1. Inicio
  2. node
  3. Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Part II Work Force Statistics Fiscal Year 2012

Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Part II Work Force Statistics Fiscal Year 2012

 

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I SUMMARY OF WORKFORCE STATISTICS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section A. Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership

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

2. 72% of Agencies Post Reasonable Accommodation Procedures On the External Websites

Section B. Integration of EEO Into Agencies' Strategic Mission

1. 75% of EEO Directors Presented the State of the EEO Program to the Agency Head 

Section C. Management and Program Accountability 

1. 78% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

Section D. Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

1. Barrier Analysis 

2. Composition of Federal Work Force 

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

b. Senior Pay Levels: A New Data Source 

c. General Schedule Positions 

d. Federal Wage System Positions 

e. Other Pay Systems 

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Increases Slightly 

Section E. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance 

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

APPENDIX I GLOSSARY / DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX II FEDERAL SECTOR EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX III FEDERAL AGENCIES PROGRAM STATUS 

APPENDIX IV FEDERAL WORK FORCE TABLES

 

PREFACE

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) was established 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, 2011, through September 30, 2012 and contains selected measures of agencies' progress toward model EEO programs.[1]

The FY 2012 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, submitted to the President and Congress, presents a summary of selected EEO program activities in the federal government.

Working within our mission as an oversight agency, EEOC strives to create a partnership with agencies. To prepare this report, the Commission relied on the following data: 1) work force data, as of September 30, 2012, obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)[2] supplemented with data provided by the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Foreign Service, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the United States Postal Service (USPS); 2) data from the 2010 EEO Special Files, and 3) EEO program data submitted by 193 federal agencies and subcomponents in their FY 2012 Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Reports (MD-715 reports).[3]

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

Beginning in FY 2011, the work force data is broken down by the following pay stems: 1) Senior Pay Level (computed using agencies' submitted and certified MD-715 Tables A & B-4 reporting and supplemented with CPDF data); 2) General Schedule rather than General Schedule and Related; 3) Federal Wage Schedule and 4) Other Pay Systems. All data for General Schedule and Other Pay Systems was revised to reflect the change in pay system categories reported 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; 2) AAFES, FERC, Foreign Service, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), TVA, and USPS for providing their work force data; and 3) those agencies that timely submitted accurate and verifiable EEO program analysis data.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  • In FY 2012, there were over 2.8 million women and men employed by the federal government across the country and around the world.
    • 56.17% were men and 43.83% were women; the participation rate for women rose slightly from last year's 43.81%.
    • 64.61% were White, 18.17% were Black or African American, 8.21% were Hispanic or Latino, 6.05% were Asian, 1.55% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.98% were persons of Two or More Races and 0.39% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
  • Between FY 2011 and FY 2012, women generally, including White and Hispanic or Latino women and Hispanic or Latino men, remained below their overall availability in the national civilian labor force, as reported in the 2010 census (CLF).
  • The participation rate of employees with targeted disabilities in the total federal work force rose to 0.92% in FY 2012, after a steady decline lasting ten years, followed by three years of holding steady. Despite a modest net gain of 204 employees in FY 2012, Individuals with Targeted Disabilities still fell far short of the 2.00% goal set by EEOC's LEAD Initiative.
  • Of the total work force, 0.39% held senior pay level positions.
  • Of the total work force, 53.27% of employees occupied General Schedule (GS) pay system positions.
  • The average grade for permanent and temporary GS employees was 10.2. The following groups had average grades lower than the government-wide average: Hispanic or Latino employees (9.9), Black or African American employees (9.5), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (9.0), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.6) and employees of Two or More Races (9.6). The average grade for Asian employees (10.6) and White employees (10.5) 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 remained 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, 9.47% of employees occupy positions in the Federal Wage System in FY 2012.
  • In FY 2012, of the total work force, 36.87% of employees occupied positions in Other Pay Systems (i.e. other than Senior Pay, GS and Federal Wage Systems).[5]
  • Of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2012 MD-715 report, 77.7% reported that they had issued an EEO policy on an annual basis, an increase from the 56% of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report in FY 2011.
  • In FY 2012, agencies reported that reasonable accommodation procedures were posted on 72% of 193 federal agency and subcomponent's external websites down from the 79% found in FY 2011.
  • A state of the agency briefing to the agency head, required by MD-715, was conducted by 74.6% of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2012 MD-715 report, down from 86% of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY 2011 MD-715 report.
  • In FY 2012, 78% of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports reported rating its managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO, which falls short of the 89% of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2011.
  • In FY 2012, all agencies were given an extension to submit their MD-715 reports until September 30, 2013. With the extension, 83% or 160 of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports did so in a timely manner. For comparison, 81% or 153 of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a FY2011 MD-715 report did so by the March 2, 2012 extended deadline.
 

