Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD-715

Section II
Barrier Identification and Elimination

SELF-ASSESSMENT: BARRIER IDENTIFICATION AND ELIMINATION

Barrier identification and elimination is the process by which agencies uncover, examine and remove barriers to equal participation at all levels of the workforce. A barrier is an agency policy, principle or practice that limits or tends to limit employment opportunities for members of a particular sex, race, or ethnic background, or based on an individual's disability status. Barrier removal is vital to achieving the common goal of making the federal government a model employer.

To achieve this goal, each federal agency should work to create a barrier-free work environment where qualified applicants and employees have the freedom to compete and participate to the fullest extent possible, at all levels within the agency.

Understanding Barriers

The use of the word barrier in everyday life may illustrate how employment barriers operate. According to one dictionary, a barrier may be a fence, wall, or other physical obstruction built to bar passage. An example of a physical barrier to employment of individuals who use wheelchairs would be a work site that requires all employees to climb stairs because it lacks ramps and elevators.

The barrier analysis required by MD-715, however, is not limited to physical barriers. Barriers can result from prejudice, stereotyping, fear, comfort level or customer preference. Many employment barriers are built into the organizational and operational structures of an agency, embedded in the day-to-day procedures and practices of the agency. For example, an agency may recruit new attorneys from a limited number of law schools. If these law schools enroll only a few or no Hispanic students, the agency's hiring pool will be limited to all or virtually all non-Hispanic applicants. Although neutral on its face, this practice and policy is a barrier as it will have the effect of limiting the employment opportunities of well-qualified Hispanic attorneys. It also will unnecessarily limit the pool of talented individuals from which agency officials may draw.

Agencies should be mindful that "good" intentions will not be sufficient to avoid liability for unlawful discrimination, where a selection procedure is found to unnecessarily burden members of an EEO group. An agency is required to examine any procedure that operates to disproportionately burden identified groups. The agency must determine whether such a procedure is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Where members of an identified group are disproportionately impacted by a procedure or practice, such procedure will not be permissible if it is not job-related and consistent with business necessity. Even if that standard is met, however, it is important that agencies investigate the possibility of using an alternative procedure that accomplishes the same legitimate purpose, with a less discriminatory impact. In addition, it is important to remember that, in the case of individuals with disabilities, even if a selection criterion is job-related and consistent with business necessity, an employer cannot exclude an individual with a disability if the position criterion could be met or job performance accomplished with reasonable accommodation.

The elimination of barriers will allow agencies to fully utilize the knowledge, skills and abilities of each of its employees. It may also help an agency avoid findings of discrimination. As findings of discrimination can be expensive--back pay awards, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees -barrier identification and elimination is an agency's proactive opportunity to avoid the negative results of barriers.

As the federal government moves to an electronic workplace, access to information and data in electronic format will increasingly be needed for the performance of essential job functions. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has issued Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards to ensure that the electronic and information technology used by federal agencies allows individuals with disabilities to have access and use of information and data that is comparable to that afforded those who do not have disabilities.

The Section 508 (of the Rehabilitation Act) standards address various types of technology and means of disseminating information, including

computers, software, websites, and electronic office equipment, and are available on the Access Board's website: http://www.access-board.gov. See also http://www.arnet.gov/far/ and http://www.usodj.gov/crt/508.

The following is the barrier identification and elimination process at a glance. The process at a glance is followed by detailed instruction on each step in the process.

Step One - Analyze Source Material

Workforce Data Analysis

Agencies have an ongoing obligation to eliminate barriers that impede free and open competition in the workplace and prevent members of any EEO group (i.e., all applicants and employees) from realizing their full potential. On at least an annual basis agencies shall evaluate their workforce to assess progress toward the model workplace goal and identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups.

EEO MD-715 does not require the compilation of workforce data simply to produce a report to EEOC. Instead, agency attention should be devoted to what the compiled data reveals about the agency and its workforce. The process itself, barrier identification and elimination, is much more important than the end product of a report and workforce tables.

With that in mind, where does an agency begin to look for barriers to equal employment opportunity? As an initial step, an agency should analyze its workforce data, by taking compulsory snapshots in the format provided in workforce data tables. An agency may find clues to potential employment barriers by looking at the participation rates of its employment population to determine if any particular group (e.g., women, individuals with disabilities, Asians, etc.) is being underutilized by the agency in a particular occupation or at a particular grade or pay level.

Data analysis is accomplished by using appropriate comparators and generally accepted statistical methods. For example, note the benchmarks set for the following categories:

Workforce Snapshots

Going through each of the snapshots listed in the above table, the first snapshots will be of the agency's total workforce (including permanent, temporary, and non-appropriated fund employees).⁽¹⁾ Agencies will compare the work force information to the national civilian labor force (CLF) availability data. The national CLF, which is preprinted on the relevant forms, can be found using the Census EEO Data Tool at http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/, and making the appropriate selections. The comparison information yielded from these snapshots will be gross comparisons to get a broad look at the agency's workforce and the national CLF. Disparities or anomalies that appear in the comparisons are a trigger that an agency will need to further inquire into the disparity.

