees, a net change of 15.61%. However, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities decreased from 26,317 in FY 2002 to 25,485 in FY 2011, a net change of -3.16%, resulting in a 0.90% participation rate. Only nine agencies have achieved the federal goal of at least a 2% participation rate for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities.
The EEOC had the highest percentage of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (2.62%) among those agencies with 500 or more employees. See Table 7 below.

Table 7 - Ranking of Agencies with the Highest Percent of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (Agencies with 500 Or More Employees)
Agency	Total Work Force	Individuals with Targeted Disabilities
Agency	Total Work Force	#	%
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	2,479	65	2.62
Army & Air Force Exchange Service	35,382	793	2.24
Social Security Administration	67,136	1,317	1.96
Defense Finance and Accounting Service	12,244	238	1.94
Department of the Treasury	106,403	1,865	1.75

Seven 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, Farm Credit Administration, National Council on Disability, Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and Trade and Development Agency.

Table 8 below shows that the Department of the Treasury continued to maintain the highest participation rate (1.75%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities among the cabinet level agencies.

Table 8a below shows that the Army and Air Force Exchange Service continued to maintain the highest participation rate (2.24%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities among the Department of Defense components.

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

Table 8 - Ranking Cabinet Level Agencies by IWTD
FY 2002 - FY 2011[13]
Agencies		Fiscal Year (FY)
Agencies		2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
1. Treasury	#	2,150	2,157	2,105	1,964	1,842	1,748	1,827	1,864	1,918	1,865
1. Treasury	%	1.53%	1.53%	1.99%	1.90%	1.82%	1.73%	1.70%	1.73%	1.75%	1.75%
2. Veterans Affairs*	#	3,399	3,623	3,692	3,566	3,566	3,758	3,985	4,241	4,650	5,201
2. Veterans Affairs*	%	1.69%	1.75%	1.56%	1.52%	1.49%	1.48%	1.43%	1.43%	1.51%	1.64%
3. Education*	#	73	73	73	63	59	59	59	55	60	61
3. Education*	%	1.69%	1.73%	1.59%	1.42%	1.36%	1.36%	1.36%	1.30%	1.32%	1.32%
4. Labor*	#	184	221	206	207	186	193	188	171	188	205
4. Labor*	%	1.16%	1.40%	1.30%	1.35%	1.21%	1.25%	1.22%	1.07%	1.13%	1.26%
5. Housing & Urban Development	#	138	148	139	134	130	126	116	107	121	106
5. Housing & Urban Development	%	1.41%	1.45%	1.36%	1.35%	1.32%	1.31%	1.19%	1.12%	1.21%	1.09%
6. Interior	#	598	702	692	678	684	700	689	699	750	718
6. Interior	%	0.99%	1.15%	0.89%	0.88%	0.94%	0.97%	0.93%	0.91%	0.95%	0.93%
7. Agriculture*	#	990	1,077	1,068	1,000	1,009	965	893	883	924	965
7. Agriculture*	%	1.09%	1.20%	0.95%	0.91%	0.96%	0.93%	0.85%	0.83%	0.85%	0.92%
8. Health & Human Services*	#	619	673	651	624	576	596	596	592	672	747
8. Health & Human Services*	%	1.14%	1.27%	1.02%	0.97%	0.91%	0.81%	0.79%	0.75%	0.81%	0.87%
9. Commerce*	#	313	334	319	358	334	323	337	385	376	386
9. Commerce*	%	0.87%	0.94%	0.84%	0.89%	0.82%	0.78%	0.79%	0.78%	0.76%	0.81%
10. Defense	#	6,922	6,021	5,747	5,643	6,053	5,817	5,894	6,096	6,261	6,144
10. Defense	%	1.05%	0.89%	0.84%	0.81%	0.86%	0.83%	0.82%	0.80%	0.89%	0.76%
11. Transportation*	#	498	307	322	298	285	302	315	340	404	428
11. Transportation*	%	0.49%	0.53%	0.56%	0.55%	0.53%	0.56%	0.57%	0.59%	0.70%	0.74%
12. Energy	#	127	122	119	116	111	122	118	120	124	119
12. Energy	%	0.81%	0.80%	0.79%	0.77%	0.74%	0.82%	0.76%	0.76%	0.75%	0.73%
13. Homeland Security*	#	--	756	740	720	709	674	692	727	744	775
13. Homeland Security*	%	--	0.69%	0.45%	0.44%	0.42%	0.41%	0.39%	0.39%	0.39%	0.39%
14. Justice*	#	485	396	406	406	413	412	408	421	452	456
14. Justice*	%	0.39%	0.40%	0.39%	0.39%	0.39%	0.39%	0.38%	0.37%	0.39%	0.39%
15. State	#	67	93	93	90	88	84	84	79	88	87
15. State	%	0.49%	0.53%	0.39%	0.37%	0.36%	0.33%	0.34%	0.31%	0.30%	0.28%
Total Work Force*	#	26,230	25,551	25,917	25,142	24,442	23,993	24,427	24,663	25,217	25,485
Total Work Force*	%	1.07%	1.05%	0.99%	0.96%	0.94%	0.92%	0.88%	0.88%	0.88%	0.90%

* This agency showed an increase in the number and/or participation rate of IWTD in FY 2011. - The Department of Homeland Security was created in March 2003.