 

I - Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

 

Section A - Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership

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

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

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

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


Figure 1 - Percent of Agencies that Issued EEO Policy Statements
On an Annual Basis FY 2008 - FY 2012

image003

Figure 1 above shows the number of agencies that issued EEO policy statements on an annual basis. Of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted an MD-715 report for FY 2012, 150 (77.7%) reported that they had issued an EEO policy statement annually and would continue to do so, an increase from the 106 (56.38%) of 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted in FY 2011. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

2. 72% 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. For example, the checklist asks, "Have the procedures for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities been made readily available/accessible to all employees by disseminating such procedures during orientation of new employees and by making such procedures available on the World Wide Web or Internet?" Of the 193 agency and sub-component MD-715 reports submitted, 139 or 72% reported they had posted the procedures on the external website.

Figure 2 below shows the number of agencies that posted reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites for the last five years. As shown, in FY 2012, the percentage of agencies that posted their reasonable accommodation procedures on their external websites increased by 15.46% percentage points over FY 2008. 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 2008 - FY 2012

 

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. 75% 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 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report for FY 2012, 144 (74.6%) indicated that the EEO Director had conducted the briefing, down considerably from the 161 (85.63%) of 188 in FY 2011. 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 2008 - FY 2012

image006

 

 

Section C - Management and Program Accountability

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

1. 78% of Agencies Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on EEO

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

 

Figure 4 - Percent of Agencies that Evaluate Managers and Supervisors on their Commitment to EEO FY 2008 - FY 2012

image008

In FY 2012, 150 (77.7%) of the 193 agencies and subcomponents that submitted MD-715 reports indicated that its managers and supervisors were rated on their commitment to EEO, down from the 168 (89.36%) of the 188 agencies that submitted MD-715 reports in FY 2011. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

 

 

Section D - Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

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

1. Barrier Analysis

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

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

2. Composition of the Federal Work Force

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1 - FY 2012 Federal Work Force Pay Structure Participation Levels
 

# in Work Force

% of Total Work Force

Total Work Force

2,805,462

  

Senior Pay Level

10,867

0.39

General Schedule and Related

1,494,399

53.27

Federal Wage System

265,758

9.47

Other Pay Systems

1,034,438

36.87
a. Total Work Force: Hispanics or Latinos, White Women Remain Below Availability

In FY 2012, the Federal Government had a Total Work Force of 2,805,462 employees, compared to 2,428,330 in FY 2003. Table 2 shows the participation rate of the identified groups below, as compared to the civilian labor force (CLF). Table A-1 in Appendix IV, located at https://www.eeoc.gov/, provides ten-year trend data.

Table 2 - Composition of Federal Work Force -
Ten-Year Trend: Some Progress, Little Overall Change
FY 2003 - FY 2012[6]
  

Work Force

Participation Rate

2010 CLF

 