Next, agencies should look at its workforce broken out by the nine job category titles. For definitions of the nine job category titles see pages 16-18 of this section.

The next snapshot will consist of a look at the total workforce as distributed by major occupations. Major occupation is defined in MD-715 as agency occupations that are mission-related and heavily populated, relative to other occupations within the agency. The benchmark this snapshot should be compared to is the RCLF availability data. Relevancy will be based on the CLF availability data for the occupation in question, as well as geographic considerations of the recruitment area for the occupation in question. This comparison, as others, will yield a broad picture of the agency. This snapshot will also, as those that follow, narrow the picture for agency personnel, such that triggers may be revealed.

Following major occupations, a snapshot of the total workforce by grade level (WG or GS) should be taken. This too should be compared to the total workforce, to evaluate the distribution and proportionality of the workforce. Next, agencies will take a snapshot of their applicant pool. Applicant information should be compared to the RCLF, from a numerical perspective. Additionally, agencies should evaluate applicant flow information against its recruitment plans and efforts to determine the effectiveness of such.

The next three snapshots involve employee progress: promotions, training opportunities, and performance incentives. These should all be compared to the total workforce, again to evaluate the distribution. Specific to the promotions snapshots, an additional benchmark comparison will be the "feeder grades," or those grades that typically feed into the promoted positions at issue. Where a particular group may not earn promotions at rates similar to other groups, the "feeder" benchmark will give agencies a refined picture as to where the disparities might exist or begin.

Finally, the last compulsory snapshot noted in the above chart is separations. This too will be compared to the total workforce. Agencies should also evaluate the separations as divided between voluntary and involuntary separations. All these snapshots will provide agencies with a broad picture, and serve as a foundation to delve further where necessary.

Guidance for Using Census 2000 EEO Data Tool

Agencies may use the Census 2000 EEO Data Tool to compare their major occupations to the availability data provided by Census's Data Tool. For example, if one of an agency's major occupations is "accountants and auditors" and it is recruiting nationally for the position, the agency could obtain the availability data for that occupation by going to the Census website at http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/. In the first window, choose the table for "Employment by OPM Occupation Groups, Geography and Race." In the "Geography" box, select "Residence" and click "Next." In the next window, select "US Total" and click "Next." In the next window, locate "Accountants and Auditors." Scroll down the page and click "Display table" and the next window will have two tables showing the number and percentage of people available nationwide for the occupation of accountants and auditors. Note that occupations can be sorted alphabetically and that an occupation can be located by its name, census code or SOC code. Also note that only the Residence file provides the data for U.S. Total.

If, on the other hand, an agency draws its accountants and auditors from a particular geographical area, the agency should select "Worksite" and, in the next window, should select the particular places (such as a city or county) from which the agency's workers are drawn. Where an agency compares workforce participation against a benchmark other than national (e.g. regional, state, county or place), the agency should select "Worksite" data, not "Residence." Agencies should always indicate the sources of the availability data chosen for comparison.

Refine

After an agency has completed its initial snapshots, disparities or trends may become apparent. Variations between actual and expected participation rates, based on the benchmarks, may be an important clue that further snapshot refinement is needed to determine if something in an agency's policies, procedures or practices may be artificially limiting the employment opportunities for particular workforce groups. The goal is to uncover evidence of potentially hidden barriers in order to engage in the proactive prevention of discrimination.

After such refinement, where variations or disparities continue to appear, the next step an agency will take is to conduct a thorough investigation of relevant policies, procedures and practices to determine the causes of the identified disparities and pinpoint the causes of discovered barriers. Thus, the primary use of comparative statistics is as a guide to direct potential investigations. This will be discussed further under Step Two.

Additional Sources of Clues to Possible Barriers

Beyond workforce snapshots, other information is available to agencies which will help to identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups. Surveys, for example, may reveal information on experiences, perceptions or difficulties with a practice or policy within the agency. Thus, in concert with the compulsory and refined snapshots of the workforce, agencies must consult many additional sources of information, including:

• any indication of trends or problem areas revealed in a review of EEO complaints and EEO-related grievances filed
• findings of discrimination
• surveys of employees on workplace environment issues
• exit interview results
• surveys of HR program staff, managers, EEO program staff, counselors, investigators, and selective placement coordinators
• input from agency employee and advocacy groups, and union officials
• available governmental reports (i.e., EEOC, GAO, OPM, MSPB, DOL)
• local reports in surrounding news periodicals, as well as reports found in national publications
• examinations of the workplace for evidence of a variety of barriers, such as architectural barriers; assessments of whether disability accommodation processes are functioning smoothly; and, assessments of whether the agency's information technology office has the staff and resources to make various types of technology accessible to individuals with disabilities.

All these source materials are invaluable to barrier identification. Reliance solely on workforce profiles and statistics will not meet the mandate of EEO MD-715.