Table 8a - Ranking of DOD Sub-Components by IWTD
FY 2002 - FY 2011[14]
Agencies		Fiscal Year (FY)
Agencies		2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
1. Army & Air Force Exchange Service	#	763	687	628	597	604	556	706	805	847	793
1. Army & Air Force Exchange Service	%	1.87%	1.88%	1.87%	1.69%	1.65%	1.62%	2.00%	2.27%	2.39%	2.24%
2.Defense Finance & Accounting Service	#	302	283	275	271	261	253	243	238	246	238
2.Defense Finance & Accounting Service	%	2.11%	2.08%	2.05%	2.02%	1.99%	2.03%	2.04%	1.95%	1.91%	1.94%
3.Defense Logistics Agency	#	495	448	449	430	413	404	409	418	416	409
3.Defense Logistics Agency	%	2.28%	2.16%	2.07%	2.00%	1.92%	1.89%	1.78%	1.65%	1.65%	1.60%
4. Defense Commissary Agency*	#	174	156	158	141	142	123	124	141	170	229
4. Defense Commissary Agency*	%	1.42%	1.30%	1.07%	0.92%	0.92%	0.82%	0.82%	0.91%	1.09%	1.52%
5. Defense Contract Management Agency	#	169	149	149	146	127	121	120	122	123	123
5. Defense Contract Management Agency	%	1.49%	1.39%	1.34%	1.39%	1.29%	1.27%	1.28%	1.22%	1.17%	1.20%
6. Defense TRICARE Management Activity*	#	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	14	66
6. Defense TRICARE Management Activity*	%	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0.87%	1.09%
7. Office of the Inspector General	#	13	14	13	13	15	18	17	18	19	16
7. Office of the Inspector General	%	1.10%	1.19%	1.02%	0.95%	1.08%	1.28%	1.12%	1.14%	1.17%	1.04%
8. Defense Contract Audit Agency*	#	46	54	52	48	41	40	39	39	41	46
8. Defense Contract Audit Agency*	%	1.13%	1.34%	1.28%	1.17%	1.02%	0.98%	0.94%	0.90%	0.87%	0.95%
9. Defense Information Systems Agency	#	74	64	60	53	62	53	55	53	54	56
9. Defense Information Systems Agency	%	1.25%	1.16%	1.15%	1.08%	1.15%	0.95%	0.97%	0.91%	0.87%	0.87%
10. Defense Threat Reduction Agency	#	6	5	7	10	10	7	9	10	10	9
10. Defense Threat Reduction Agency	%	0.63%	0.56%	0.84%	0.90%	0.86%	0.63%	0.75%	0.83%	0.76%	0.72%
11. Department of the Navy	#	1,724	1,620	1,562	1,500	1,430	1,380	1,398	1,423	1,427	1,387
11. Department of the Navy	%	0.97%	0.92%	0.88%	0.86%	0.82%	0.80%	0.78%	0.75%	0.72%	0.69%
12. Department of the Army	#	1,793	1,689	1,710	1,756	1,724	1,719	1,714	1,786	1,837	1,725
12. Department of the Army	%	0.85%	0.82%	0.75%	0.74%	0.72%	0.71%	0.67%	0.65%	0.64%	0.61%
13. Defense Human Resource Activity	#	4	6	6	4	4	3	4	3	7	7
13. Defense Human Resource Activity	%	0.60%	0.82%	0.78%	0.50%	0.45%	0.34%	0.44%	0.29%	0.59%	0.56%
14. Defense Missile Defense Agency*	#	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	10	10	12
14. Defense Missile Defense Agency*	%	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0.69%	0.49%	0.54%
15. Department of the Air Force	#	1,273	1,157	1,196	1,174	1,123	1,042	953	934	932	936
15. Department of the Air Force	%	0.90%	0.87%	0.80%	0.75%	0.71%	0.67%	0.62%	0.58%	0.55%	0.53%
16. Office of the Sec./Wash. Hqtrs. Services	#	32	38	39	41	45	54	60	42	40	40
16. Office of the Sec./Wash. Hqtrs. Services	%	0.72%	0.72%	0.78%	0.71%	0.69%	0.71%	0.71%	0.71%	0.54%	0.52%
17. Defense Media Activity	#	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	5	3
17. Defense Media Activity	%	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0.89%	0.52%
18. Defense Security Service	#	25	21	16	7	8	6	6	6	6	3
18. Defense Security Service	%	0.98%	0.88%	0.84%	1.33%	1.47%	1.14%	1.04%	0.83%	0.70%	0.34%
19. Defense Education Activity	#	36	38	56	41	44	37	37	42	57	46
19. Defense Education Activity	%	0.33%	0.35%	0.32%	0.25%	0.27%	0.24%	0.24%	0.28%	0.35%	0.29%

* These Defense Sub-Components showed an increase in the number and participation rate of IWTD in FY 2011. - No data available.