FY 2012

FY 2003 %

FY 2012 %

Men

1,575,942

57.43

56.17

51.84

Women

1,229,520

42.57

43.83

48.16

Hispanic or Latino Men

136,443

4.39

4.86

5.17

Hispanic or Latino Women

93,819

2.83

3.34

4.79

White Men

1,085,702

41.11

38.70

38.33

White Women

728,109

26.06

25.95

34.03

Black or African American Men

218,448

8.00

7.79

5.49

Black or African American Women

291,424

10.56

10.39

6.53

Asian Men

95,488

3.21*

3.40

1.97

Asian Women

74,164

2.33*

2.64

1.93

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

6,278

*

0.22

0.07

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

4,800

*

0.17

0.07

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

19,270

0.71

0.69

0.55

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

24,097

0.79

0.86

0.53

Two or More Race Men

14,313

**

0.51

0.26

Two or More Race Women

13,107

**

0.47

0.28

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

25,689

1.05

0.92

CLF NOT AVAILABLE

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

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

Participation rate information is located in Tables A-1a of Appendix IV, located at https://www.eeoc.gov.[7]

b. Senior Pay Levels: A New Data Source

Beginning with the FY 2011 report the Senior Pay Level (SPL) data was primarily derived from agencies' submitted and certified MD-715 report Tables A & B-4 supplemented with SES data from OPM's CPDF. The change in data sources requires caution when comparing data from FY 2010 or earlier against data from FY 2011 or later. With a total of 10,867 employees, the Senior Pay Level (SPL) positions comprise 0.39% of the total work force. SPL positions include the SES, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15, step 10 of the General Schedule. Table 3 below reflects the SPL representation. Table A-2 of Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/ contains additional data.

 

Table 3 - Senior Pay Level Representation
FY 2003 / FY 2012
 

Senior Pay Level (SPL) Positions

FY 2003

FY 2012

# in SPL

% of SPL

% of TWF

# in SPL

% of SPL

% of TWF

Total SPL Work Force (#)

18,472

  

2,428,330

10,867

  

2,805,462

Men

13,813

74.78

57.43

7,438

68.45

56.17

Women

4,659

25.22

42.57

3,429

31.55

43.83

Hispanic or Latino

632

3.42

7.22

444

4.09

8.21

Hispanic or Latino Men

461

2.50

4.39

303

2.79

4.86

Hispanic or Latino Women

171

0.93

2.83

141

1.30

3.34

White

15,903

86.09

67.17

8,798

80.96

64.61

White Men

12,083

65.41

41.11

6,193

56.99

38.70

White Women

3,820

20.68

26.06

2,605

23.97

25.95

Black or African American

1,254

6.79

18.56

1,040

9.57

18.17

Black or African American Men

768

4.16

8.00

562

5.17

7.79

Black or African American Women

486

2.63

10.56

478

4.40

10.39

Asian

547*

2.96*

6.05*

382

3.52

6.05

Asian Men

403*

2.18*

3.40*

240

2.21

3.40

Asian Women

142*

0.77*

2.64*

142

1.31

2.64

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

**

18

0.17

0.39

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

**

17

0.16

0.22

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

**

1

0.01

0.17

American Indians or Alaska Native

139

0.75

1.50

106

0.98

1.55

American Indians or Alaska Native Men

100

0.54

0.71

64

0.59

0.69

American Indians or Alaska Native Women

39

0.21

0.79

42

0.39

0.86

Two or More Races

**

**

**

79

0.73

0.98

Two or More Races Men

**

**

**

59

0.54

0.51

Two or More Races Women

**

**

**

20

0.18

0.47

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

65

0.35

1.05

46

0.42

0.92

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

  • From FY 2003 to FY 2012, the Total SPL Work Force decreased by 7,605 employees, a net change of -41.17%. Comparatively, the number of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities in the SPL work force decreased from 65 in FY 2003 to 46 in FY 2012, a net change of -29.23%[8].
  • The participation rate for women in the SPL work force increased 25.1% over the ten-year period from 25.22% in FY 2003 to 31.55% in FY 2012, while women increased their participation rate in the total work force by 2.95% over the same ten-year period, from 42.57% in FY 2003 to 43.83% in FY 2012.[9]
  • Between FY 2003 and FY 2012, the participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in Senior Pay Level positions increased 19.6% over the ten-year period from 3.22% in FY 2003 to 4.09% in FY 2012. During the same period, the overall participation rate for Hispanic or Latino employees in the total work force increased 13.7%, from 7.22% in FY 2003 to 8.21% in FY 2012, although still remaining below the 2010 CLF.[10]
  • Over a ten-year period in the SPL, participation rates increased from 0.35% to 0.42% for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities, from 6.79% to 9.57% for Black or African American employees, from 2.96% to 3.69% for Asian employees, and from 0.75% to 0.98% for American Indian or Alaska Native employees.[11] The participation rate for White employees decreased from 86.09% in FY 2003 to 80.96% in FY 2012.
c. General Schedule Positions
  • With a total of 1,494,399 employees, the General Schedule (GS) positions comprised 53.27% of the total work force in FY 2012. 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 2003 / FY 2012
 