Step Two - Investigate to Pinpoint Actual Barriers and Their Causes

Data analysis is only a part of barrier analysis. Evaluation of data can help identify agency policies, practices and/or procedures that may be restricting or limiting equitable opportunity for employees and applicants. Data analysis can also illuminate weaknesses in the effectiveness of an existing EEO program.

Is There a Barrier?

When the data indicates potential barriers may exist, agencies need to conduct further inquiry to identify and examine the factors that caused the situation revealed by the data. Keep in mind, however, that while these workforce snapshots are useful as an initial diagnostic tool, conclusions concerning the existence of workplace barriers cannot be drawn solely from these numerical assessments. Rather, the identification of workplace barriers will require a thoughtful examination of all of the circumstances. Because an effective EEO program is both proactive and corrective, a systematic analysis of the employment opportunities in an agency is needed to identify potential barriers to equality of opportunity.

A thoughtful examination will include, but not be limited to:

• A thorough examination of relevant policies, procedures and practices;
• An evaluation of all related workforce data, statistics and trends;
• A review of complaints, survey trends and other information, such as feedback from exit interviews and focus groups, research literature, etc.;
• An examination of whether the pinpointed barrier is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

From this investigation, useful objectives and action items can be developed. The entire barrier identification and elimination process depends on a thorough analysis.

For example, at Agency X, persons with targeted disabilities make up only 0.5% of the total workforce, a percentage far below the government-wide average. Because the agency's historical data reveals that individuals with targeted disabilities have been virtually absent throughout the agency's workforce, it is clear that they are not being hired. Therefore, the agency's inquiry, guided by the glaring disparity it uncovered, requires an examination of the total hiring process at the agency to look for potential barriers to the employment of individuals with targeted disabilities.

In investigating the cause behind this variation, some of the questions Agency X needs to explore are:

• What are the external hiring opportunities for the agency?
• What is the applicant rate of persons with targeted disabilities?
• Does the agency have a recruitment plan? Does it include a focus on persons with targeted disabilities?
• Where and how is the agency advertising for applicants? Are there focused efforts to attract applicants with targeted disabilities such as: working with the disability services office at colleges and universities with agency-appropriate fields of study so that vacancy announcements can be distributed to students with disabilities; recruiting at schools with a student population that includes significant numbers of individuals with disabilities; contacting state vocational rehabilitation programs; advertising in periodicals published by advocacy groups for individuals with disabilities, etc.?
• Is the application process itself accessible to individuals with disabilities? For example, are on-line applications accessible to individuals with vision impairments?
• How many applications were received from individuals with targeted disabilities and, of these applications, how many individuals were initially rated as qualified and referred to the ultimate selecting official for consideration? Is the percentage of applicants with targeted disability rated as qualified and referred to the ultimate selecting official comparable to the rate for all applicants? If not, is the agency recruiting applicants with disabilities who have the appropriate qualifications? How are applicants initially rated as qualified for the position? What standards are being used? Are those standards job-related and consistent with business necessity? Are there alternative standards to measure the skills necessary to perform the job which have less of an impact on people with disabilities?
• How many applicants rated as qualified for a position are ultimately selected? What is the process for ultimately selecting an applicant referred as qualified for the position?
• Are rating officials, including personnelists doing initial ratings, and selecting officials familiar with their responsibilities to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities? Does the agency have effective reasonable accommodation procedures that are compliant with Executive Order 13164 and related EEOC guidance?

Answers to these questions, and others, will help pinpoint more precisely where barriers exist, the nature and causes of the barriers and help develop a plan for eliminating the barrier.

Job-Related and Consistent with Business Necessity?

When conducting an investigation into a barrier, one of the key determinations to be made is whether an uncovered barrier is job-related and consistent with business necessity. In some cases, an investigation will uncover a barrier which is job-related and necessary. EEO MD-715 requires agencies to eliminate barriers if they determine that the barrier is not job-related. Does the test or job qualification require knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) that are necessary for the performance of essential job functions? For example, a medical degree and license are examples of job-related qualifications for a physician position, but the ability to proficiently use a firearm for administrative employees of a law enforcement agency may be an example of an unnecessary barrier. Note that customer and/or coworker preferences are not job-related reasons for the existence and perpetuation of barriers. Attitudes and stereotypical beliefs that diminish employment opportunities based on factors not related to job performance are also not job-related. Therefore, barriers created by attitudes and stereotypical beliefs that diminish employment opportunities must be eliminated.

More complicated are barriers which are job-related, like some tests or qualification standards. However, even if an agency determines that a test, job qualification, or selection criterion is job-related and consistent with business necessity, the agency should nonetheless determine whether there are alternatives to the selection criterion or how a skill set can be demonstrated such that the negative impact on a particular group is reduced.

For example, an agency has uncovered a lack of Black women in its program analyst occupation at the grade 13 level and above. However, below the grade 13 level the program analyst occupation is quite diverse, including a significant number of Black females. Further examination of the matter reveals that several years ago the agency instituted a requirement that program analysts hold a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree in order to be promoted to the grade 13 level or above. Few internal candidates, and none of the Black female program analysts employed by the agency, hold an MBA. Therefore, the agency was recruiting higher level program analysts from a local business school with a student population comprised of primarily White males. Over time, program analysts at the grade 13 and above did not reflect the racial diversity of the program analysts at the lower grade levels.

