715-01 part a - d · eeoc form u.s. equal employment opportunity commission federal agency annual...

EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Headquarters Department of the Army of 98

715-01 Part A - D

For period covering October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010.

PART A Department or Agency Identifying Information

1. Agency Headquarters United States Army

1.a. 2nd level reporting component

1.b. 3rd level reporting component

1.c. 4th level reporting component

2. Address 1225 S. Clark St., Suite 200

3. City, State, Zip Code Arlington VA 22202 VA 22202

4. CPDF Code 5. FIPS Code ARSA 8840

PART B Total

Employment

1. Enter total number of permanent full-time and part-time employees 260,547

2. Enter total number of temporary employees 5,711

3. Enter total number employees paid from non-appropriated funds 29,879

4. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT [add lines B 1 through 3] 296,137

PART C Agency

Official(s) Responsible

For Oversight of EEO

Program(s)

1. Head of Agency Official Title Hon. John McHugh, Secretary of the Army

2. Agency Head Designee Hon. Thomas Lamont, ASA Manpower & Reserve Affairs

3. Principal EEO Director/Official Official Title/series/grade

Larry Stubblefield. DASA D&L ASA Manpower and Reserve Affairs

4. Title VII Affirmative EEO Program Official

Mr. Michael Gautier, Director MD 715

5. Section 501 Affirmative Action Program Official

Ms. Yolanda Maldonado, Acting IWD Director

6. Complaint Processing Program Manager

Mr. Spurgeon Moore, Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Compliance and Review

7. Other Responsible EEO Staff

PART D List of

Subordinate Components Covered in This Report

Subordinate Component and Location (City/State) CPDF and FIPS Codes

United States Army Special Operations Command ARSP 2560

United States Army Test and Evaluation Command ARAT 8840

EEOC FORM




United States Military Academy ARMA 36071

United States Army Information Security Command ARAS 8840

Joint and DoD Activities ARJA 8840

United States Army Human Resources Command ARMP 8840

United States Army Joint Activities ARJA 8840

United States Army SHAPE ARJ1 8840

United States Army Pacific Command ARP1 3320

United States Army Military District of Washington ARMW 8840

United States Army Recruiting Command ARRC 5135

Field Operating Agencies of HQ DA and Secretary of the Army ARSB 8840

Staff Support Agencies, HQDA ARSS 8840

Joint and DoD Activities ARSJ 8840

United States Army South ARSO 7240

United States Army Training and Doctrine Command ARTC 5135

United States Army Corps of Engineers ARCE 8840

United States Army Materiel Command ARX1 3440

United States Army Network Enterprise Technology Command ARG6 6200

US Army DoD Agencies ARDF 8840

Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army ARCS 8840

United States Army Central Command ARCT 8280

United States Army Over Strength Command ARDM 8840

United States Army Office of the Secretary of the Army ARSA 8840

United States Army Criminal Investigation Command ARCB 8840

United States Army National Guard Bureau ARNG 8840

United States Army North AR5A 7240

US Army Europe and 7th Army ARE1 8840

US Military Entrance Processing Command ARAP 1600

EEOC FORM




US Army Medical Command ARMC 7240

US Army Acquisition Support Center ARAE 8840

US Army Forces Command ARFC 2752

US Army Accession Command ARAA 5135

U.S. Army Space And Missile Defense Command ARSC 3440

Eighth US Army ARP8 8840

United States Army Installation Management Command ARBA

8840

EEO FORMS and Documents Included With This Report

*Executive Summary [FORM 715-01 PART E], that includes:

*Optional Annual Self-Assessment Checklist Against Essential Elements [FORM 715-01PART G]

x

Brief paragraph describing the agency's mission and mission-related functions

x

*EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program [FORM 715-01PART H] for each programmatic essential

x

Summary of results of agency's annual self-assessment against MD-715 "Essential Elements"

x

*EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier [FORM 715-01 PART I] for each identified barrier

x

Summary of Analysis of Work Force Profiles including net change analysis and comparison to RCLF

x

*Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Advancement of Individuals With Targeted Disabilities for agencies with 1,000 or more employees [FORM 715-01 PART J]

x

Summary of EEO Plan objectives planned to eliminate identified barriers or correct program deficiencies

x

*Copy of Workforce Data Tables as necessary to support Executive Summary and/or EEO Plans

x

Summary of EEO Plan action items implemented or accomplished

x

*Copy of data from 462 Report as necessary to support action items related to Complaint Processing Program deficiencies, ADR effectiveness, or other compliance issues.

x

*Statement of Establishment of Continuing Equal Employment Opportunity Programs[FORM 715-01 PART F]

x *Copy of Facility Accessibility Survey results as necessary to support EEO Action Plan for building renovation projects

*Copies of relevant EEO Policy Statement(s) and/or excerpts from revisions made to EEO Policy Statements

*Organizational Chart x

EEOC FORM




715-01 Part E

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of the Army (DA) is a component within the Department of

Defense. Army civilian employees work in a wide variety of positions and pay grades

around the world as part of the mission of the United States Army, as described in the Army

web site www.army.mil.

The Army’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program administers and

manages the Army’s civilian employment EEO and Civil Rights Program. The

mission/function of EEO practitioners and staff members is uniform throughout the

worldwide organization except in scope. The operating and tactical offices on installations

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District EEO offices provide programmatic

support and services to Army activities and tenants. Major Army Commands (ACOMs),

Army Service Component Commands (ASCCs), and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs), EEO

staff provides strategic advice, technical support and oversight of the Commander’s EEO

program. Civilian personnel advisory services are provided on a regional basis as detailed

at http://www.cpocma.army.mil/.

During the reporting period, the position of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Army for EEO and Civil Rights became the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Diversity and Leadership. EEO Program Policy and Compliance remained intact, while

serving as a foundation for developing diversity and inclusion strategies, initiatives and

civilian workforce transformation.

All civilian employees, except for foreign local national employees, are included in

this report which covers the reporting period ending September 30, 2010. The data

provided in this report represents the workforce demographics of the Army civilian

workforce. Although the national Civilian Labor Force statistic is used for comparisons,

the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code used in this report is 8840

(Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland and Eastern West Virginia) because there is

no “national” FIPS. Furthermore, most of the Army Headquarters’ staffs and leadership are

located in this FIPS area.

Due to the size and complexity of the Army, its broad scope, mission and

organization, the report summarizes the Army EEO program in general terms. The

information provided in this report is an aggregated summary of the entire Department of

the Army. The individual recruitment actions and EEO program operations at the garrisons

http://www.army.mil/

http://www.cpocma.army.mil/

EEOC FORM




or Corps of Engineers district offices have more direct impact on shaping the demographic

profiles of the Army, than the broader agency level report. Due to the broad scope of the

Army, the report contains comparisons to the National Civilian Labor Force. FY 2010

applicant pool data, extracted from the Resumix application system, as well as data from

the Army’s version of the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS) was used to

develop the data analyzed in this report. Although the applicant pool data contained a

number of data anomalies and null values within certain categories, the data is sufficiently

valid to form the basis of generalized conclusions. Applicant data on selections to the

Senior Executive Service (SES) is not part of the Resumix system and the data on SES

applications is not included.

The Headquarters’ Army Diversity and Leadership Office includes three divisions;

Diversity, Leadership and Compliance. While organizing and aligning functions to

complement mission, efficiencies and effectiveness, the Secretary of the Army has

approved a “Diversity Roadmap”. The Roadmap provides a strategic methodology to

integrate portions of the model EEO program essential elements into a transformational

process that impacts the Army’s corporate values regarding the strategic and effective

management of human capital. A key component of the diversity roadmap is the training,

education and awareness efforts needed to ensure diversity and inclusion principles,

objectives and strategies are integral parts of all Army operations as shown at

http://www.armydiversity.army.mil/adoGoals/index.html

The Diversity Roadmap outlines the Army’s unique approach to an enterprise-wide

diversity initiative over the next five years. Five goals provide a roadmap for moving

forward in key areas that are essential to a successful diversity initiative: leader

commitment; comprehensive talent management processes; structure and resources;

education and training; and sustainment through institutionalized inclusive practices.

These five diversity goals will ultimately be accomplished through action planning. The

development, implementation, monitoring and assessment of objectives and tasks will be

integrated into the planning process, together with periodic evaluations of progress toward

achieving the Army Diversity Vision. These Diversity Roadmap goals are linked to five of

the six essential elements of a model EEO programs.

WORK FORCE ANALYSIS

The Army workforce is diverse and includes more than 527 occupational series of

the 638 occupational series in DOD; 83% of the occupational series in DOD include Army

http://www.armydiversity.army.mil/adoGoals/index.html

EEOC FORM




employees. Geographically, Army employees work in more than 2,065 General Services

Administration Geographic locations worldwide.

Based on the EEOC classifications, the Army’s total appropriated fund reportable

employee population is displayed in Figure 1. The factors that directly impacted the

population change shown for the larger employee groups that were classified by race and

ethnicity1 cannot be directly discerned from global Army data, but action items have been

created to ask subordinate reporting activities to identify EEO-related issues related to

demographic changes; the analysis of that data is ongoing.

An examination of Figure 1 illustrates the Army appropriated and non appropriated

civilian employee population change based on race and ethnicity indicators (ERI) and

Gender 1. White men, followed by White women, constitute the largest racial group in the

Army, followed by African American men and women. In addition, all EEO group

populations experienced net growth with the exception of Hispanic or Latino men and

women who experienced a net population decrease since the last annual report.

EEO Groups FY 09 FY 10 Change

White Men 110,206 117,344 7,138

White Women 58,249 61,600 3,351

Black Men 20,600 21,930 1,330

Black Women 23,118 24,125 1,007

Hispanic or Latino Men 9,079 9,045 -34

Hispanic or Latino Women

5,014 5,006 -8

Asian Men 5,351 5,717 366

Asian Women 4,479 4,687 208

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men

608 719 111

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women

554 635 81

American Indian or Alaska Native Men

1,478 1,524 46

American Indian or Alaska Native Women

926 962 36

Multiracial Men 3,081 4,140 1,059

Multiracial Women 2,417 3,113 696

Total Population 245,160 260,547 15,387

Figure 1

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards

EEOC FORM




The percentage of appropriated fund employees relative to the general national Civilian

Labor Force (CLF) is shown in figure 2. The percentage of White women, Hispanic or

Latino men and women are below the CLF; the representation of other EEO groups is

generally consistent with the CLF. Although the overall population has increased, the ratio

of change has not been extreme with the exception of the decrease of Hispanic or Latino

men and women. This overall evaluation does not take the place of more detailed

evaluations by occupational series and grades which may change the evaluation or the

impact of geographic dispersion of work centers.