GS Positions

FY 2003 FY 2012

Number

% of GS

Number

% of GS

Total GS Work Force

1,291,366

  

1,494,399

  

Men

633,028

49.02

777,385

52.02

Women

658,338

50.98

717,014

47.98

Hispanic or Latino

94,141

7.29

123,616

8.27

Hispanic or Latino Men

48,814

3.78

68,345

4.57

Hispanic or Latino Women

45,327

3.51

55,271

3.70

White

878,258

68.01

970,190

64.92

White Men

473,673

36.68

551,215

36.89

White Women

404,585

31.33

418,975

28.04

Black or African American

233,479

18.08

276,768

18.52

Black or African American Men

71,542

5.54

98,701

6.60

Black or African American Women

161,937

12.54

178,067

11.92

Asian

58,370*

4.52*

75,105

5.03

Asian Men

28,797*

2.23*

38,127

2.55

Asian Women

29,443*

2.28*

36,978

2.47

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

5,395

0.36

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

2,783

0.19

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

2,612

0.17

American Indian or Alaska Native

27,248

2.11

27,247

1.82

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

10,331

0.80

10,206

0.68

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

16,917

1.31

17,041

1.14

Two or More Races

**

**

16,078

1.08

Two or More Races Men

**

**

8,008

0.54

Two or More Races Women

**

**

8,070

0.54

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

14,980

1.16

16,003

1.07

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

  • In FY 2012, the GS participation rate for each group was Hispanic or Latino employees 8.27%; White employees 64.92%; Black or African American employees 18.52%; Asian employees 5.03%; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees 0.36%; American Indian or Alaska Native employees 1.82%; persons of Two or More Races 1.08%, and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 1.07%. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/, for the entire ten-year trend in the GS pay systems.
  • Women held 47.98% of all GS positions in FY 2012, a drop from the 50.98% held in FY 2003. 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 1.05% to 0.92%, as their participation rate in the GS workforce declined from 1.16% to 1.07%.
  • The average grade level for the total GS permanent and temporary work force remained[12] 10.2 in FY 2012.

Figure 5 - Average Grade in the General Schedule Positions
FY 2012

image010
  • The average GS grade level for Hispanic or Latino employees (9.9), Black or African American employees (9.5), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees (9.0), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (8.6) and persons of Two or More Races (9.6) was lower than the government-wide average grade level (10.2).
  • The average GS grade for women was again 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 again remained 8.7, almost one and a half grades below the government-wide average. See Table A-3 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/.
d. Federal Wage System Positions
  • With a total of 265,758 employees, Federal Wage System (FWS) positions comprised 9.47% of the total work force in FY 2012. FWS (Blue-Collar) positions are mostly comprised of trade, craft and labor occupations. FY 2012 FWS positions increased 36.8% from FY 2003.
  • Even though FWS positions have increased 36.8% since FY 2003, the participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (6.90%) and Black or African American employees (16.00%), as well as Whites (66.32) have declined. Interestingly, the amount of each declined by 0.8, 2.6 and 0.1 percentage point for Hispanic, Black or African American and White, respectively. See Table A-4 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/ for the complete ten-year trend.