First, the agency should re-visit the issue of whether the skill set represented by an MBA is available by some alternative means such as years of work experience in certain areas. This experience might be substituted for holding an MBA in rendering an applicant qualified for consideration for a higher-graded position. If it is determined that the agency's requirement for an MBA is in fact job-related and consistent with business necessity, the agency should consider whether other alternatives exist which will have less impact on a particular group. Most obviously, the agency could recruit MBAs from other schools with more diverse student populations. In addition, the agency might consider steps it could take to facilitate its own lower-graded employees obtaining MBAs.

Even where an agency has determined that a qualification standard, test, selection criterion, or other factor is job-related and consistent with business necessity, in the case of individuals with disabilities, the agency must conduct further analysis to determine if the applicant or employee can satisfy the qualification standard, test, or selection criterion with reasonable accommodation.

For example, an agency's procedures require that candidates for a fire-fighter position pass a timed written test. An individual with a learning disability applies for the position. He is well-qualified. However, when informed about the timed written test, he requests extra time because of his learning disability. Although the written test may be job-related and consistent with business necessity because it ensures that fire-fighters understand safety and other requirements, if adding 30 minutes to the time allowed for completion of the test does not compromise the results, the individual with the learning disability should be allowed an extra 30 minutes to complete the written test as a reasonable accommodation.

Thus, each element of the overall selection process should be examined to determine which elements operate to exclude employees or applicants. Such elements include, but are not limited to, recruitment, testing, ranking, interview, recommendations for selection, hiring, assignment, and promotions. In addition, the evaluation may require more than examining selections and promotions. Training, details, and other developmental assignments are opportunities for which all qualified employees should have the freedom to compete. Such opportunities often play a central role in selections for higher level positions. In addition, the denial of opportunity in training, details, and other developmental assignments may result in mission-critical talents not being fully developed.

In addition to selections, an agency must examine its disciplinary actions. For example, is there a group that is subject to disciplinary actions at a disproportionately high rate? Why? There should also be a focus on separations. Are individuals with disabilities separating at a rate disproportionally higher than the rest of the workforce? Why? These are the processes and types of questions agencies need to ask in order to investigate and attempt to uncover barriers to equal employment opportunity.

Step Three - Eliminate Barriers

Once the agency has analyzed all source materials available to it, followed clues to pinpoint potential barriers, and conducted thorough investigations of those potential barriers, the next step is to plan for improvement, developing overall objectives for barrier elimination, with corresponding action items, responsible personnel and target dates.

An objective, with accompanying action items, is a description of what specific actions the agency will take to eliminate or modify barriers to equal employment opportunity in its workplace. Each action item must set a completion date and identify the one high-level agency official who is responsible for ensuring that the action item is timely completed.

Remember, a plan is nothing more than a piece of paper if it is not implemented. The purpose of setting a completion date and identifying a high- level agency official who is responsible for ensuring that the action item is timely completed is so that the agency officials can be held accountable for timely action item completion. If action items are not timely completed, agency officials should be held accountable for their performance deficiencies.

After a desired plan for improvement has been selected, an agency will be required to report (i.e., its participation rates, its perceived potential barriers, the results of investigations including how results were arrived at, and the plan of action and objectives set to address identified barriers) to the Commission. This information can be reported on FORM 715-01 PART I.

Perhaps the recruitment barrier investigation conducted by Agency X above revealed that disability goals were not considered when the recruitment plan was developed. Further the colleges and universities targeted for recruitment by Agency X have a low population of individuals with disabilities. In addition, the application process itself has a number of impediments for individuals with certain kinds of disabilities. Each of these factors operates as a barrier to individuals with disabilities and must be removed.

A reasonable set of action items for Agency X would include:

• Establishing goals for the hiring and advancement of individuals with disabilities;
• Re-vamping the recruitment plan to include addressing those disability-related goals, including recruiting at universities and trade schools where the population of persons with disabilities is very high;
• Addressing all accessibility issues in the application procedures, including the provision of reasonable accommodation during the application and pre-employment testing process.

It should also be remembered that in removing one barrier, an agency may uncover another previously unidentified barrier. Thus, additional action items may be necessary. Barrier identification and removal is a continuous, evolving process.

Remember that agencies cannot account for every variation or anomaly that comparative snapshots reveal. Rather than striving for specific numbers, federal agencies should focus on ensuring that their workplaces offer equal access, competition and opportunity.

Step Four - Plan Assessment

Once a thorough investigation has been conducted and barriers to equal employment opportunity uncovered, a report on the findings and arising action items must be produced. This report will serve as the agency's roadmap for the next year. It should also name the agency official(s) who are accountable for ensuring that particular action items are accomplished. The report should also include a blueprint for periodic self-audits of the plan to ensure that the agency is on schedule and meeting its goals. On an annual basis, the Commission similarly will evaluate the progress agencies are making toward the elimination of its barriers.