EEO Groups FY 09 FY 10 General CLF

Change

White Men 44.95% 45.04% 39.00% 0.19%

White Women 23.76% 23.64% 33.70% -0.49%

Black Men 8.40% 8.42% 4.80% 0.17%

Black Women 9.43% 9.26% 5.70% -1.84%

Hispanic or Latino Men 3.70% 3.47% 6.20% -6.68%


2.05% 1.92% 4.50% -6.45%

Asian Men 2.18% 2.19% 1.90% 0.53%

Asian Women 1.83% 1.80% 1.70% -1.56%


0.25% 0.28% 0.10% 10.13%


0.23% 0.24% 0.10% 7.28%


0.60% 0.58% 0.30% -3.07%


0.38% 0.37% 0.30% -2.30%

Multiracial Men 1.26% 1.59% 0.80% 20.91%

Multiracial Women 0.99% 1.19% 0.80% 17.48%

Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 99.90% 34.30%

Figure 2

MODEL EEO PROGRAM SUMMARY

Element A. Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership:

Strength: Policy development, training and strategic communication of the Army’s

Diversity Strategy and the execution of a plan linked with the model EEO Program six

essential elements for broader application of diversity.

Element B. Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission

Strengths: The Headquarters, Department of the Army EEO program is aligned in

accordance with 29 CFR Part 1614. The EEO Director, the Assistant Secretary of the Army

EEOC FORM




(Manpower & Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA), reports directly to the head of the Agency

(Secretary of the Army). The EEO program operates under the direct and personal

supervision of the ASA (M&RA), as depicted in Figure 3.

The participation of the HQ EEO staff in decision points aids in the integration of

EEO Program principles, objectives and requirements into standardized organizational

models/systems. This provides a foundation for resource analysis and determination that

becomes part of the permanent command and leadership structure as standardized or

institutionalized resources.

In August 2010 a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) for Diversity and

Leadership was appointed by the Secretary of the Army. This appointment is an elevation

in the status, visibility, agility and capability of the EEO Program, provides greater

authority to implement comprehensive action plans, policies and practice.

Organization Chart (As of 17 August, 2010)

Figure 3

EEOC FORM




Element C. Management and program accountability

Strengths:

Selection to the SES and awards issued to SES and senior leaders require review by Office of the General Counsel, the Office of The Judge Advocate General, the Inspector General and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Because of EEO program modernization, the HQ EEO staff in the Diversity and Leadership Office is able to make rapid qualitative and quantitative assessments of the Army program. Using the MD 715 Reporter and iComplaints, the HQ EEO staff is able to centrally perform detailed program evaluations and this capability is replicated at the command levels. This has reduced the cost of program evaluations. The implementation of the first Army wide on-line training module for the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act training is completed and future online EEO training modules are planned. To date 112, 321 have taken NO FEAR training as compared to 11, 763 civilian employees who took the training in FY 10. That represents an increase of over 100,000 employees receiving the training in FY 2010. In FY 2011, the Army will deploy the Equal Employment Opportunity Self Assessment Tool (EEOSAT), which will provide a customer relations management focus on the analysis tools currently provided by EEOC. The advantage of EEOSAT is that it analyzes the EEO program from the customer perspective to measure the impact of the delivery of EEO services. This application will be exported to the EEOC for use by other federal agencies and become part of the EEOC evaluation system. Managers and supervisors are rated on their support of the EEO program. The automated performance evaluation system includes specific objectives that measure individual managers’ support of EEO initiatives. Future initiatives are planned that will further standardize leadership support reporting.

Deficiency:

The review of disability accommodation decisions/actions is conducted locally; there is no capability of collecting data on reasonable accommodations requests Army wide. There is no agency-wide automated tracking system in place to bring visibility to these requests or to analyze the information. However, Army policy on Reasonable Accommodation was published in 2009 and this area is being addressed. Multiple entries for disability codes into DCPDS have not been completed. Employees with more than one disability cannot have more than one disability coded in DCPDS.

EEOC FORM




Element D. Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination

Strength:

Agency policies and practices support program operations. The program infrastructure, as

expressed in Army regulations and policies, provides visibility to EEO programs and

practices. Redress methods are taught at New Employee Orientations for both civilian and

military personnel who include military and civilian supervisors and managers.

Element E. Efficiency

Strength:

The centralization of EEO systems using iComplaints and the MD 715 Reporter provides

global oversight of program operations by integrating metrics, data, and local information,

while supporting local context and knowledge sharing.

The Army’s ability to modernize its EEO program provides flexibility in the effort to achieve

the model EEO program. The usage rate of EEO systems by EEO users approaches 90% of

the more than 400 EEO careerists.

MD 715 metrics are integrated into overall command metric systems such as the Army

wide installation status reporting and resource modeling systems.

Access to HR data is provided through standard access procedures and EEO specific data

elements are integrated into DCPDS.

Employee training is monitored and the move to more standardized online modules

assures consistency and legal compliance. The movement away from the dependency on

collateral duty to full time support provides more substantial assets to the EEO process.

Deficiency:

The Army's complaint processing program generally operates at a high level of efficiency

and compliance with EEOC guidelines and procedures, however meeting processing

timelines for investigations continue to be a challenge.

EEOC FORM




Element F. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

Strengths:

EEO, HR, and Legal review of Army senior executive leaders’ performance awards with

recommendations to the Secretary of the Army for approval or denial.

Army’s EEO complaints are managed at each command’s programmatic level. The agency

authority for final agency decisions rests with the Office of the ASA(M&RA). The

operational report is included in the complaints analysis of this report.

FY 2010 462 REPORT ANALYSIS The number of informal and formal complaints filed against the Department of the

Army increased slightly during Fiscal Year 2010. 2,367 informal complaints were filed in

FY 2010, compared with 2,308 informal complaints in FY 2009; there were 1,320 formal

filings in FY 2010 as compared to 1,207 formal complaints filed in FY 2009.

Informal closures also increased, from 2,342 informal complaints closed during FY

2009 to 2,416 in FY 2010. The vast majority of Army pre-complaints continue to be closed

with the issuance of a Notice of Right to File a Formal Complaint; in FY 2010 only 12.3% of

informal complaints were settled as compared to 87.7% that closed with a Notice of Right

to File. The overall percentage of informal complaints which resulted in the filing of a

formal complaint remained around the 50% level, as it has for several years.

The top two issues raised in formal complaints process in FY 2010, as shown in

Figure 4, were harassment (non-sexual) and promotion/non-selection, the same as in the

previous two fiscal years.

Top 5 Issues Total Complaints

Total Complainants

% of Total Complaints

Harassment (Non-Sexual) 516 503 39.1% Promotion/Non-Selection 240 237 18.2% Disciplinary Actions (all) 217 211 16.4% Evaluation/Appraisal 157 151 11.9% Termination 138 138 10.5%

EEOC FORM




Figure 4

The top two bases were also the same as in years past, reprisal and race (black) as shown

in Figure 5. Although it appears that the number of cases filed is incongruent with the

issues and bases, complainants may file on more than one basis and multiple issues; there

is not a 1-1 relationship between the number of complainants and the number of issues

and bases.

Top 5 Basis Total Complaints

Total Complainants

% of Total Complaints

Reprisal 490 437 37.1% Race (Black) 437 411 33.1% Age 332 325 25.2% Sex (Female) 324 315 24.5% Disability (Physical) 256 246 19.4%

Figure 5

A total of 1,301 formal complaints were closed by the Army in FY 2010, continuing the

trend of small increases in closures from the 1,196 cases closed during FY 2008 and 1,222

in FY 2009. Closure by settlement remained the most common type of formal closure at

41.5%, followed by dismissals at 19.6%. 12.7% of complaints were withdrawn. Final

Agency Orders with an Administrative Judge (AJ) Decision increased from 9.7% to 10.9%,

and while the total number of Final Agency Decisions (FADs) without an AJ decision varied

by only 2, the overall increase in closures led to a decrease in percentage from 17.7% in FY

2009 to 16.4% in FY 2010. The average days taken to issue a FAD without an AJ decision

was 59.47, just below the regulatory requirement of 60 days.

There were 6 findings issued by the Army with an AJ decision, in line with the

number of AJ findings received in FY 2009, and an additional 7 findings issued in merit

FADs without an AJ decision; however, findings overall accounted for only 1.0% of formal

FY 2010 closures. As seen in the new Part IVB of the report, the issues involved in findings

are varied and without any identifiable trend or commonality. The six merit FAD findings

involving race (black) and harassment (non-sexual) were related complaints from

individuals in the same organization and location – findings had been issued in 9 of these

related complaints in FY 2009, and the remainder of the complaints was settled in FY 2010.

That settlement, including compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees, accounts for much

of the $1.2 million dollar increase in monetary benefits paid in formal complaints as

reported in Part VII (please refer to the FY 2009 and FY 2010 reports for the Army Corps of

EEOC FORM




Engineers subcomponent). Setting those related findings aside, reprisal remained the most

common basis for a finding, followed closely by disability (physical) and race (black).

A total of 1,066 formal complaints were still open at the close of FY 2010. Nearly all

were either pending investigation (522) or pending a hearing before an Administrative

Judge (425). Of the 100 cases reported as pending the complainant’s post-investigative

election or a Final Agency Decision/Action the Army’s complaint tracking database

indicated that 49 complaints were pending the complainant’s election and 51 were pending

final action.

The Army completed 546 investigations in FY 2010, nearly 100 more than in FY

2009 (457 investigations), and in a reduced timeframe of 202.53 days on average as

compared to 213.67 days in the previous year. The percentage of Army investigations

considered timely also increased from 44.4% in FY 2009 to 52.7% in FY 2010. Notably,

those investigations which were completed in 180 days or less were actually concluded in

an average of 151.33 days, almost a full month below the regulatory requirement. Army

plans to analyze the data from these cases for trends or commonalities which may

contribute to the success of the investigative process. Best practices will be identified and

shared with other Army activities to reduce investigative timeframes in FY 2011.

The acceptance rate for ADR in pre-complaints increased slightly for the third

consecutive year, increasing from 50.5% in FY 2009 to 53.3% in FY 2010. This also

increased the ADR participation rate, though it remains very low with only 25.4% of all

closed informal complaints having entered the ADR process. ADR settlements also

increased slightly in FY 2010, with 223 pre-complaints in which ADR was accepted closing

with a settlement for an ADR resolution rate of 36.4% - identical to the resolution rate in

the previous fiscal year. In spite of these mild improvements ADR settlements totaled only

9.2% of all FY 2010 pre-complaint closures. ADR was offered in only 299 complaints in the

formal stage during FY 2010, and accepted in 194, for an acceptance rate of 64.9% and a

participation rate of 23% of all formal complaints filed2, which meant that 146 of those

2 These numbers were calculated out of Army’s own complaint tracking database, looking at all formal

complaints in which ADR was offered during FY 2010, regardless of their status at the end of the fiscal year. As of the FY 2006 462 reports, Part XI “Formal ADR Activities” only gives ADR participation data for those complaints which closed during the fiscal year. As this excludes all ADR activity during FY 2010 in complaints which did not close during the fiscal year, and includes ADR activity which took place in previous fiscal years in complaints which happened to close in FY 2010, most likely not as a result of any FY 2010 ADR activity, Army does not believe that Part XI as it is now composed accurately reflects the work of Army’s ADR programs in the formal stage during the course of FY 2010. Therefore, in order to evaluate the performance of Army’s ADR programs during FY 2010 for this MD 715 report, Army has relied on its

EEOC FORM




complaints, or 75.3%, were closed with a settlement, maintaining Army’s historically high

resolution rate for formal ADR but accounting for only 11.2% of all FY 2010 formal

closures. The Army continues to be concerned with the low number of complaints in which

ADR is offered and the high number of complainants rejecting offers of ADR, particularly in

the pre-complaint stage, and is currently working to finalize and implement an ADR policy

to encourage greater understanding and utilization of ADR in EEO complaints.