 

 

 

Table 5 - Federal Wage System (FWS) Representation FY 2003 / FY 2012
 

Federal Wage System (FWS) Positions

FY 2003

 FY 2012

Number

% of FWS

Number

% of FWS

Total FWS Work Force

194,259

  

265,758

  

Men

173,065

89.09

212,251

79.87

Women

21,194

10.91

53,507

20.13

Hispanic or Latino

14,958

7.70

18,332

6.90

Hispanic or Latino Men

13,423

6.91

15,132

5.69

Hispanic or Latino Women

1,535

0.79

3,200

1.20

White

129,046

66.43

176,238

66.32

White Men

118,129

60.81

144,809

54.49

White Women

10,937

5.63

31,429

11.83

Black or African American

36,171

18.62

42,532

16.00

Black or African American Men

29,333

15.10

32,167

12.10

Black or African American Women

6,838

3.52

10,365

3.90

Asian

8,742*

4.50*

16,079

6.05

Asian Men

7,732*

3.98*

11,454

4.31

Asian Women

1,010*

0.52*

4,625

1.74

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

2,111

0.79

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

1,795

0.68

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

316

0.12

American Indian or Alaska Native

5,342

2.75

8,168

3.07

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

4,468

2.30

5,125

1.93

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

874

0.45

3,043

1.15

Two or More Races

**

**

2,298

0.86

Two or More Races Men

**

**

1,769

0.67

Two or More Races Women

**

**

529

0.20

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

2,506

1.29

2,648

1.00

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

  • In FY 2012, the participation rate of men in the FWS pay system was 27.85 percentage points higher than their participation rate of men in the GS pay system. Comparatively, FWS participation rates for White employees, Asian employees, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees, and American Indian or Alaska Native employees were higher than their GS participation rates, while the FWS work force participation rates for women, Black or African American employees, and Hispanic or Latino employees, and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were lower than their participation in the GS pay system.
e. Other Pay Systems
  • With a total of 1,034,438 employees, other pay systems (OPS) comprised 36.87% of the total work force in FY 2012. Other Pay Systems include pay banding and other pay-for-performance systems. The Other Pay Systems participation rate reflects a decrease due in part to the FY 2011 conversion of NSPS employees back to the GS pay system and likely due to the change in source data.

 

Table 6 - Other Pay Systems (OPS) Representation FY 2003 - FY 2012
 

Other Pay Systems (OPS) Positions

FY 2003

 FY 2012

Number

% of OPS

Number

% of OPS

Total OPS Work Force

988,603

  

1,034,438

  

Men

615,504

62.26

578,868

55.96

Women

373,099

37.74

455,570

44.04

Hispanic or Latino

74,640

7.55

87,850

8.49

Hispanic or Latino Men

47,947

4.85

52,663

5.09

Hispanic or Latino Women

26,692

2.70

35,207

3.40

White

636,957

64.43

658,585

63.67

White Men

397,023

40.16

383,485

37.07

White Women

240,132

24.29

275,100

26.59

Black or African American

195,842

19.81

189,532

18.32

Black or African American Men

99,355

10.05

87,018

8.41

Black or African American Women

96,290

9.74

102,514

9.91

Asian

71,081*

7.19*

78,086

7.55

Asian Men

41,818*

4.23*

45,667

4.41

Asian Women

29,164*

2.95*

32,419

3.13

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

**

**

3,554

0.34

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

**

**

1,683

0.16

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

**

**

1,871

0.18

American Indian or Alaska Native

10,084

1.02

7,846

0.76

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

4,745

0.48

3,875

0.37

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

5,240

0.53

3,971

0.38

Two or More Races

**

**

8,965

0.87

Two or More Races Men

**

**

4,477

0.43

Two or More Races Women

**

**

4,488

0.43

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

8,601

0.87

7,101

0.69

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

 

· The participation rate for women (44.04%) in OPS was lower than in the GS pay system (47.98%).

· In FY 2012, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino employees (8.49%) and Asian employees (7.55%), is slightly higher than a decade ago, while the participation rates for White employees (63.67%), Black or African American employees (18.32%), American Indian or Alaska Native employees (0.76%), and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (0.69%) were slightly lower the FY 2003 levels FY 2003 levels.

· In FY 2012, the OPS participation rates for Hispanic or Latino and Asian employees were higher than in the GS and FWS pay systems. OPS participation rates for White employees, American Indian or Alaska Native employees, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander employees and Individuals with Targeted Disabilities were lower than those in the GS and FWS pay systems. OPS participation rates for Black or African American employees were lower than GS yet higher in FWS participation rates. See Table A-5 in Appendix IV at https://www.eeoc.gov/ for the complete ten-year trend.