Of course, during this continual process of barrier elimination, agencies should adjust the barrier removal plan as necessary, based on diligent monitoring of its progress. Continuous monitoring and adjustment will ensure the effectiveness of the plan itself, both in goal and execution. This will serve to determine the effectiveness of the action plan and objectives.

For example: An agency's ratio of employees with targeted disabilities is less than half the government average. The agency's plan lists as an objective an increase in applications from individuals with targeted disabilities. One action item requires job announcements to be mailed to Vocational Rehabilitation offices. However, after three months of doing so, the agency discovered that it was not receiving enough applications of college graduates who had targeted disabilities. Most of the agency's positions require a college education. The agency needs a new action item directing the recruitment office to create and use a larger list of sources of college graduates who have targeted disabilities. If the agency does not do a re-assessment, it could end the year with no increase in the number of applications received from qualified individuals with targeted disabilities.

Significantly, the continuous evaluation and adjustment of the agency's plan serves as a useful evaluation tool for determining the effectiveness of managers and EEO personnel, as highlighted in essential elements one, two and three of the model EEO program.

• Were objectives instituted in a timely manner?
• Were managers responsible for action items receptive to performing items?

Remember, the self-assessment process involves all steps described in the management directive, including barrier identification and removal, and creating a model EEO office and agency. These steps are inextricably linked to one another. Part of having a model EEO office is having an effective system to be proactive, and conducting barrier analysis. Self-assessment will bring agencies closer to meeting the goal of making the federal government a model workplace. Putting all the pieces together, as delineated in EEO MD-715, is a positive step forward for each federal agency.

Using these instructions earnestly and effectively will create an environment in your agency that encourages high performance. A top-quality federal workforce working in an environment where each employee has the freedom to compete will deliver mission results competently and ensure our nation's continued growth and prosperity.

Analyzing Employment Processes

The following is a list of employment processes where barriers typically arise, followed by a list of questions to be answered during a thorough investigation into each process. Agencies should consider this list a minimum starting point and feel free to add to the list of processes and questions, as the need arises.

Recruitment (See Tables A1, B1, A2, B2, A7, B7, A8, B8)

1. What opportunities are anticipated for external/internal hiring for the agency?
2. What criteria are considered in the development of the agency recruitment plan? With respect to the agency's SES candidacy program and/or succession planning, what criteria are considered?
3. Are disabilities, and targeted disabilities in particular, considered in the plan? If yes, how?
4. What is the applicant rate of persons with disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities? Are applications being received at the expected rate?
5. Do present recruitment sources yield the expected rate of qualified applicants of all racial and national origin groups, and both sexes, who meet organizational needs?
6. When were qualification requirements last examined to determine whether they are still current and necessary?
7. Does recruitment literature reflect the agency's desire to reach all segments of the potential workforce? How so?
8. Do/did EEO officials participate in the development of the recruitment plan?
9. Do/did EEO officials provide technical assistance to the personnel office and monitor recruitment efforts?
10. When paid advertising is used for recruitment or institutional purposes, is a wide variety of media with diverse readership included?
11. Does management make itself available to community, civic, and other groups interested in enhancing equal employment opportunity? If yes, how?
12. Does the agency provide opportunities and services to the community such as cooperative education programs and shared use of training facilities?
13. Does the agency participate in community career information programs, conferences, and occupational study projects? Provide examples.
14. Has the agency examined means for expanding worker-trainee placement?
15. Do current plans call for maximum participation in the worker-trainee opportunities program, or other such programs, with particular emphasis on the identification of developmental positions?
16. By what methods are applicants invited to apply? If the agency uses an on-line application product, does it comply with the Rehabilitation Act? Was the product reviewed by both the agency's information technology office for technical sufficiency and the agency's legal counsel for legal sufficiency? When?

Hiring and Placement (See Tables A3, B3, A4, B4, A5, B5, A6, B6, A, B7, A8, B8)

1. Are workforce participation rates substantially similar to those rates in the relevant civilian labor force (RCLF)?
2. Where there are variations, in what specific area(s) is the variation occurring (e.g., particular job category, particular grade, particular installation, etc.)?
3. What feeder groups affect the categories identified above? Are those feeder groups substantially similar to the RCLF benchmark? If not, determine where the disparity is occurring. If yes, determine whether a disparity appears between feeder group population and next category.
4. Is the selection process reviewed periodically to ensure equal treatment regardless of race, sex, national origin, disability or EEO participation?
5. Are selection panels used? If so, how is it determined who will serve on the panels?
6. Is the EEO office consulted when it is determined who will serve on a selection panel? Is the EEO office consulted with respect to selections for SES candidacy programs and succession planning?
7. Are selection requirements and procedures job-related and consistent with business necessity? Do they include unnecessary barriers to full utilization of population? If barriers are job-related and consistent with business necessity, can the effect of the barrier be nonetheless minimized ?
8. Are there a substantial number of EEO complaints where non-selection(s) is identified as the issue? If yes, is there an identifiable trend (e.g., particular group, supervisor, or installation)? What can be done to address this trend (e.g., train selecting officials, train employees, improve communication of the selection criteria or the application process)?
9. Has the union, the ombudsman, an employee advocacy group, special emphasis group, or any other interested stake holder group expressed concern regarding recent selections? If yes, what were the specific concerns raised and what is the agency's response and plan of action?