Overall, the Department of the Army’s complaints processing in FY 2010 showed

significant improvement in several key areas; the investigative process and the issuance of

merit FADs without an AJ decision. We are continuing to work to maintain this progress in

FY 2011.

In response to the growing need to resolve workplace disputes throughout Army,

the Army Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program Office, located in the Office of the

Army General Counsel, was established in 2008 to promote and encourage the use of ADR

techniques in Army workplace and contract disputes, through training and other initiatives.

During FY 10 the ADR Program Office conducted a variety of ADR/mediation training and

education programs to promote the use of early conflict resolution in workplace disputes,

including EEO complaints. Eight 40-hour Basic Mediation Courses were conducted at the

installation level to develop local collateral duty Army mediators and local ADR programs

to assist in workplace matters. The audiences for these courses included EEO and Human

Resource professionals, labor counselors, union officials and managers and employees

representing many career fields across the Army. Briefings for Garrison Commanders and

Leaders on the strategic use of ADR methods in workplace disputes to promote primary

mission accomplishment were also conducted at these installations.

During FY 10, the Army ADR Office developed and delivered ADR education

programs tailored to a variety of Army audiences to promote ADR utilization. The ADR

Program Office conducted four ADR briefings at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center

and School for Army attorneys to promote the use of ADR methods in workplace disputes.

Five ADR briefings were conducted at the Army Civilian Human Resources Agency to

educate Army Human Resource professionals on the benefits of ADR and how to access

Army ADR resources for early dispute resolution. An ADR and negotiation course was

conducted at Army War College for Army Leaders to promote the strategic use of early

conflict resolution tools in EEO and other types of workplace disputes. The ADR Program

own database and calculations for the participation and resolution rates, and is not utilizing any of the data from Part XI of the FY 2010 462 report.

EEOC FORM




Office website (www.adr.army.mil) also provides guidance and education on the use of

ADR techniques in EEO and other types of workplace disputes.

Program Evaluation Summary

The Army’s path to the model EEO program is measured in a number of ways. The

EEOC MD 715 self assessment requirements are provided on MD 715 Form G and

summarized in Table 1. The scores are the aggregation of all reporting Army offices and is

based on the six essentials for a Model EEO Program. Army EEO offices rate themselves and

scores are aggregated through the EEO reporting hierarchy. Overall, the scores indicate

that the Army is 94% compliant with MD 715 requirements; this assessment does not

account for command and local circumstances.

Army Wide Form G Scores By Essential Element

Office Fiscal

Year

A B C D E F Percent

Yes

ARMY 2009 95% 94% 90% 90% 91% 100% 93%

2010 92% 94% 90% 100% 91% 100% 94%

Median

94% 94% 90% 95% 91% 100% 94%

% Chg -3% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 93%

Table 1

Each year’s score is compared to previous years to determine the net difference expressed

as the median score between years. This quantifies the progress made between reporting

years. The six essential elements are listed followed by a discussion of the Army scores.

A. Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership B. Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission C. Management and program accountability D. Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination E. Efficiency; and F. Responsiveness and legal compliance.

The scores vary by command, but the Army wide scores indicate that the Army’s failure to publish and distribute an agency policy and provide a state of the agency briefing lowered the Army score by 3% for Essential Element A, Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership. Improvements in the management of the data collection and complaints processing raised the score on Element D, Proactive Prevention of Unlawful

http://www.adr.army.mil/

EEOC FORM




Discrimination, by 11%. Of all the essential elements, 58% of all deficiencies centered in Elements B, within the compliance indicator concerning sufficient budget support and Element E’s compliance indicator concerning staffing.

TRIGGERS

Within the statistical profiles of major EEO groups, the participation rate of White and African American men and women meets most statistical expectations compared to the CLF except where noted. With the exception of senior positions in the intelligence community, the participation rate of African American men in the senior executive service is at parity with the CLF. The workforce analysis that follows identified three major triggers:

1. The impact of the selection process on African American men in officials and

managers and professionals pay grade GS 12-15 to determine if there is

statistical significance between the referral and selection rates.

2. The lower than expected participation rates for Hispanic or Latinos based

upon the CLF in pay grades GS 12-15 and the senior executive service and the

impact of the senior executive service developmental process on Hispanic or

Latinos’ participation rates.

3. The lower than expected participation rates of women within individual EEO

groups based upon the CLF, in grades GS 12-15 and the senior executive

service.

EEOC FORM




STRATEGY FOR FY 2011

The overarching strategy for FY 2011 will focus on the continuation of strategic

interactions with the Army staff, commands and total Army community. To that end, three

strategic objectives will be used to strengthen staff and command relationships that result

in continued progress in the implementation of a “Model EEO program”.

Continue to strategically communicate, market, train and educate Army

personnel on the Army Diversity Road Map as a management tool for senior

leaders, commanders, and the Army staff.

Improve goal oriented relationships with functional career program

managers, senior leader developers and other human capital officials to align

the Army’s human capital implementation guidelines in ways that strengthen

the value system to embed diversity into policy and practice.

Reinforce the professional development of diversity professionals to meet the transformation challenges identified.

EEOC FORM




EEOC FORM




715-01 PART G

AGENCY SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST MEASURING ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

Essential Element A: DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT FROM AGENCY LEADERSHIP Requires the agency head to issue written policy statements ensuring a workplace free of discriminatory

harassment and a commitment to equal employment opportunity.

Compliance Indicator

EEO policy statements are up-to-date.

Measure has been

met

For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or

complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status

report Measures Yes No

Was the EEO policy Statement issued within 6-9 months of the installation of the Agency Head? If no, provide an explanation. The Agency Head was installed on 9/29/2009. The EEO policy statement was not issued.

X

Policy letters are being coordinated with appropriate Army staff organizations.

During the current Agency Head's tenure, has the EEO policy Statement been re-issued annually? If no, provide and explanation.

X Policy letters are being coordinated with appropriate Army staff organizations.

Are new employees provided a copy of the EEO policy statement during orientation?

X

When an employee is promoted into the supervisory ranks, is s/he provided a copy of the EEO policy statement?

X


EEO policy statements have been communicated to all employees.

Measure has been

met




Have the heads of subordinate reporting components communicated support of all agency EEO policies through the ranks?

X

Has the agency made written materials available to all employees and applicants, informing them of the variety of EEO programs and administrative and judicial remedial procedures available to them?

X

Has the agency prominently posted such written materials in all personnel offices, EEO offices, and on the agency's internal website? [see 29 CFR 1614.102(b)(5)]

X

Compliance Indicator Agency EEO policy is vigorously

enforced by agency management.

Measure has been

met




Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their commitment to agency EEO policies and principles, including their efforts to:

X

resolve problems/disagreements and other conflicts in their respective work environments as they arise?

X

EEOC FORM




address concerns, whether perceived or real, raised by employees and following-up with appropriate action to correct or eliminate tension in the workplace?

X

support the agency's EEO program through allocation of mission personnel to participate in community out-reach and recruitment programs with private employers, public schools and universities?

X

ensure full cooperation of employees under his/her supervision with EEO office officials such as EEO Counselors, EEO Investigators, etc.?

X

ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, harassment and retaliation?

X

ensure that subordinate supervisors have effective managerial, communication and interpersonal skills in order to supervise most effectively in a workplace with diverse employees and avoid disputes arising from ineffective communications ?

X

ensure the provision of requested religious accommodations when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship?

X

ensure the provision of requested disability accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship?

X

Have all employees been informed about what behaviors are inappropriate in the workplace and that this behavior may result in disciplinary actions? Describe what means were utilized by the agency to so inform its workforce about the penalties for unacceptable behavior.

X

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?

X

Have managers and supervisor been trained on their responsibilities under the procedures for reasonable accommodation?

X

Essential Element B: INTEGRATION OF EEO INTO THE AGENCY'S STRATEGIC MISSION Requires that the agency's EEO programs be organized and structured to maintain a workplace that is free

from discrimination in any of the agency's policies, procedures or practices and supports the agency's strategic mission.


The reporting structure for the EEO Program provides the Principal EEO Official with appropriate authority and resources to effectively carry out a successful EEO Program.

Measure has been met

For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report

Measures Yes No

Is the EEO Director under the direct supervision of the agency head? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]

X

Are the duties and responsibilities of EEO officials clearly defined?

X

EEOC FORM




Do the EEO officials have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out the duties and responsibilities of their positions?

X

If the agency has 2nd level reporting components, are there organizational charts that clearly define the reporting structure for EEO programs?

X

If the agency has 2nd level reporting components, does the agency-wide EEO Director have authority for the EEO programs within the subordinate reporting components? If not, please describe how EEO program authority is delegated to subordinate reporting components.

X


The EEO Director and other EEO professional staff responsible for EEO programs have regular and effective means of informing the

agency head and senior management officials of the

status of EEO programs and are involved in, and consulted on,

management/personnel actions.

Measure has been

met For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or


report

Measures

Yes No

Does the EEO Director/Officer have a regular and effective means of informing the agency head and other top management officials of the effectiveness, efficiency and legal compliance of the agency's EEO program?

X

Following the submission of the immediately preceding FORM 715-01, did the EEO Director/Officer present to the head of the agency and other senior officials the "State of the Agency" briefing covering all components of the EEO report, including an assessment of the performance of the agency in each of the six elements of the Model EEO Program and a report on the progress of the agency in completing its barrier analysis including any barriers it identified and/or eliminated or reduced the impact of?

X

Briefings for the ASA M&RA and Secretary the Army are being planned.

Are EEO program officials present during agency deliberations prior to decisions regarding recruitment strategies, vacancy projections, succession planning, selections for training/career development opportunities, and other workforce changes?

X

Does the agency consider whether any group of employees or applicants might be negatively impacted prior to making human resource decisions such as re-organizations and re-alignments?

X

Are management/personnel policies, procedures and practices examined at regular intervals to assess whether there are hidden impediments to the realization of equality of opportunity for any group(s) of employees or applicants? [see 29 CFR. Â 1614.102(b)(3)]

X

Is the EEO Director included in the agency's strategic planning, especially the agency's human capital plan, regarding succession planning, training, etc., to ensure that EEO concerns are integrated into the agency's strategic mission?