3. Participation Rate of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities Increases Slightly

· On July 26, 2010, the President issued Executive Order 13548, requiring federal agencies to develop a specific plan for promoting employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The plan shall include performance targets and numerical goals for employment of individuals with disabilities and sub-goals for employment of individuals with targeted disabilities.

· From FY 2003 to FY 2012, the Total Work Force increased by 377,132 employees, a net change of 15.53%. Comparatively, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities increased from 25,497 in FY 2003 to 25,689 in FY 2012, a net change of 0.75%, resulting in a 0.92% participation rate. Only eight 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. Among the Defense components, AAFES exceeded the 2% goal as well with a 2.06% participation rate. See Table 7 below.

 

 

Table 7 - Ranking of Agencies with the Highest Percent of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (Agencies with 500 Or More Employees)

Agency

Total Work Force

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities

#

%

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2,479

60

2.62

Defense Army & Air Force Exchange Service

35,382

728

2.06

Social Security Administration

65,113

1,288

1.98

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

11,705

227

1.94

Department of Veteran's Administration

324,498

5,996

1.85

Six agencies with fewer than 500 employees exceeded the 2% federal goal. They were the Architectural & Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (ACCESS Board), Committee for Purchase From People Blind or Severely Disabled, Farm Credit Administration, John F Kennedy Center for Performing Arts, National Council on Disability, and Trade and Development Agency.

Table 8 below shows that the Department of Veterans' Affairs had the highest participation rate (1.85%) 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 (2.12%) for Individuals with Targeted Disabilities among the Department of Defense components.

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

 

 

Table 8 - Ranking Cabinet Level Agencies by IWTD
FY 2003 - FY 2012[13]
 

Agencies

 

