EEO Program Compliance Assessment (EPCA)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) - FY 2006
EEO Program Activities Indicators
| MD-715 Elements | INDICATORS | ASSESSMENT | SCORE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership | An EEO policy statement is issued annually by agency head. | FTC issued an EEO policy statement in FY 2006. | 100 |
| Agency issued a comprehensive anti-harassment policy. | FTC issued a comprehensive anti-harassment policy. | 100 | |
| Integration of EEO Into the Agency's Strategic Mission | EEO is incorporated into agency's human capital strategic plan. | EEO is incorporated in FTC's human capital strategic plan. | 100 |
| EEO director reports to agency head. | FTC's EEO director reports directly to agency head. | 100 | |
| EEO director has regular access to agency head. | FTC's EEO director has regular access to agency head and senior level executives. | 100 | |
| Management and Program Accountability | EEO director briefs agency head and senior level officials on state of EEO. | FTC's EEO director provided state of the agency briefing to agency head and senior level officials. | 100 |
| Managers and supervisors have measures in their performance plans to evaluate their efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity for all staff. | Performance plans of all managers and supervisors contain element(s) designed to evaluate the efforts made to ensure EEO within the workplace and hold managers accountable for achieving the same. | 100 | |
| Reasonable accommodation procedures are posted on the agency's external website. | FTC has not posted its reasonable accommodation procedures on its external website. | 0 | |
| Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination | Applicant flow data is collected to evaluate the agency's recruitment and promotion activities. | FTC submitted applicant flow data on Tables A/B 7, but not on Tables A/B 9, 11, and 12. | 25 |
| Agency set numerical goal for hiring people with targeted disabilities. | FTC was not required to establish a numerical goal for hiring people with targeted disabilities. | NA | |
| Agency met the government high for participation rate of employees with targeted disabilities. | FTC's participation rate of employees with targeted disabilities (0.65%) was 27.43% of the federal high (2.37%). | 27 | |
| Efficiency | Timeliness of EEO counselings. | FTC's rate of timely completing EEO counseling was 100%. | 100 |
| Timeliness of EEO investigations. | FTC's rate of timely completing EEO investigations was 100%. | 100 | |
| Timeliness of merit decisions on EEO complaints without an administrative judge's decision. | FTC's rate of timely issuing final agency decisions on the merits was 0.00%. | 0 | |
| Use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program. | FTC's ADR offer rate during the pre-complaint stage of the EEO process was 88.57%. | 89 | |
| Resolution of EEO counselings. | FTC resolved 91.43% of EEO counselings at the pre-complaint stage. | 91 | |
| Responsiveness and Legal Compliance | Timeliness of submitting complaint files for the hearing. | At the hearing stage, FTC submitted its complaint files to EEOC in an average of 8 days. | 100 |
| Timeliness of submitting complaint files on appeal. | At the appellate stage, FTC submitted its complaint files to EEOC in an average of 19 days. | 100 | |
| Timeliness of 462 report submission. | FTC submitted its 462 report to EEOC by October 31st, or within the extended time frames granted. | 100 | |
| Timeliness of MD-715 report submission. | FTC did not submit its MD-715 report to EEOC by January 31st, or within the extended time frames granted. | 0 | |
| All | Total Weighted Score: 887 out of 1200. (See Glossary for Weighted Score Formula) | ||
EEO Program Outcome Indicators
Office of Personnel Management FY 2006 Federal Human
Capital Survey
FTC's Responses to Selected Questions
Q. 34 -
Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (for
example, recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness
of diversity issues, mentoring)
Q. 35 - Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds
Q. 43 - Complaints, disputes or grievances are resolved fairly in my work unit
Q. 45 - Prohibited personnel practices (for example, illegally discriminating for or against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person's right to compete for employment, knowingly violating veterans' preference requirements) are not tolerated
Q. 46 - I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal
In comparing FTC to the government-wide average, the chart below identifies the percentage of employees who answered "strongly agree" or "agree" to the above questions.
Analysis of Total Workforce, Major Occupations, and Odds Ratio for the Senior Grade Levels
| EEO Groups | 2000 Civilian Labor Force (CLF) | FY 2006 Agency Partic. Rate in TWF | Major Occupations | Odds Ratio Analysis of Senior Grade Levels | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Attorney | Not Available | Not Available | Promotion Grade | Current Grade | Odds Ratio | Odds | ||||||
| Occ. CLF | Partic. Rate | Occ. CLF | Partic. Rate | Occ. CLF | Partic. Rate | |||||||
| Male | 53.23% | 49.02% | 71.3% | 53.10% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 1.52 | > |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 1.90 | > | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 2.21 | > | |||||||||
| Female | 46.77% | 50.98% | 28.7% | 46.90% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.65 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.52 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.45 | < | |||||||||
| Hispanic/Latino Male | 6.17% | 1.86% | 2.0% | 1.88% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.00 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.54 | < | |||||||||
| Hispanic/Latino Female | 4.52% | 1.12% | 1.2% | 1.50% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.00 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| White Male | 39.03% | 40.54% | 65.2% | 47.47% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 1.66 | > |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 2.17 | > | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 2.77 | > | |||||||||
| White Female | 33.74% | 31.03% | 23.9% | 37.15% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.80 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.73 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.72 | < | |||||||||
| Black/African-American Male | 4.84% | 4.57% | 2.1% | 2.44% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 1.42 | > |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 1.16 | > | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.54 | < | |||||||||
| Black/African-American Female | 5.66% | 15.38% | 1.9% | 4.32% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.00 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.28 | < | |||||||||
| Asian Male | 1.92% | 1.96% | 1.4% | 1.31% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.00 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.57 | < | |||||||||
| Asian Female | 1.71% | 3.17% | 1.2% | 3.75% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.00 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.07 | < | |||||||||
| Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Male | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.0% | 0.00% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | NA | NA |
| SES | GS-14/15 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Female | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.0% | 0.00% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | NA | NA |
| SES | GS-14/15 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| American Indian/Alaska Native Male | 0.34% | 0.09% | 0.3% | 0.00% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | NA | NA |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| American Indian/Alaska Native Female | 0.32% | 0.28% | 0.2% | 0.19% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | 0.00 | < |
| SES | GS-14/15 | 0.00 | < | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| 2 or More Races Male | 0.88% | 0.00% | 0.3% | 0.00% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | NA | NA |
| SES | GS-14/15 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| 2 or More Races Female | 0.76% | 0.00% | 0.2% | 0.00% | - | - | - | - | SES | GS-15 | NA | NA |
| SES | GS-14/15 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| GS-15 | GS-14 | NA | NA | |||||||||
| People with Targeted Disabilities | NA | 0.65% | NA | 0.56% | - | - | - | - | ||||
*Odds ratio analysis is shown only for race, gender, and ethnicity. Promotion analysis for people with targeted disabilities (PWTD) was deemed inappropriate given the dearth of such persons in the federal workforce.