X


The agency has committed sufficient human resources and

budget allocations to its EEO

Measure has been

met


complete and attach an EEOC FORM

EEOC FORM




Measures programs to ensure successful operation.

Yes No 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status

report

Does the EEO Director have the authority and funding to ensure implementation of agency EEO action plans to improve EEO program efficiency and/or eliminate identified barriers to the realization of equality of opportunity?

X

Are sufficient personnel resources allocated to the EEO Program to ensure that agency self-assessments and self-analyses prescribed by EEO MD-715 are conducted annually and to maintain an effective complaint processing system?

X

Army will conduct resource management study to ensure resource management levels meet anticipated mission requirements

Are statutory/regulatory EEO related Special Emphasis Programs sufficiently staffed?

Federal Women's Program - 5 U.S.C. 7201; 38 U.S.C. 4214; Title 5 CFR, Subpart B, 720.204

X

Hispanic or Latino Employment Program - Title 5 CFR, Subpart B, 720.204

X

People With Disabilities Program Manager; Selective Placement Program for Individuals With Disabilities - Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act; Title 5 U.S.C. Subpart B, Chapter 31, Subchapter I-3102; 5 CFR 213.3102(t) and (u); 5 CFR 315.709

X

Are other agency special emphasis programs monitored by the EEO Office for coordination and compliance with EEO guidelines and principles, such as FEORP - 5 CFR 720; Veterans Employment Programs; and Black/African American; American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American/Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander programs?

X

Compliance Indicator The agency has committed

sufficient budget to support the success of its EEO Programs.

Measure has been

met




Are there sufficient resources to enable the agency to conduct a thorough barrier analysis of its workforce, including the provision of adequate data collection and tracking systems

X

Is there sufficient budget allocated to all employees to utilize, when desired, all EEO programs, including the complaint processing program and ADR, and to make a request for reasonable accommodation? (Including subordinate level reporting components?)

X

Has funding been secured for publication and distribution of EEO materials (e.g. harassment policies, EEO posters, reasonable accommodations procedures, etc.)?

X

Is there a central fund or other mechanism for funding supplies, equipment and services necessary to provide disability accommodations?

X

Does the agency fund major renovation projects to ensure timely compliance with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards?

X

EEOC FORM




Is the EEO Program allocated sufficient resources to train all employees on EEO Programs, including administrative and judicial remedial procedures available to employees?

X

Is there sufficient funding to ensure the prominent posting of written materials in all personnel and EEO offices? [see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(5)]

X

Is there sufficient funding to ensure that all employees have access to this training and information?

X

Is there sufficient funding to provide all managers and supervisors with training and periodic up-dates on their EEO responsibilities:

X

for ensuring a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, including harassment and retaliation?

X

to provide religious accommodations? X

to provide disability accommodations in accordance with the agency's written procedures?

X

in the EEO discrimination complaint process? X

to participate in ADR? X

Essential Element C: MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY This element requires the Agency Head to hold all managers, supervisors, and EEO Officials responsible for

the effective implementation of the agency's EEO Program and Plan.


EEO program officials advise and provide appropriate assistance to managers/supervisors about the status of EEO programs within each managers or supervisor's area or responsibility.


For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report

Measures Yes No

Are regular (monthly/quarterly/semi-annually) EEO updates provided to management/supervisory officials by EEO program officials?

X

Do EEO program officials coordinate the development and implementation of EEO Plans with all appropriate agency managers to include Agency Counsel, Human Resource Officials, Finance, and the Chief information Officer?

X


The Human Resources Director and the EEO Director meet

regularly to assess whether personnel programs, policies,

and procedures are in conformity with instructions contained in EEOC management directives.

[see 29 CFR Â 1614.102(b)(3)]

Measure has been

met For all unmet measures, provide a

brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM

715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report

Measures

Yes No

Have time-tables or schedules been established for the agency to review its Merit Promotion Program Policy and Procedures for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in promotion opportunities by all groups?

X

EEOC FORM




Have time-tables or schedules been established for the agency to review its Employee Recognition Awards Program and Procedures for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in the program by all groups?

X

Have time-tables or schedules been established for the agency to review its Employee Development/Training Programs for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in training opportunities by all groups?

X

Compliance Indicator When findings of discrimination

are made, the agency explores whether or not disciplinary

actions should be taken.

Measure has been

met




Does the agency have a disciplinary policy and/or a table of penalties that covers employees found to have committed discrimination?

X

Have all employees, supervisors, and managers been informed as to the penalties for being found to perpetrate discriminatory behavior or for taking personnel actions based upon a prohibited basis?

X

Has the agency, when appropriate, disciplined or sanctioned managers/supervisors or employees found to have discriminated over the past two years? If so, cite number found to have discriminated and list penalty/disciplinary action for each type of violation.

X

Does the agency promptly (within the established time frame) comply with EEOC, Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Labor Relations Authority, labor arbitrators, and District Court orders?

X

Does the agency review disability accommodation decisions/actions to ensure compliance with its written procedures and analyze the information tracked for trends, problems, etc.?

X

Essential Element D: PROACTIVE PREVENTION Requires that the agency head makes early efforts to prevent discriminatory actions and eliminate barriers to

equal employment opportunity in the workplace.

Compliance Indicator Analyses to identify and remove

unnecessary barriers to employment are conducted throughout the year.


For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report Measures Yes No

Do senior managers meet with and assist the EEO Director and/or other EEO Program Officials in the identification of barriers that may be impeding the realization of equal employment opportunity?

X

When barriers are identified, do senior managers develop and implement, with the assistance of the agency EEO office, agency EEO Action Plans to eliminate said barriers?

X

Do senior managers successfully implement EEO Action Plans and incorporate the EEO Action Plan Objectives into agency strategic plans?

X

EEOC FORM




Are trend analyses of workforce profiles conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?

X

Are trend analyses of the workforce's major occupations conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?

X

Are trends analyses of the workforce's grade level distribution conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?

X

Are trend analyses of the workforce's compensation and reward system conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?

X

Are trend analyses of the effects of management/personnel policies, procedures and practices conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?

X

Compliance Indicator The use of Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) is encouraged by senior management.

Measure has been

met




Are all employees encouraged to use ADR? X

Is the participation of supervisors and managers in the ADR process required?

X

Essential Element E: EFFICIENCY Requires that the agency head ensure that there are effective systems in place for evaluating the impact and

effectiveness of the agency's EEO Programs as well as an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.

Compliance Indicator The agency has sufficient

staffing, funding, and authority to achieve the elimination of identified barriers.



Does the EEO Office employ personnel with adequate training and experience to conduct the analyses required by MD-715 and these instructions?

X

Has the agency implemented an adequate data collection and analysis systems that permit tracking of the information required by MD-715 and these instructions?

X

Have sufficient resources been provided to conduct effective audits of field facilities' efforts to achieve a model EEO program and eliminate discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act?

X

Is there a designated agency official or other mechanism in place to coordinate or assist with processing requests for disability accommodations in all major components of the agency?

X

Are 90% of accommodation requests processed within the time frame set forth in the agency procedures for reasonable accommodation?

X


The agency has an effective complaint tracking and

monitoring system in place to

Measure has been

met


complete and attach an EEOC FORM

EEOC FORM




Measures increase the effectiveness of the agency's EEO Programs.

Yes No 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status

report

Does the agency use a complaint tracking and monitoring system that allows identification of the location and status of complaints and length of time elapsed at each stage of the agency's complaint resolution process?

X

Does the agency's tracking system identify the issues and bases of the complaints, the aggrieved individuals/complainants, the involved management officials and other information to analyze complaint activity and trends?

X

Does the agency hold contractors accountable for delay in counseling and investigation processing times? If yes, briefly describe how:

X Contractors are held accountable through the statement of work by each contracting office

Does the agency monitor and ensure that new investigators, counselors, including contract and collateral duty investigators, receive the 32 hours of training required in accordance with EEO Management Directive MD-110?

X

Does the agency monitor and ensure that experienced counselors, investigators, including contract and collateral duty investigators, receive the 8 hours of refresher training required on an annual basis in accordance with EEO Management Directive MD-110?

X


The agency has sufficient staffing, funding and authority to comply with the time frames in accordance with the EEOC (29

C.F.R. Part 1614) regulations for processing EEO complaints of employment discrimination.

Measure has been




Measures Yes No

Are benchmarks in place that compares the agency's discrimination complaint processes with 29 C.F.R. Part 1614?

X

Does the agency provide timely EEO counseling within 30 days of the initial request or within an agreed upon extension in writing, up to 60 days?

X

Does the agency provide an aggrieved person with written notification of his/her rights and responsibilities in the EEO process in a timely fashion?

X

Does the agency complete the investigations within the applicable prescribed time frame?

X See form H

When a complainant requests a final agency decision, does the agency issue the decision within 60 days of the request?

X

When a complainant requests a hearing, does the agency immediately upon receipt of the request from the EEOC AJ forward the investigative file to the EEOC Hearing Office?

X

When a settlement agreement is entered into, does the agency timely complete any obligations provided for in such agreements?

X

EEOC FORM




Does the agency ensure timely compliance with EEOC AJ decisions which are not the subject of an appeal by the agency?

X


There is an efficient and fair dispute resolution process and

effective systems for evaluating the impact and effectiveness of

the agency's EEO complaint processing program.

Measure has been

met



report Measures

Yes No

In accordance with 29 C.F.R. §1614.102(b), has the agency established an ADR Program during the pre-complaint and formal complaint stages of the EEO process?

X

Does the agency require all managers and supervisors to receive ADR training in accordance with EEOC (29 C.F.R. Part 1614) regulations, with emphasis on the federal government's interest in encouraging mutual resolution of disputes and the benefits associated with utilizing ADR?

X

After the agency has offered ADR and the complainant has elected to participate in ADR, are the managers required to participate?

X

Does the responsible management official directly involved in the dispute have settlement authority?

X


The agency has effective systems in place for maintaining and evaluating the impact and

effectiveness of its EEO programs.

Measure has been

met




Does the agency have a system of management controls in place to ensure the timely, accurate, complete and consistent reporting of EEO complaint data to the EEOC?

X

Does the agency provide reasonable resources for the EEO complaint process to ensure efficient and successful operation in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(a)(1)?

X

Does the agency EEO office have management controls in place to monitor and ensure that the data received from Human Resources is accurate, timely received, and contains all the required data elements for submitting annual reports to the EEOC?

X

Do the agency's EEO programs address all of the laws enforced by the EEOC?

X

Does the agency identify and monitor significant trends in complaint processing to determine whether the agency is meeting its obligations under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act?

X

Does the agency track recruitment efforts and analyze efforts to identify potential barriers in accordance with MD-715 standards?