Fiscal Year (FY)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

1. Veterans Affairs*

#

3,623

3,692

3,566

3,566

3,758

3,985

4,241

4,650

5,201

5,996

%

1.75%

1.56%

1.52%

1.49%

1.48%

1.43%

1.43%

1.51%

1.64%

1.85%

2. Treasury

#

2,157

2,105

1,964

1,842

1,748

1,827

1,864

1,918

1,865

1,804

%

1.53%

1.99%

1.90%

1.82%

1.73%

1.70%

1.73%

1.75%

1.75%

1.72%

3. Education*

#

73

73

63

59

59

59

55

60

61

58

%

1.73%

1.59%

1.42%

1.36%

1.36%

1.36%

1.30%

1.32%

1.32%

1.33%

4. Labor*

#

221

206

207

186

193

188

171

188

205

223

%

1.40%

1.30%

1.35%

1.21%

1.25%

1.22%

1.07%

1.13%

1.26%

1.33%

5. Housing & Urban Development

#

148

139

134

130

126

116

107

121

106

101

%

1.45%

1.36%

1.35%

1.32%

1.31%

1.19%

1.12%

1.21%

1.09%

1.09%

6. Health & Human Services*

#

673

651

624

576

596

596

592

672

747

869

%

1.27%

1.02%

0.97%

0.91%

0.81%

0.79%

0.75%

0.81%

0.87%

1.01%

7. Agriculture*

#

1,077

1,068

1,000

1,009

965

893

883

924

965

971

%

1.20%

0.95%

0.91%

0.96%

0.93%

0.85%

0.83%

0.85%

0.92%

0.96%

8. Interior*

#

702

692

678

684

700

689

699

750

718

727

%

1.15%

0.89%

0.88%

0.94%

0.97%

0.93%

0.91%

0.95%

0.93%

0.94%

9. Commerce

#

334

319

358

334

323

337

385

376

386

352

%

0.94%

0.84%

0.89%

0.82%

0.78%

0.79%

0.78%

0.76%

0.81%

0.78%

10. Energy*

#

122

119

116

111

122

118

120

124

119

109

%

0.80%

0.79%

0.77%

0.74%

0.82%

0.76%

0.76%

0.75%

0.73%

0.76%

11. Defense

#

6,021

5,747

5,643

6,053

5,817

5,894

6,096

6,261

6,144

5,916

%

0.89%

0.84%

0.81%

0.86%

0.83%

0.82%

0.80%

0.89%

0.76%

0.75%

12. Transportation

#

307

322

298

285

302

315

340

404

428

413

%

0.53%

0.56%

0.55%

0.53%

0.56%

0.57%

0.59%

0.70%

0.74%

0.72%

13. Justice*

#

396

406

406

413

412

408

421

452

456

469

%

0.40%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.38%

0.37%

0.39%

0.39%

0.40%

14. Homeland Security

#

756

740

720

709

674

692

727

744

775

769

%

0.69%

0.45%

0.44%

0.42%

0.41%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

15. State

#

93

93

90

88

84

84

79

88

87

86

%

0.53%

0.39%

0.37%

0.36%

0.33%

0.34%

0.31%

0.30%

0.28%

0.27%

Total Work Force*

#

25,551

25,917

25,142

24,442

23,993

24,427

24,663

25,217

25,485

25,687

%

1.05%

0.99%

0.96%

0.94%

0.92%

0.88%

0.88%

0.88%

0.90%

0.92%

* This agency showed an increase in the number and/or participation rate of IWTD in FY 2012. - The Department of Homeland Security was created in March 2003.

 

Table 8a - Ranking of DOD Sub-Components by IWTD
FY 2003 - FY 2012[14]

 

Agencies

Fiscal Year (FY)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

1. Army & Air Force Exchange Service

#

687

628

597

604

556

706

805

847

793

728

%

1.88%

1.87%

1.69%

1.65%

1.62%

2.00%

2.27%

2.39%

2.24%

2.12%

2.Defense Finance & Accounting Service

#

283

275

271

261

253

243

238

246

238

227

%

2.08%

2.05%

2.02%

1.99%

2.03%

2.04%

1.95%

1.91%

1.94%

1.94%

 

3.Defense Logistics Agency*

#

448

449

430

413

404

409

418

416

409

410

%

2.16%

2.07%

2.00%

1.92%

1.89%

1.78%

1.65%

1.65%

1.60%

1.62%

4. Defense Commissary Agency*

#

156

158

141

142

123

124

141

170

229

219

%

1.30%

1.07%

0.92%

0.92%

0.82%

0.82%

0.91%

1.09%

1.52%

1.54%

5. Defense Contract Management Agency

#

149

149

146

127

121

120

122

123

123

117

%

1.39%

1.34%

1.39%

1.29%

1.27%

1.28%

1.22%

1.17%

1.20%

1.12%

6. Office of the Inspector General*

#

14

13

13

15

18

17

18

19

16

18

%

1.19%

1.02%

0.95%

1.08%

1.28%

1.12%

1.14%

1.17%

1.04%

1.13%

7. Defense TRICARE Management Activity

#

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

14

66

64

%

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0.87%

1.09%

1.09%

8. Defense Information Systems Agency

#

64

60

53

62

53

55

53

54

56

56

%

1.16%

1.15%

1.08%

1.15%

0.95%

0.97%

0.91%

0.87%

0.87%

0.87%

9. Defense Contract Audit Agency

#

54

52

48

41

40

39

39

41

46

44

%

1.34%

1.28%

1.17%

1.02%

0.98%

0.94%

0.90%

0.87%

0.95%

0.85%

 

10. Department of the Navy*

#

1,620

1,562

1,500

1,430

1,380

1,398

1,423

1,427

1,387

1,396

%

0.92%

0.88%

0.86%

0.82%

0.80%

0.78%

0.75%

0.72%

0.69%

0.70%

 

11. Defense Media Activity*

#

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

5

3

4

%

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0.89%

0.52%

0.63%

12. Defense Threat Reduction Agency

#

5

7

10

10

7

9

10

10

9

8

%

0.56%

0.84%

0.90%

0.86%

0.63%

0.75%

0.83%

0.76%

0.72%

0.62%

 

13. Department of the Army

#

1,689

1,710

1,756

1,724

1,719

1,714

1,786

1,837

1,725

1,612

%

0.82%

0.75%

0.74%

0.72%

0.71%

0.67%

0.65%

0.64%

0.61%

0.58%

 