Section E- Efficiency in the Federal EEO Process

A model EEO program must have adequate and accurate information collection systems, which are integrated into the agency's information management infrastructure, and provide the ability to conduct a wide array of periodic examinations of the agency's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act workforce profile(s). Such systems should collect data, used to monitor and evaluate its EEO programs. The data collection system should allow the agency to identify and evaluate information related to management actions affecting employment status. The system should be capable of tracking applicant flow data for each selection made by the agency identified by race, national origin, sex, and, where known, disability, as well as the disposition of each application. 29 C.F.R. §1607.4.

The system should be capable of monitoring employment trends through review of personnel transactions and other historical data, tracking recruitment efforts to permit data analyses of these efforts, and allow for the integration of comprehensive management, personnel, and budget planning with Title VII and Rehabilitation Act program planning.

1. 8% of Agencies Collect Applicant Flow Data

EEOC's regulations provide that each agency shall establish a system to collect and maintain accurate employment information on the race, national origin, sex and [disabilities] of its employees . . . [and] use the data . . . in studies and analyses which contribute affirmatively to achiev[e] the objectives of the equal employment opportunity program. 29 C.F.R. §114.601(a) and (e). Section II(E) of MD-715 establishes that a model EEO program must maintain a system that tracks applicant flow data, which identifies applicants by race, national origin, sex and disability status and the disposition of all applications.

The MD-715 report tables currently require agencies to report applicant flow data for new hires and internal competitive promotions in major occupations, for internal selections to Senior Level positions and for participation in career development.

In FY 2011, 15 (8.33%) of the 180 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 data, reported collecting comprehensive applicant flow data, down from 42 (22%) of the 192 agencies and subcomponents, that submitted MD-715 data, reporting comprehensive applicant flow data in FY 2010. Figure 7 below shows the percentage of agencies that collected comprehensive applicant data on an annual basis. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 7 - Percent of Agencies that Collect Comprehensive Applicant Flow Data
FY 2007 - FY 2011

Section F- Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

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

1. 81% of Agencies and Subcomponents Timely Submitted MD-715 Reports

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

MD-715 reports provide information on an agency's progress in achieving the model EEO program elements, identifying and eliminating barriers, and allow the EEOC to conduct 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 31^st of each year.

In FY 2011, 81.38% or 153 of the 188 agencies and sub-components that submitted a MD-715 report did so in a timely manner. EEOC granted extensions on a case by case basis in FY 2011. In FY 2010, 88.02% or 169 of the 192 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so by the February 4, 2011 deadline. Agencies that participated in EEOC's pilot project involving the electronic filing of MD-715 data received an extension until February 28, 2011. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

Figure 8 - Percent of Agencies that Timely Filed the MD-715 Report
FY 2007 - FY 2011

2. 87% of Agencies Post No FEAR Act Data

On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the "Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002," which is commonly referred to as the No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act is to "require that each Federal agency post quarterly on its public Web site, certain statistical data relating to Federal sector equal employment opportunity complaints filed with such agency[.]" Title III of Public Law 170-174 sets forth the required contents of the posting.

EEOC Regulations 29 C.F.R. §1614.701 to 705 implement Title III - setting forth basic requirements of agency postings, providing data set definitions for clarity, the manner and format with which the data should be posted, reiterating the required contents of the postings and setting forth the requirement for posting comparative data.

Of the 190 agencies and sub-components where we were able to find the agency posting on its web-site, 165 (86.84%) reported or were found to have the required postings of the No FEAR Act available on its public website, up from the 158 (81.44%) of the 194 agencies and sub-components in FY 2010. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

[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, 2011 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] Each General Schedule (GS) grade has 10 steps. Within Grade increases or step increases are periodic increases in a GS employee's rate of basic pay from one step to the next higher step.

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

[6] 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).

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

[8] 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.

[9] The source for the FY 2011 Senior Level Pay system changed and thus these comparisons require caution.

[10] The FY 2011 participation rate for Asian employees is combined with the participation rate of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander for comparison purposes. Separate data for each group was not available until FY 2006.

[11] There is a strong likelihood that an EEO group will be absent or have a low participation rate in the next higher grade level where the group has a lower than expected participation rate in the feeder grade/applicant pool. 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).

[12] Average grade was impacted by the conversion of NSPS employees back to the GS pay system and the reclassification of General Schedule and Related to only General Schedule.

[13] Table 8 identifies participation rates for FY 2002 - FY 2011 which reflects total work force numbers. The total work force figures are as reported in CPDF plus AAFES & the Foreign Service of the Department of State.

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

Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Part II Work Force Statistics Fiscal Year 2011

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

I - Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

Section A - Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

1. 56% of Agencies Issued EEO Policy Statements on an Annual Basis

2. 79% of Agencies Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures on the External Websites