X

Does the agency consult with other agencies of similar size on the effectiveness of their EEO programs to identify best practices and share ideas?

X

EEOC FORM





The agency ensures that the investigation and adjudication

function of its complaint resolution process are separate

from its legal defense arm of agency or other offices with

conflicting or competing interests.

Measure has been




Measures

Yes No

Are legal sufficiency reviews of EEO matters handled by a functional unit that is separate and apart from the unit which handles agency representation in EEO complaints?

X

Does the agency discrimination complaint process ensure a neutral adjudication function?

X

If applicable, are processing time frames incorporated for the legal counsel's sufficiency review for timely processing of complaints?

X

Essential Element F: RESPONSIVENESS AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE This element requires that federal agencies are in full compliance with EEO statutes and EEOC regulations,

policy guidance, and other written instructions.

Compliance Indicator Agency personnel are

accountable for timely compliance with orders issued by EEOC Administrative Judges.



Does the agency have a system of management control to ensure that agency officials timely comply with any orders or directives issued by EEOC Administrative Judges?

X


The agency's system of management controls ensures

that the agency timely completes all ordered corrective action and submits its compliance report to

EEOC within 30 days of such completion.

Measure has been




Measures Yes No

Does the agency have control over the payroll processing function of the agency?

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service is the proponent for issuing compensation.

Are there steps in place to guarantee responsive, timely, and predictable processing of ordered monetary relief?

X

Are procedures in place to promptly process other forms of ordered relief?

X

Compliance Indicator Agency personnel are

accountable for the timely completion of actions required to

comply with orders of EEOC.

Measure has been

met




Is compliance with EEOC orders encompassed in the performance standards of any agency employees? If so, please identify the employees by title in the comments section, and state how performance is measured.

X

The authority for enforcement of EEOC

orders resided with the ASA M&RA under

10 USC 3016.

EEOC FORM




Is the unit charged with the responsibility for compliance with EEOC orders located in the EEO office? If not, please identify the unit in which it is located, the number of employees in the unit, and their grade levels in the comments section.

X

Have the involved employees received any formal training in EEO compliance?

X

Does the agency promptly provide to the EEOC the following documentation for completing compliance:

Attorney Fees: Copy of check issued for attorney fees and /or a narrative statement by an appropriate agency official, or agency payment order dating the dollar amount of attorney fees paid?

X

Awards: A narrative statement by an appropriate agency official stating the dollar amount and the criteria used to calculate the award?

X

Back Pay and Interest: Computer print-outs or payroll documents outlining gross back pay and interest, copy of any checks issued narrative statement by an appropriate agency official of total monies paid?

X

Compensatory Damages: The final agency decision and evidence of payment, if made?

X

Training: Attendance roster at training session(s) or a narrative statement by an appropriate agency official confirming that specific persons or groups of persons attended training on a date certain?

X

Personnel Actions (e.g., Reinstatement, Promotion, Hiring, Reassignment): Copies of SF-50s

X

Posting of Notice of Violation: Original signed and dated notice reflecting the dates that the notice was posted. A copy of the notice will suffice if the original is not available.

X

Supplemental Investigation: 1. Copy of letter to complainant acknowledging receipt from EEOC of remanded case. 2. Copy of letter to complainant transmitting the Report of Investigation (not the ROI itself unless specified). 3. Copy of request for a hearing (complainant's request or agency's transmittal letter).

X

Final Agency Decision (FAD): FAD or copy of the complainant's request for a hearing.

X

Restoration of Leave: Print-out or statement identifying the amount of leave restored, if applicable. If not, an explanation or statement.

X

Civil Actions: A complete copy of the civil action complaint demonstrating same issues raised as in compliance matter.

X

Settlement Agreements: Signed and dated agreement with specific dollar amounts, if applicable. Also, appropriate documentation of relief is provided.

X

EEOC FORM




715-01 PART H

EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program

FY 2010 ESSENTIAL ELEMENT E - EFFICIENCY AR

STATEMENT of MODEL PROGRAM ESSENTIAL ELEMENT DEFICIENCY:

Requires that the agency head ensure that there are effective systems in place for evaluating the impact and effectiveness of the agency's EEO Programs as well as an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.: Deficiency: Department of the Army regulations require completion of investigations of formal complaints of discrimination within 180 days of the date the formal complaint was filed; the Army average in FY 2010 was 202.53 days.

OBJECTIVE: To average less than 180 days for the completion of an investigation

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director, EEO Compliance and Complaints Review

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: 12/1/2010

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

12/1/2011

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)

Revision of the Army regulation governing complaints processing, incorporating improved processes and best practices which resulted in reductions in processing time.

12/1/2011

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)

Army’s average investigation processing time decreased from 213.67 days in FY 2009 to 202.53 in FY 2010. Notably, the 43% of Army investigations which were completed in less than 180 days were actually concluded in an average of 151.33 days, nearly a full month below the regulatory requirement. Army is currently evaluating the data behind this statistic for best practices which could be expanded Army-wide. Staffing shortages at the Department of Defense, Investigations and Resolutions Division continue to negatively impact the timely availability of investigators. Also, the revised regulation has been delayed by additional Army organizational changes. As both situations are remedied, we hope to gradually increase the use of successful procedures and complete the revisions to the regulation.

12/6/2010

EEOC FORM




715-01 PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

FY 2010, AR

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A POTENTIAL BARRIER:

The relationship between African-American men being referred for selection and their selection rate, the less than expected application rate of white women based upon the CLF, and the lower than expected number of Hispanic or Latino men and women based upon the CLF not only in the specific job categories, but in the applicant pool

BARRIER ANALYSIS The selection rate for African American men is lower than for groups that had a lower rate of applications and referrals. In addition, the application rate for Hispanic or Latino men and women is less than expected based upon the CLF

STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER:

Barrier not identified until analysis of selection rates have been conducted at the operational level

OBJECTIVE: Determine if there is significance in the selection rate between EEO groups in pay grades 12-15 overall.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:

DASA D&L

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED:

10/1/2010


9/30/2011


Operational offices will use the applicant pool data and the form I worksheet to determine if there are significant differences in selection rate of EEO groups in grades GS 12-15

5/26/2011

Brief FCRs on proposed action items to address barriers identified. 8/30/2011

Develop Army strategy to address barriers identified. 10/7/2011


EEOC FORM




715-01 PART I


FY 2010, AR


The population data indicates that while pay plan ES shows a more diverse demographic, that the intelligence play plans do not reflect the same diversity shown in the ES pay plan.

BARRIER ANALYSIS Although ES positions comprise the largest group of senior executives, and dominated by non minority men, with the exception of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander men and women, every EEO group is represented. However, The senior positions in the intelligence community (IE and IP) have seven White women and one Hispanic or Latino man within its 47 positions; the majority of positions are held by non minority men. As figure 38 indicates, that 73% of the positions in pay plan ES are held by non minority men, that 82% of the positions in IE are held by non minority men.


Barriers specifically not identified.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the senior level appointment process to include a range of policies that impact the feeder group developmental process to determine the barriers to a greater degree of senior level diversification

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: DASA D&L, CLSMO, HR G1


10/1/2010


8/30/2011


Review the senior leader development process to determine the impact that the current policies have on the selection process.

08/30/2011


EEOC FORM




715-01 PART I


FY 2010, AR


The selection rate for African American men is lower than for groups that had a lower rate of applications and referrals. In addition, the application rate for Hispanic or Latino men and women is less than expected based upon the CLF which will require analysis of the outreach process to identify barriers within the application process.

BARRIER ANALYSIS The number of application submissions from Hispanic or Latino men is 107,752 less than expected based upon the CLF while the number of application submissions from Hispanic or Latino women was 89,410 less than expected. The number of application submissions from Asian men as 11,505 more than expected based upon the CLF, while the number of applications from Asian women was 16, 566 less than expected. The number of applications submitted by American Indian or Alaska Native men and women was 2,497 and 4,719 less than expected based upon the CLF.


Barrier not identified

OBJECTIVE: Increase the number of applications received from women and Hispanic or Latinos. Ensure selection process is fair for all applicants.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:

DASA D&L, CHRA


10/5/2011


10/5/2011


Operational EEO offices examine applicant data to determine if there are selection process issues impacting EEO groups.

5/30/2011

Use midterm reports to develop strategies to address global issues discovered. 7/30/2011


EEOC FORM




715-01 PART J

Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Advancement of Individuals

With Targeted Disabilities

Part I

Department of Agency Information

1. Agency 1. Headquarters United States Army

1.a. 2nd Level Component 1.a.

1.b. 3rd Level or lower 1.b.

Part II Employment Trend and

Special Recruitment

for Individuals

With Targeted

Disabilities

Enter Actual Number at the ...

... beginning of FY. ... end of FY. Net Change

Number % Number % Number %

Total Work Force 250,942 100.00% 266,183 100.00% 15,241 6.07%

Reportable Disability 20,357 8.11% 21,633 8.12% 1,276 6.26%

Targeted Disability* 1,764 0.70% 1,811 0.68% 47 2.66%

* If the rate of change for persons with targeted disabilities is not equal to or greater than the rate of change for the total workforce, a barrier analysis should be conducted (see below).

1. Total Number of Applications Received From Persons With Targeted Disabilities during the reporting period.

12,085

* If the rate of change for persons with targeted disabilities is not equal to or greater than the rate of change for the total workforce, a barrier analysis should be conducted (see below).

2. Total Number of Selections of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities during the reporting period.

109

Part III Participation Rates In Agency Employment Programs

Other

Employment/Personnel Programs

TOTAL Reportable

Disability Targeted Disability

Not Identified No Disability

# % # % # % # %

3. Competitive Promotions

23,165 1,648 7.11% 129 0.55% 382 1.64% 21,129 91.21%

EEOC FORM




4. Non-Competitive Promotions

0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

5. Employee Career Development Programs

111,107

8,599 7.73% 660 0.59% 2,094 1.88% 100,37

4 90.33%

5.a. Grades 5 - 12 177,85

5 15,641 8.79% 1,316 0.73% 3,359 1.88%

158,801

89.28%

5.b.Grades 13 - 14 33,861 2,551 7.53% 178 0.52% 706 2.08% 30,586 90.32%

5.c. Grade 15/SES 3,085 230 7.45% 6 0.19% 52 1.68% 2,803 90.85%

6. Employee Recognition and Awards

0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

6.a. Time-Off Awards (Total hrs awarded)

24,350 2,429 9.97% 195 0.80% 530 2.17% 21,382 87.81%

6.b. Cash Awards (total $$$ awarded)

69,126 5,650 8.17% 597 0.86% 1,174 1.69% 62,282 90.09%

6.c. Quality-Step Increase 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

EEOC FORM 715-01 Part J

Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Advancement of Individuals With Targeted Disabilities

Part IV Identification and Elimination

of Barriers

Army has not met goals for individuals with targeted disabilities. Training, education and awareness of hiring authorities and outreach programs continues as a major programmatic activity.