Employee Development and Training Opportunities (See Tables A12, B12)

1. What developmental opportunities were made available during the last fiscal year (i.e., training, details, etc.)? Which of these opportunities provided competency experience required for advancement to the SES level?
2. What is the workforce distribution of the participants for identified opportunities for the last fiscal year (grade, occupation, installation, race, sex, national origin, disability)?
3. Were the opportunities provided in the last fiscal year balanced across all parts of the workforce? If not, which group(s) were less utilized than others, and why?
4. How are participants for identified opportunities selected?
5. Is the selection process reviewed periodically to ensure equal treatment regardless of race, sex, national origin or disability?
6. How are training/developmental opportunity selection panels comprised, if at all?
7. Is EEO consulted when training/developmental opportunity selection panels are composed?
8. Are systems for tracking information on employee skills and training in operation?
9. Has a survey of current skills and training of the agency's workforce been conducted to determine the availability of employees from the entire workforce that have skills required to meet agency mission needs?
10. Are efforts being made to ensure that appropriate training and other developmental opportunities are available to employees at all grade levels, including management and executive training, and in all occupational areas, without regard to race, national origin, sex or disability?
11. Are internal selection requirements and procedures for developmental opportunities job-related and consistent with business necessity? Do they include unnecessary barriers to full utilization of skills and training? If barriers are job-related and consistent with business necessity, can the effect of the barrier be minimized?
12. Are there a substantial number of EEO complaints wherein developmental opportunities, such as denial of training or non-selection for a detail, is identified as the issue? If yes, is there an identifiable trend e.g., particular group, supervisor, or installation? What can be done to address this trend (objective criteria, better communication of process and expectations)?
13. Has the union, the ombudsman, an employee advocacy group, special emphasis group, or any other interested stake holder expressed concern regarding the distribution of opportunities? If yes, what were the specific concerns raised and what is the agency's response and plan of action?

Promotions and Other Internal Selections (See Tables A9, B9, A10, B10, A11, B11B)

1. Of the promotions that occurred in the last fiscal year, were the selections reflective of the pool of eligible candidates? Also, if the pool of eligible candidates did not include representatives from particular groups, was consideration given to including external candidates?
2. Where there are variations, in what specific area(s) are the variations occurring (e.g., particular job category, particular grade, particular installation, etc.)?
3. Are variations occurring in management, executive or SES selections? Are such selections meeting the needs of the agency's succession plans?
4. What feeder groups were available for each identified promotion? Are those feeder groups substantially similar to the RCLF benchmark? If not, determine where the disparity is occurring (e.g., recruitment, selection, promotion, etc.). If yes, determine why the disparity appears between feeder group population and promotion selectees.
5. Is the promotion/selection process reviewed periodically to ensure equal treatment regardless of race, sex, national origin, or disability?
6. For career-ladder promotions, is there a difference in time with which one or more groups achieve their full grade potential as compared to other groups (i.e., is the time-in-grade higher for a particular group)?
7. Are employees achieving full performance for their occupation at similar rates with others of different race, national origin, sex or disability?
8. How are promotion selection panels composed when they are used?
9. Is EEO consulted when selection panels are composed?
10. Are internal promotion qualification requirements and procedures job-related and consistent with business necessity? Do they include unnecessary barriers to full utilization of skills and training? If barriers are job-related and consistent with business necessity, can the effect of the barrier be minimized nonetheless?
11. Are there a number of EEO complaints where non-promotion is identified as the issue? If yes, is there an identifiable trend (e.g., particular group, supervisor, or installation)? What can be done to address this trend (train selecting officials, train employees, better communication of process and expectations)?

Award Distribution (See Table A13, B13)

1. What is the workforce distribution of award recipients for the last fiscal year (grade, occupation, installation, race, sex, national origin, disability, etc.)?
2. Of the awards given in the last fiscal year, was the rate of success substantially similar for all parts of the population? If not, which group(s) enjoyed less success than others, and why?
3. How are award recipients selected? Are there objective criteria available for selecting officials?
4. Is the awards selection process reviewed periodically to ensure equal treatment regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin, disability or EEO participation?
5. Are award selection panels utilized and, if so, how is it determined who will serve on a panel?
6. Is EEO consulted when award selection panels are composed?
7. Are there a substantial number of EEO complaints where award non-selection is identified as the issue? If yes, is there an identifiable trend (e.g., particular group, supervisor, or installation)? What can be done to address this trend (objective criteria, better communication of process and expectations)?
8. Has the union, the ombudsman, an employee advocacy group, special emphasis group, or any other interested stakeholder expressed concern regarding the distribution of awards? If yes, what were the specific concerns raised and what is the agency's response?