14. Department of the Air Force

#

1,157

1,196

1,174

1,123

1,042

953

934

932

936

911

%

0.87%

0.80%

0.75%

0.71%

0.67%

0.62%

0.58%

0.55%

0.53%

0.53%

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

#

38

39

41

45

54

60

42

40

40

40

%

0.72%

0.78%

0.71%

0.69%

0.71%

0.71%

0.71%

0.54%

0.52%

0.49%

16. Defense Missile Defense Agency

#

--

--

--

--

--

--

10

10

12

11

%

--

--

--

--

--

--

0.69%

0.49%

0.54%

0.47%

 

17. Defense Security Service*

#

21

16

7

8

6

6

6

6

3

4

%

0.88%

0.84%

1.33%

1.47%

1.14%

1.04%

0.83%

0.70%

0.34%

0.46%

18. Defense Human Resource Activity

#

6

6

4

4

3

4

3

7

7

5

%

0.82%

0.78%

0.50%

0.45%

0.34%

0.44%

0.29%

0.59%

0.56%

0.33%

 

19. Defense Education Activity

#

38

56

41

44

37

37

42

57

46

46

%

0.35%

0.32%

0.25%

0.27%

0.24%

0.24%

0.28%

0.35%

0.29%

0.27%

* These Defense Sub-Components showed an increase in the number and/or participation rate of IWTD in FY 2012. - No data available.

 

Section E - Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

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

1. 83% 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 and identifying and eliminating barriers. Information gathered in these reports allows the EEOC to examine a wide array of agency workforce profiles for purposes of Title VII and Rehabilitation Act Section 501 compliance. MD-715 applies to all Executive agencies and military departments (except uniformed members) as defined in Sections 102 and 105 of Title 5. U.S.C. (including those with employees and applicants for employment who are paid from non-appropriated funds), the United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Smithsonian Institution, and those units of the judicial branch of the federal government having positions in the competitive service. These agencies and their Second Level Reporting Components are required to file an EEOC FORM 715-01 on or before January 31st of each year.

In FY 2012, 82.9% or 160 of the 193 agencies and sub-components that submitted a MD-715 report did so in a timely manner. EEOC extended the deadline for all agencies to September 30, 2013 to allow time for resolving technical difficulties. In FY 2011, 81.38% or 153 of the 188 agencies and subcomponents that submitted a MD-715 report did so by the March 2, 2012 extended deadline. See Appendix III for a detailed list of agencies' status.

 

Figure 6- Percent of Agencies that Timely Filed the MD-715 Report
FY 2008 - FY 2012

image012

 

 


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

[2] The September 30, 2012 snapshot includes only employees in pay status on that date; thus, some permanent employees, like seasonal employees or those on active military tours of duty, are not included.

[3] Certain agencies do not provide total work force numbers for national security reasons.

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

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

[6] 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."

[7] This table reports breakouts of the employment data for certain large federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, as well as certain defense agencies, and the United States Postal Service.

[8] The sources for the FY 2011 and 2012 Senior Level Pay system changed and thus these comparisons require caution.

[9]The number women in the SPL work force decreased 26.4% over the ten-year period from FY 2003 (4,659) to FY 2012 (3,429), while women increased their numbers in the total work force by 18.94% over the same ten-year period, from 1,033,740 in FY 2003 to 1,229,520 in FY 2012.

[10]Between FY 2003 and FY 2012, the number of Hispanic or Latino employees in Senior Pay Level positions decreased 29.75% over the ten-year period from FY 2003 (632) to FY 2012 (444). During the same period, the number of Hispanic or Latino employees in the total work force increased 31.33%, although still remaining below the 2010 CLF.

[11] The FY 2012 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.

[12] Average grade was impacted by the conversion of NSPS employees back to the GS pay system in FY 2011 and the reclassification of General Schedule and Related to only General Schedule.

[13] Table 8 identifies participation rates for FY 2003 - FY 2012 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.

[15]The 180-day statutory period for investigating complaints can be extended to no more than 360 days if the consolidation of two or more complaints occurs. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.606.