Part V Goals for Targeted

Disabilities

Develop Plan IAW Executive Order 13548 and execute. Continue to train, educate and inform officials regarding opportunities to address hiring challenges and how to utilize designated hiring authorities and outreach programs. Focus on the integration of support for transitioning wounded service members from active duty to civilian employment. Assess how to capture, annotate and report successful accommodations in the transition process along with identifying active duty members who can stay on active duty as a result of accommodations and technology.

EEOC FORM




Appendix A

Definitions

The following definitions apply to Management Directive 715:

Applicant: A person who applies for employment.

Applicant Flow Data: Information reflecting characteristics of the pool of individuals

applying for an employment opportunity.

Barrier: An agency policy, principle, practice or condition that limits or tends to limit

employment opportunities for members of a particular gender, race or ethnic background

or for an individual (or individuals) based on disability status.

Disability: For the purpose of statistics, recruitment, and targeted goals, the number of

employees in the workforce who have indicated having a disability on a Office of

Personnel Management Standard Form (SF) 256. For all other purposes, the definition

contained in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 applies.

Civilian Labor Force (CLF): Persons 16 years of age and over, except those in the

armed forces, who are employed or are unemployed and seeking work.

EEO Groups: Members of groups protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and

other Federal guidelines. Includes: White Men, White Women, Black Men, Black Women,

Hispanic or Latino Men, Hispanic or Latino Women, Asian Men, Asian Women, American

Indian or Alaska Native Men, American Indian or Alaska Native Women, and Persons with

Disabilities.

Employees: Members of the agency's permanent or temporary work force, whether full

or part-time and whether in competitive or excepted service positions.

Employment Decision: Any decision affecting the terms and conditions of an

individual's employment, including but not limited to hiring, promotion, demotion,

disciplinary action and termination.

Feeder Group or Pool: Occupational group(s) from which selections to a particular job

are typically made.

Federal Categories (Fed9):

The nine job category titles are:

- 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

EEOC FORM




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.

- 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.

- Technicians - Occupations requiring a combination of basic scientific knowledge and

manual skill which can be obtained through two 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.

- 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.

- Administrative Support Workers - Includes all clerical-type work regardless of

level of difficulty, where the activities are predominantly non-manual 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.

- 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.

- Operatives (semiskilled) - Workers who operate machine or processing equipment or

EEOC FORM




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.

- 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.

- 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.

Fiscal Year: The period from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the following

year.

Goal: Under the Rehabilitation Act, an identifiable objective set by an agency to address

or eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity or to address the lingering effects

of past discrimination.

Major Occupations: Agency occupations that are mission related and heavily populated,

relative to other occupations within the agency.

Onsite Program Review: Visit by EEOC representatives to an agency to evaluate the

agency's compliance with the terms of this Directive and/or to provide technical

assistance.

Reasonable Accommodation: Generally, any modification or adjustment to the work

environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which work is customarily

performed, that enables an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions

of a position or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by

similarly situated individuals without a disability. For a more complete definition, see 29

C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). See also, EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable

Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, No.

915.002 (October 17, 2002).

Relevant Labor Force: The source from which an agency draws or recruits applicants

for employment or an internal selection such as a promotion.

EEOC FORM




Section 501 Program: The affirmative program plan that each agency is required to

maintain under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act to provide individuals with

disabilities adequate hiring, placement, and advancement opportunities.

Section 717 Program: The affirmative program of equal employment opportunity that

each agency is required to maintain for all employees and applicants for employment

under Section 717 of Title VII.

Selection Procedure: Any employment policy or practice that is used as a basis for an

employment decision.

Special Recruitment Program: A program designed to monitor recruitment of, and

track applications from, persons with targeted disabilities.

Targeted Disabilities: Disabilities that the federal government, as a matter of policy,

has identified for special emphasis in affirmative action programs. They are: 1) deafness;

2) blindness; 3) missing extremities; 4) partial paralysis; 5) complete paralysis; 6)

convulsive disorders; 7) mental retardation; 8) mental illness; and 9) distortion of limb

and/or spine.

Technical Assistance: Training, assistance or guidance provided by the EEOC in writing,

over the telephone or in person.

DATABASE NOTES

1. The data for this report reflects the organization as of 1 October 2010. The HR database

of record, the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS), was used to obtain the

data. It is recognized that the HR database contains anomalies that affect data reporting.

The variance didn't appear severe enough to affect the calculations.

2. Grade designations are the same ones used in DCPDS based on federal guidelines. Senior

individuals are defined as those members of the Senior Executive Service or equivalent,

such as all pay plans that start with an “E”, or “I”, pay plan “ST” and some positions in

the “AD” category. Data for Pay plan “EX” are excluded.

3. Some of the data codes used by EEOC vary from those in the HR data system. Many of

the “B” series data tables will not sum to the “A” series data tables. In addition, many of

the tables that capture data on RNO groups, because of the variety of pay plans used in

Army do not fit into the aspects of “GS” or “Wage Grade” equivalents.

EEOC FORM




Appendix B

STATE OF THE AGENCY BRIEFING

EEOC FORM




EEOC FORM




Appendix C

Supporting Documents

1. Diversity Roadmap - FINAL.pdf

EEOC FORM




Appendix D

ANALYSIS OF ARMY MID LEVEL AND SENIOR LEVEL

POSITIONS

This section provides the detailed workforce analysis on the major EEOC employee

categories and contains the data points used to identify the programmatic triggers and

form the basis for future barrier analysis. As previously mentioned, the scope of the Army’s

operations in the United States and overseas is impacted the conduct of two major wars

and other conflicts. The fluctuation in the civilian population is driven in large part by the

requirement to support specific national defense goals and changing requirements.

The Army workforce is socially diverse and includes more than 527 occupational

series of the 638 occupational series in DOD; 83% of the occupational series in DOD include

Army employees. Geographically, Army employees work in more than 2,065 GSA locations

worldwide. The number of employees working in the EEOC categories is shown below in

figure 6.

FED9 Description FED9 Count of Employees

Percentage

Officials and Managers 1 55,489 24.00%

Professionals 2 73,788 31.92%

Technicians 3 15,518 6.71%

Sales Workers 4 87 0.04%

Administrative Support Workers

5 37,080 16.04%

Craft Workers 6 25,587 11.07%

Operatives 7 11,448 4.95%

Laborers and Helpers 8 2,515 1.09%

Service Workers 9 9,633 4.17%

Not Detected 26 0.01%

231,171 100.00%

Figure 6

EEOC FORM




The majority of employees work in positions classified by the US Census Bureau as

officials and managers3 or professional4; collectively these two categories are 56% of the

Army workforce. The analysis in this appendix will focus on the demographic distribution

of officials and managers and professional employees in the GS 12 through GS 15 categories

as GS employees represent 65% of the employee population of 61 pay plans. The FY10

transition of employees out of NSPS impacted the demographics of the Army in that the

number of GS employees increased, while the number of pay banded employees decreased;

no analysis on the NSPS impact will be provided as the balance of employees still under

NSPS will be transitioned out of NSPS by FY 115. There are still other pay plans in pay

banded occupations, including employees in NSPS Y series pay plans as shown in figure 7

below.

Pay Plan Pay Plan Description Employees Percentage

DB Demo Engineers And Scientists - Army Unique 7,249 14.76%

DE Demo Engineers And Scientists Technician - Army Unique 2,287 4.66%

DJ Demo Administrative - Army Unique 1,133 2.31%

DK Demo General Support - Army Unique 725 1.48%

IA Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System 5,850 11.91%

NH Business Or Technical Management Professional 2,406 4.90%

NJ Technical Management Support 96 0.20%

NK Administrative Support 194 0.39%

YA Standard Cg-Professional/Analytical Pay Schedule 9,250 18.83%

YB Standard Cg-Technician/Support Pay Schedule 1,992 4.06%

YC Standard Cg-Supervisor/Manager Pay Schedule 5,062 10.30%

YD Scientific& Engineering Cg-Professional Pay Schedule 3,668 7.47%

YE Scientific& Engineering Cg-Technician/Support Pay Schedule 329 0.67%

3 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.

4 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

5 http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/

http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/

EEOC FORM




Pay Plan Pay Plan Description Employees Percentage

YF Scientific& Engineering Cg -Supervisor/Manager Pay Schedule 1,436 2.92%

YG Medical Cg-Physician/Dentist Pay Schedule 746 1.52%

YH Medical Cg-Professional Pay Schedule 3,326 6.77%

YI Medical Cg-Technician/Support Pay Schedule 709 1.44%

YJ Medical Cg-Supervisor/Manager Pay Schedule 821 1.67%

YK Investigative & Protective Services Cg-Investigative Pay Schedule 43 0.09%

YL Investigative & Protective Services Cg-Fire Protection Pay Schedule 37 0.08%

YM Investigative & Protective Services Cg-Police/Security Guard Pay Schedule 182 0.37%

YN Investigative & Protective Services Cg-Supervisor/Manager Pay Schedule 952 1.94%

YP Standard Cg-Student Educational Employment Program (Seep) 629 1.28%

Sum: 49,122

Figure 7

The demographic analysis of this report will be focus on employees in the

appropriated fund general schedule or equivalent pay groups. The demarcation between

temporary and permanent employees, while set in policy, is transparent in today’s civilian

workforce. The implementation of policy and programs is such that regardless of an

employee’s career status, all members of the civilian workforce are affected by the

implementation of civil rights policy and therefore will have access to EEO services.

GENERAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICANT POOL

The number of job applications received was approximately 4,917,802 and

delineated by Race and Ethnicity Indicators as shown in figure 8 below. The majority of

applications were submitted by white men and women followed by African American men

and women and Hispanic or Latino men and women. The number referred followed this

pattern.

Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected

White Men 1,743,475 300,523 10,324

White Women 856,147 124,880 5,719

African American Men 358,810 79,851 2,021

African American Women 437,199 84,618 2,358

Hispanic or Latino Men 197,152 32,322 543

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected

Hispanic or Latino Women 131,891 17,642 808

Asian Men 104,943 19,297 404

Asian Women 67,037 11,103 367 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men 6,943 1,829 90 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women 7,746 1,548 59 American Indian or Alaska Native Men 12,256 3,217 142 American Indian or Alaska Native Women 10,034 2,261 88

Multiracial Men 522,108 72,991 1,027

Multiracial Women 462,061 47,469 682

Total Population 4,917,802 799,551 24,632 Figure 8

The comparison of the percentage of employees and percentage of application

submission and referral rate to the general CLF, as shown in figure 9, indicates that with

the exception of Hispanic or Latino men and women, most of the members of the other EEO

groups submit job applications at a rate less than their corresponding CLF. The selection

rate is more closely aligned to the employee population percentage even though the

difference between the application rate and referral rate for the largest EEO groups is

approximately 2%.