Discipline (See Table A14, B14)

1. What is the workforce distribution of discipline, including removal, during the last fiscal year (grade, occupation, installation, race, sex, national origin, disability, EEO participation, types of discipline, etc.)?
2. Of the disciplinary actions based on conduct taken in the last fiscal year, was the rate of receipt substantially similar for all parts of the population? If not, which group(s) received more or harsher discipline than the others, and why?
3. Of the disciplinary actions based on performance taken in the last fiscal year, was the rate of such actions substantially similar for all parts of the population? If not, which group(s) received more or harsher discipline than the others, and why?
4. Where there is a difference in rates based on conduct, does the difference occur at the proposal stage, the implementation stage, or in both (i.e., was one group recommended for disciplinary action at a higher rate than all other groups; is that group's conduct subjected to a higher level of scrutiny; do others engage in similar misconduct without having disciplinary actions proposed or taken against them)?
5. Where there is a difference in rates based on performance, does the difference occur at the proposal stage, the implementation stage, or in both (i.e., did the individuals in the group with higher occurrence rates receive sufficient training, assignments, and supervisory assistance; were they given opportunities to improve compared to opportunities given to other employees; what information can be gleaned from prior performance appraisals; were the recommending decision/performance appraisals based on predetermined objective criteria and/or were they were highly subjective; was the affected group held to a higher standard of demonstrated performance than other employees and/or subjected to stricter scrutiny of their work; did performance appraisal and/or recommendation narratives disclose that recommending and/or rating official held stereotyped or otherwise negative views of the affected group)?
6. How are disciplinary actions determined?
7. Are there objective criteria used (i.e., table of offenses with corresponding appropriate discipline)? If disciplinary decisions (type and timing) are left to the discretion of individual supervisors, why?
8. Is the disciplinary table of offenses reviewed periodically to ensure equal treatment regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin, disability or EEO participation (i.e., is there something that typically occurs only at one installation, such that disciplinary action for this issue will have a particularly negative effect on one group)?
9. Is the EEO office consulted when developing or modifying the table of offenses?
10. Are there a substantial number of EEO complaints where discipline, including removal, is identified as the issue? If yes, is there an identifiable trend (i.e., particular group, supervisor, or installation)? What can be done to address this trend (objective criteria, better communication of process and expectations)?
11. Has the union, the ombudsman, an employee advocacy group, special emphasis group, or any other interested stake holder expressed concern regarding the rate of discipline for a particular group? If yes, what were the specific concerns raised and what is the agency's response?

Separations (See Tables A14, B14)

1. What is the workforce distribution of separations, including disability retirement, for the last fiscal year (grade, occupation, installation, race, sex, national origin, disability, EEO participation, etc.)?
2. Did a higher percentage of a particular group separate from the agency, or from a particular installation?
3. Were exit interviews conducted? If not, why not? If yes, were any trends identified (e.g., leaving: because of harassment, perceived barriers to advancement for certain groups, for more money, because of atmosphere of agency, because of particular supervisor, for personal reasons, etc.)?
4. Where a trend emerges in the above analysis, what is the agency's response to address the issue now, as well as prevent it from occurring in the future?
5. Are efforts made to ensure that separations are conducted fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner? If yes, what are those efforts?
6. Are reductions-in-force conducted in a non-discriminatory manner? What procedures are in place to ensure this?
7. Are there a substantial number of EEO complaints where constructive discharge is identified as the issue? If yes, is there an identifiable trend (i.e., particular group, supervisor, or installation)? What can be done to address this trend (implementation of EEO policies, managers held accountable for implementing policies, etc.)?
8. Has the union, the ombudsman, an employee advocacy group, special emphasis group, or any other interested stake holder expressed concern regarding the rate of separations for a particular group? If yes, what were the specific concerns raised and what is the agency's response?

An Introduction to the New Nine Job Category Titles

For the first time EEOC is requiring agencies to report their workforce data by aggregating it into nine employment categories. These categories are more consistent with those EEOC uses in private sector enforcement and will permit better analysis of trends in the federal workplace than previous categories used.

The Commission has created a Census/OPM Occupation Cross-Classification Table by OPM Occupational Code (crosswalk) which assists agencies in determining the category in which to place a position through use of the position's OPM or SOC codes or the OPM or Census Occupation Title. The crosswalk may be accessed at the Commission's website: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/715instruct/00-09opmcode.html. This crosswalk is intended as general guidance in cross-classifying OPM occupational codes to the EEO nine categories. Agencies are encouraged to contact EEOC with specific questions about what category might be appropriate for their particular occupations.

The nine job category titles are:

1. Officials and Managers - Occupations requiring administrative and managerial personnel who set broad policies, exercise overall responsibility for execution of these policies, and direct individual offices, programs, divisions or other units or special phases of an agency's operations. In the federal sector, this category is further broken out into four sub-categories: (1) Executive/Senior-Level, (2) Mid-Level, (3) First-Level and (4) Other.