Group - FY 10 CLF Employees Applicants Referred Selected

White Men 39.00% 45.04% 35.45% 37.59% 41.91%

White Women 33.70% 23.64% 17.41% 15.62% 23.22%

African American Men 4.80% 8.42% 7.30% 9.99% 8.20%

African American Women 5.70% 9.26% 8.89% 10.58% 9.57%

Hispanic or Latino Men 6.20% 3.47% 4.01% 4.04% 2.20%

Hispanic or Latino Women 4.50% 1.92% 2.68% 2.21% 3.28%

Asian Men 1.90% 2.19% 2.13% 2.41% 1.64%

Asian Women 1.70% 1.80% 1.36% 1.39% 1.49%


0.10% 0.28% 0.14% 0.23% 0.37%


0.10% 0.24% 0.16% 0.19% 0.24%


0.30% 0.58% 0.25% 0.40% 0.58%


0.30% 0.37% 0.20% 0.28% 0.36%

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 CLF Employees Applicants Referred Selected

Multiracial Men 0.80% 1.59% 10.62% 9.13% 4.17%

Multiracial Women 0.80% 1.19% 9.40% 5.94% 2.77%


Figure 9

When the number of applications submitted is compared to the CLF to determine the

number of applications and referrals expected from each EEO group, the number of

submissions from white men is slightly less than expected at 174, 468 while the number of

application submissions from white women is 801,152 less than expected. The data in

figure 10 shows that the number of submissions from African American men and women

surpasses expectations compared to the CLF. The number of application submissions from

Hispanic or Latino men is 107, 752 less than expected while the number of application

submissions from Hispanic or Latino women was 89, 410 less than expected. The number

of application submissions from Asian men as 11,505 more than expected, while the

number of applications from Asian women was 16, 566 less than expected. The number of

application submissions from Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander men and women

was 2,000 applications more than expected, while the number of applications submitted by

American Indian or Alaska Native men and women was 2,497 and 4,719 less than expected.

Selection rates were not subjected to the comparison with the CLF as selection rates are

outside of the definition of the CLF and in addition should represent a randomized process.

Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected Expected to Apply

Expected to be Referred

White Men 1,743,475 300,523 10,324 1,917,943 311,825

White Women 856,147 124,880 5,719 1,657,299 269,449

African American Men 358,810 79,851 2,021 236,054 38,378

African American Women 437,199 84,618 2,358 280,315 45,574

Hispanic or Latino Men 197,152 32,322 543 304,904 49,572

Hispanic or Latino Women 131,891 17,642 808 221,301 35,980

Asian Men 104,943 19,297 404 93,438 15,191

Asian Women 67,037 11,103 367 83,603 13,592


6,943 1,829 90 4,918 800


7,746 1,548 59 4,918 800


12,256 3,217 142 14,753 2,399

American Indian or Alaska 10,034 2,261 88 14,753 2,399

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected Expected to Apply

Expected to be Referred

Native Women

Multiracial Men 522,108 72,991 1,027 39,342 6,396

Multiracial Women 462,061 47,469 682 39,342 6,396

Total Population 4,917,802 799,551 24,632

Figure 10

The analysis of data indicating the percentage of those applications that were

referred shows that overall the median percentage of the applications submitted that were

referred for selection was 17.81%. Comparatively, 17.24 % of applications submitted by

white men were referred for selection, while 14.59% of the applications submitted by

White women were referred for selection. Of the EEO groups with large populations,

African American men and women had the highest rate of applications submitted that were

referred with 22.25% and 19.35% respectively. The submission to referral rate for

Hispanic or Latino men and women were below the median rate of 17.81%.

The overall median percentage rate that applications that were referred resulted in

selection was 0.20%. The percentage of those who applied for positions and were referred,

as shown in figure 11, indicates that of the EEO groups with the larger populations, that

African American men and women who applied for positions were referred at a higher rate

than members of the other large EEO groups. The data shows that 22.25% of the

applications received from African American men and 19.35% of African American women

were referred for selection when compared to the overall median rate of 17.81%.

Comparatively, women in larger EEO groups that applied were referred at a rate less than

men within the same EEO group.

Group - FY 10 Applied - Referred

Referred - Selected

White Men 17.24% 3.44%

White Women 14.59% 1.90%

African American Men 22.25% 0.67%

African American Women 19.35% 0.78%

Hispanic or Latino Men 16.39% 0.18%

Hispanic or Latino Women 13.38% 0.27%

Asian Men 18.39% 0.13%

Asian Women 16.56% 0.12%

Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander Men

26.34% 0.03%

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 Applied - Referred

Referred - Selected

Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander Women

19.98% 0.02%

American Indian or Alaska

Native Men

26.25% 0.05%

American Indian or Alaska

Native Women

22.53% 0.03%

Multiracial Men 13.98% 0.34%

Multiracial Women 10.27% 0.23%

Total Population

Figure 11

The median rate of applications that were referred to the selection process was

0.20%. The percentage of applications referred to the selection process from white men

was 3.44% as figure 11 indicates, followed by white women. Even though 22.5% of

applications from African American Men and women were the highest of any of the large

EEO groups, the applications referred for selection were 0.67% and 0.78% respectively.

The difference in the rates between White men and African American men was 2.76% and

1.12% between White women and African American women. The difference was greater

for other members of the larger EEO groups and White men and women even though the

average rate among the larger EEO groups was 1.05%.

Summary

The general applicant pool data infers that if the percentage of applications received

from EEO groups is within or greater than the expected parameters of the CLF, then the

overall Army population will begin to reflect the CLF. Adverse impact analysis was not

performed because the context within which the selection process occurred is controlled

by local not Army wide circumstances. There appears to be no barriers to the general

applicant data except that the selection rate data requires greater data mining in order to

find out if there are any underlying issues.

GS 12-15 POPULATION ANALYSIS

The GS 12 – 15 data analysis is provided because this grade group constitutes the

primary professional path for movement into the primary leadership population. The

analysis will include an analysis of the GS 12-15 population and associated data groups to

include applicant pool data, supervisory levels to determine global issues if they are

present. Following the general analysis, a more specific analysis will be provided for GS 12-

EEOC FORM




15 for the officials and managers and professionals categories respectively, since the

population in these categories are the largest.

The percentage of employees in pay grades GS 12-15 are shown in figure 12. The

largest EEO groups in this category in grades GS 12-15 are White men and women,

followed by African Americans and Hispanic or Latino men and women.

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 CLF White Men 49% 55% 58% 63% 39.00%

White Women 23% 21% 20% 19% 33.70%

African American Men 7% 7% 6% 5% 4.80%

African American Women 7% 6% 5% 4% 5.70%

Hispanic or Latino Men 3% 2% 2% 2% 6.20%

Hispanic or Latino Women 2% 1% 1% 1% 4.50%

Asian Men 3% 3% 3% 3% 1.90%

Asian Women 2% 1% 1% 1% 1.70%


1% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%


1% 1% 0% 0% 0.30%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.30%

Multiracial Men 2% 2% 1% 1% 0.80%

Multiracial Women 1% 1% 1% 0% 0.80%

Total Population 100% 100% 100% 100%

Figure 12

When compared to the CLF, figure 13 shows how each EEO group compares with

the CLF by grade. At grade 12, the population of White women, Hispanic or Latino men and

women are less than expected, while the population the other EEO groups in pay grade 13

are as expected. From grade 13 to grade 15, the evaluation of the populations by grade and

compared to the CLF changes, except for White men; that population remains as expected

while the population expectations of other EEO groups change depending on the pay grade.

EEOC FORM




CLF Evaluation

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15

White Men As Expected As Expected As Expected

As Expected

White Women Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

African American Men As Expected As Expected Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

African American Women As Expected Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Hispanic or Latino Men Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected


Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Asian Men As Expected As Expected As Expected

As Expected

Asian Women Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected


As Expected As Expected As Expected

Less Than Expected


As Expected As Expected Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected


As Expected As Expected As Expected

As Expected


Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

As Expected

Multiracial Men As Expected As Expected As Expected

Less Than Expected

Multiracial Women Less Than Expected

As Expected Less Than Expected

Less Than Expected

Figure 13

Based on the distribution of EEO groups using the CLF, the expected population is

also shown in figure 14. The number of White men would expectedly be smaller while the

number of employees in other EEO groups would expectedly be larger or smaller,

depending on the pay grade. At the GS 12 level, the number of White women and Hispanic

or Latino men and women would be larger if the population matched the CLF while the

population of other EEO groups would be smaller.

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Expected 12 13 14 15

White Men 16,511 13,300 5,188 1,908 13,147 9,505 3,487 1,179

White Women 7,761 5,105 1764 576 11,360 8,214 3,013 1,019

African American Men

2,508 1,709 570 140 1,618 1,170 429 145

African American 2,504 1,535 472 109 1,921 1,389 510 172

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Expected 12 13 14 15

Women

Hispanic or Latino Men

1,047 585 205 60 2,090 1,511 554 187


508 262 85 31 1,517 1,097 402 136

Asian Men 1,034 749 269 81 640 463 170 57

Asian Women 520 304 105 34 573 414 152 51


201 43 18 4 34 24 9 3


44 25 10 3 34 24 9 3


186 138 39 15 101 73 27 9


107 48 16 5 101 73 27 9

Multiracial Men 517 384 127 43 270 195 72 24

Multiracial Women 261 186 74 14 270 195 72 24

Total Population 33,709 24,373 8942 3023 33,675 24,349 8,933 3,020

Figure 14

Statistics reflecting the number of employees in particular categories on an Army-

wide basis does not account for local conditions that impact recruitment and retention

strategies. For example, although the Army population of Hispanic or Latino employees is

less than expected based upon the CLF, this evaluation does not reflect local conditions

found in other Army locations. This means that coordinated Army-wide strategies related

to recruitment and retention of Hispanic or Latino men and women has to include the

impact of local hiring conditions. To demonstrate this point, the sample of Hispanic or

Latino employee populations shown in figure 15 reflects the variation in local populations

of Hispanic or Latino employees in the locations shown. The CLF for locations in Texas and

New Mexico have a higher CLF than employees in Georgia, and therefore different

strategies might need to be employed in each state. Even within the same state, the CLF

populations vary widely. These illustrate a need to increase the visibility of local issues

because the culmination of those issues impacts coordinated Army-wide efforts.

Group Location Population Percentage CLF

Hispanic or Latino Men Ft Sam Houston, TX 732 9.57% 25.4%

Ft. Bliss, TX 599 16.21% 15.9%

White Sands Missile Range, NM

589 31.16% 21.0%

Ft. Benning, GA 81 2.48% 1.9%

EEOC FORM




Group Location Population Percentage CLF


Ft Sam Houston, TX 651 8.51% 22.3%

Ft. Bliss, TX 423 11.44% 11.5%

White Sands Missile Range, NM

181 9.58% 18.0%

Ft. Benning, GA 74 2.26% 1.6%

Figure 15

The over arching strategy will be to identify locations that have the greatest challenges and

provide policy and programmatic assistance towards the model program goals expressed

in the six essential elements.