When an employee is classified as a supervisor or manager, that employee should be placed in the Officials and Managers category rather than in the category in the crosswalk that they would otherwise be placed in based on their OPM occupational code. Those employees classified as supervisors or managers who are at the GS-12 level or below should be placed in the First-Level sub-category of Officials and Managers, those at the GS-13 or 14 should be in the Mid-Level sub-category, and those at GS-15 or in the SES should be in the Executive/Senior-Level sub-category. An agency may also choose to place employees who have significant policy-making responsibilities, but do not supervise other employees, in these three sub-categories.

The fourth sub-category, called "Other," contains employees in a number of different occupations which are primarily business, financial and administrative in nature, and do not have supervisory or significant policy responsibilities. For example, Administrative Officers (OPM Code 0341) are appropriately placed in the "Other" sub-category.

2.Professionals - Occupations requiring either college graduation or experience of such kind and amount as to provide a comparable background. Includes: accountants and auditors, airplane pilots and navigators, architects, artists, chemists, designers, dietitians, editors, engineers, lawyers, librarians, mathematicians, natural scientists, registered professional nurses, personnel and labor relations specialists, physical scientists, physicians, social scientists, teachers, surveyors and kindred workers.

3.Technicians - Occupations requiring a combination of basic scientific knowledge and manual skill which can be obtained through 2 years of post high school education, such as is offered in many technical institutes and junior colleges, or through equivalent on-the-job training. Includes: computer programmers, drafters, engineering aides, junior engineers, mathematical aides, licensed, practical or vocational nurses, photographers, radio operators, scientific assistants, technical illustrators, technicians (medical, dental, electronic, physical science), and kindred workers.

4. Sales - Occupations engaging wholly or primarily in direct selling. Includes: advertising agents and sales workers, insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents and brokers, stock and bond sales workers, demonstrators, sales workers and sales clerks, grocery clerks, and cashiers/checkers, and kindred workers.

5. Administrative Support Workers - Includes all clerical-type work regard-less of level of difficulty, where the activities are predominantly nonmanual though some manual work not directly involved with altering or transporting the products is included. Includes: bookkeepers, collectors (bills and accounts), messengers and office helpers, office machine operators (including computer), shipping and receiving clerks, stenographers, typists and secretaries, telegraph and telephone operators, legal assistants, and kindred workers.

6. Craft Workers (skilled) - Manual workers of relatively high skill level having a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the processes involved in their work. Exercise considerable independent judgment and usually receive an extensive period of training. Includes: the building trades, hourly paid supervisors and lead operators who are not members of management, mechanics and repairers, skilled machining occupations, compositors and typesetters, electricians, engravers, painters (construction and maintenance), motion picture projectionists, pattern and model makers, stationary engineers, tailors, arts occupations, hand painters, coaters, bakers, decorating occupations, and kindred workers.

7. Operatives (semiskilled) - Workers who operate machine or processing equipment or perform other factory-type duties of intermediate skill level which can be mastered in a few weeks and require only limited training. Includes: apprentices (auto mechanics, plumbers, bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, machinists, mechanics, building trades, metalworking trades, printing trades, etc.), operatives, attendants (auto service and parking), blasters, chauffeurs, delivery workers, sewers and stitchers, dryers, furnace workers, heaters, laundry and dry cleaning operatives, milliners, mine operatives and laborers, motor operators, oilers and greasers (except auto), painters (manufactured articles), photographic process workers, truck and tractor drivers, knitting, looping, taping and weaving machine operators, welders and flame cutters, electrical and electronic equipment assemblers, butchers and meat cutters, inspectors, testers and graders, hand packers and packagers, and kindred workers.

8.Laborers (unskilled) - Workers in manual occupations which generally require no special training who perform elementary duties that may be learned in a few days and require the application of little or no independent judgment. Includes: garage laborers, car washers and greasers, grounds keepers and gardeners, farm workers, stevedores, wood choppers, laborers performing lifting, digging, mixing, loading and pulling operations, and kindred workers.

9. Service workers - Workers in both protective and non-protective service occupations. Includes: attendants (hospital and other institutions, professional and personal service, including nurses aides, and orderlies), barbers, char workers and cleaners, cooks, counter and fountain workers, elevator operators, firefighters and fire protection, guards, door-keepers, stewards, janitors, police officers and detectives, porters, waiters and waitresses, amusement and recreation facilities attendants, guides, ushers, public transportation attendants, and kindred workers.

1. For purposes of MD-715 and its associated documents, total workforce is defined as the sum total of an agency's temporary and permanent workforces. Temporary workforce totals shall include the number of temporary full-time and temporary part-time employees who, as of the September 30, have not been officially separated from the agency by Standard Form 50 (SF-50) or equivalent action. This includes employees with temporary tenure, temporary intermittent employees, temporary non-appropriated fund employees, and casual and/or seasonal employees. It does not include foreign nationals employed overseas.

Permanent workforce totals shall include the number of permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees who, as of the September 30, have not been officially separated from the agency by Standard Form 50 (SF-50) or equivalent action. This includes employees with permanent tenure, permanent intermittent employees, and permanent non-appropriated fund employees.

This page was last modified on July 20, 2004.

Return to Home Page