SUPERVISORS

The overall population of supervisors in pay grades GS 12-15 is depicted in figure

16. This population includes supervisors in all EEOC categories and is not limited to the

officials and managers category. The general CLF is used since the population includes

more than officials and managers or professionals. White men comprise the largest EEO

population of supervisors in grades 12 – 15, followed by White women and African

Americans, Hispanic or Latino men and women as well as members of other EEO groups.

Percentage 12 13 14 15 Totals CLF GEN

White Men 51% 56% 61% 65% 57% 39.00%

White Women 20% 21% 19% 18% 20% 33.70%

African American Men 10% 7% 6% 5% 7% 4.80%

African American Women

6% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5.70%


4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 6.20%


1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4.50%

Asian Men 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1.90%

Asian Women 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1.70%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%

EEOC FORM




Percentage 12 13 14 15 Totals CLF GEN


1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0.30%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.30%

Multiracial Men 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0.80%

Multiracial Women 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0.80%

Total Population 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Figure 16

The number of supervisors expected by comparing the total supervisory population to the

general CLF is shown in figure 17. The variation by pay grade indicates that a variety of

career program issues have to be analyzed with the respective career program managers in

order to determine which barriers exist and can be acted on.

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Totals Expected 12 13 14 15

White Men 2,303 4,134 2,935 1,471 10,843 1,763 2,864 1,889 884

White Women 906 1,529 911 412 3,758 1,523 2,475 1,632 764

African American Men 443 501 313 112 1,369 217 352 233 109

African American Women 293 361 205 84 943 258 419 276 129

Hispanic or Latino Men 196 203 118 41 558 280 455 300 141

Hispanic or Latino Women 66 83 46 21 216 203 330 218 102

Asian Men 85 168 115 44 412 86 140 92 43

Asian Women 50 78 36 17 181 77 125 82 39


15 14 9 3 41 5 7 5 2


6 12 4 3 25 5 7 5 2


33 61 22 8 124 14 22 15 7


14 21 7 5 47 14 22 15 7

Multiracial Men 88 119 84 37 328 36 59 39 18

Multiracial Women 22 59 39 9 129 36 59 39 18

Total Population 4,520 7,343 4844 2267 18,974 4,515 7,336 4,839 2,265

Figure 17

Applicant Pool GS 12-15

The data on the applicant pool for GS 12-15 positions is provided in figure 18 which

shows the data on applications received from each EEO group for supervisory positions.

The majority of applications received from members of EEO groups were from White men

followed by White women. The percentage of applications received from white men was

EEOC FORM




significantly higher than the CLF. The percentage of applications received from members of

other EEO groups varied from the CLF, but the percentage of variation of applications

received from White men was significantly higher. This infers that the population

representation of EEO groups is impacted by the application process. For example, the

general CLF for Hispanic or Latino s is 10.7%, but percentage of applications received from

Hispanic or Latino s averaged 2.86% for Hispanic or Latino men and 1.12% for Hispanic or

Latino women. The reasons for this disparity are not known and will be explored.

Percentage Applied

12 13 14 15 Totals CLF GEN

White Men 50.95% 56.30% 60.59% 64.89% 57.15% 39.00%

White Women 20.04% 20.82% 18.81% 18.17% 19.81% 33.70%

African American Men 9.80% 6.82% 6.46% 4.94% 7.22% 4.80%


6.48% 4.92% 4.23% 3.71% 4.97% 5.70%


4.34% 2.76% 2.44% 1.81% 2.94% 6.20%


1.46% 1.13% 0.95% 0.93% 1.14% 4.50%

Asian Men 1.88% 2.29% 2.37% 1.94% 2.17% 1.90%

Asian Women 1.11% 1.06% 0.74% 0.75% 0.95% 1.70%


0.33% 0.19% 0.19% 0.13% 0.22% 0.10%


0.13% 0.16% 0.08% 0.13% 0.13% 0.10%


0.73% 0.83% 0.45% 0.35% 0.65% 0.30%


0.31% 0.29% 0.14% 0.22% 0.25% 0.30%

Multiracial Men 1.95% 1.62% 1.73% 1.63% 1.73% 0.80%

Multiracial Women 0.49% 0.80% 0.81% 0.40% 0.68% 0.80%

Figure 18

The number of applicants by EEO group is shown in figure 19. The data also includes

the expected applications calculated by using the general CLF. The largest numbers of

applications were received from White men. The applications received from African

American men and Asian men were consistently higher than expected, while the

applications received from African American women exceeded expectations except at the

GS 15 level. The number of applications received from Hispanic or Latino men and women

were lower than expected in all grade levels. The number of applications received from

EEOC FORM




Asian women was lower than expected. In most cases, the number of applications received

from women was lower than expected.

Group - FY 10 – Applied

12 13 14 15 Totals Expected To Apply

12 13 14 15

White Men 263,101 195,468 72,532 18,583 549,684 210,589 156,319 62,543 13,735

White Women 78,059 50,049 17,605 3,514 149,227 181,970 135,076 54,044 11,868


63,119 46,458 17,481 2,879 129,937 25,919 19,239 7,698 1,690


48,672 32,642 12,724 1,786 95,824 30,778 22,847 9,141 2,007


26,535 17,075 5,155 1,258 50,023 33,478 24,851 9,943 2,184


9,304 4,905 1,776 220 16,205 24,299 18,037 7,217 1,585

Asian Men 19,642 16,923 5,928 1,015 43,508 10,259 7,616 3,047 669

Asian Women 6,736 4,496 1,558 217 13,007 9,180 6,814 2,726 599


1,100 628 288 72 2,088 540 401 160 35


709 479 146 24 1,358 540 401 160 35


2,192 1,781 674 132 4,779 1,620 1,202 481 106


1,071 832 422 45 2,370 1,620 1,202 481 106

Multiracial Men 11,340 19,896 15,765 3,974 50,975 4,320 3,207 1,283 282

Multiracial Women 8,391 9,187 8,313 1,499 27,390 4,320 3,207 1,283 282

Total Population 539,971 400,819 160,367 35,218 1,136,375

539,431 400,418 160,207

35,144

Figure 19

The percentage of applications referred by EEO group is shown in figure 20. The

highest number of referrals was for White men and whose referral rate was higher than the

CLF. The CLF is used as a standard of comparison because of the automated nature of

Resumix which allows automated referral list generation. The percentage of White women

referred was higher than the rate of African American men and women, but still below the

general CLF. The percentage of men being referred was generally higher than their

corresponding CLF compared to the referral rate for women which was generally lower

than their corresponding CLF. The referral rate for Hispanic or Latino men and women was

lower than their corresponding CLF, but the referral rate for Asian men was higher than

their CLF. The referral rate for American Indian or Alaska Native men was marginally

higher than their CLF.

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 Referred

12 13 14 15 Total General CLF

White Men 47.83% 46.57% 45.44% 52.89% 47.15% 39.00%

White Women 15.19% 13.61% 12.47% 11.94% 14.07% 33.70%



10.22% 9.58% 9.03% 6.23% 9.67% 5.70%


4.57% 3.46% 3.22% 3.16% 3.90% 6.20%


1.59% 1.14% 1.21% 0.41% 1.33% 4.50%

Asian Men 4.29% 4.67% 3.79% 2.86% 4.31% 1.90%

Asian Women 1.50% 1.31% 1.11% 0.65% 1.34% 1.70%


0.28% 0.21% 0.23% 0.28% 0.24% 0.10%


0.11% 0.09% 0.12% 0.13% 0.10% 0.10%


0.59% 0.58% 0.45% 0.43% 0.56% 0.30%


0.31% 0.27% 0.37% 0.11% 0.30% 0.30%

Multiracial Men 0.38% 4.37% 7.28% 9.08% 3.22% 0.80%


Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Figure 20

The number of referrals and selections are combined in figure 21. The largest

number of referrals was for white men as well as the largest number of selections. No

predictors are used to project the number of selections expected because of the random

nature of the selection process. It is noted that the difference in the number of referrals

between White women and African Americans is measured in thousands while the

difference in referrals between White men and any other group is measured in tens of

thousands. Nearly half of the referrals were for White men.

Group - FY 10- Referred

12 13 14 15 Total Selected 12 13 14 15 Total

White Men 50,895 42,719 16751 4178 114,543 1463 983 262 50 2,758

White Women 16,163 12,486 4597 943 34,189 712 505 106 21 1,344


13,992 10,977 4103 672 29,744 229 155 40 5 429


10,872 8,793 3329 492 23,486 246 150 37 2 435


4,863 3,177 1187 250 9,477 65 46 15 3 129

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10- Referred

12 13 14 15 Total Selected 12 13 14 15 Total


1,694 1,046 447 32 3,219 41 18 4 1 64

Asian Men 4,567 4,283 1396 226 10,472 82 66 16 0 164

Asian Women 1,593 1,204 411 51 3,259 44 33 6 0 83


295 191 85 22 593 6 0 1 0 7


115 84 44 10 253 1 9 3 0 13


625 536 165 34 1,360 19 8 0 0 27


334 252 138 9 733 9 0 2 0 11

Multiracial Men 408 4,012 2,685 717 7,822 3 49 15 4 71

Multiracial Women 0 1,980 1,526 264 3,770 0 19 4 0 23

Total Population 106,416 91,740 36,864 7,900 242,920 2,920 2,041 511 86 5,558

Figure 21

The percentage of selections for EEO groups is shown in figure 22. Predictably, the

largest number of selections made at all grade levels was for White men. The predictability

of this data stems from applicant and referral data that indicates that White men are the

largest group of applicants and referees. The selection rate for White women is the second

highest, followed by African American women. Although African American men applied and

were referred at a rate higher than African American men, African American women were

selected at a higher rate.

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Total

White Men 50.10% 48.16% 51.27% 58.14% 49.62%

White Women 24.38% 24.74% 20.74% 24.42% 24.18%



8.42% 7.35% 7.24% 2.33% 7.83%


2.23% 2.25% 2.94% 3.49% 2.32%


1.40% 0.88% 0.78% 1.16% 1.15%

Asian Men 2.81% 3.23% 3.13% 0.00% 2.95%

Asian Women 1.51% 1.62% 1.17% 0.00% 1.49%


0.21% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.13%

Native Hawaiian or 0.03% 0.44% 0.59% 0.00% 0.23%

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Total

Other Pacific Islander Women


0.65% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.49%


0.31% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.20%

Multiracial Men 0.10% 2.40% 2.94% 4.65% 1.28%



Figure 22

The applicant pool data infers that greater analysis should be performed on the

applicant data for EEO groups in grades 12-15. The data indicating that White men were

selected at a rate higher than any other group appears to be based on the data indicating

that White men are the largest group of applicants and therefore the largest group of those

referred. The primary trigger is that the selection rate for African American men is lower

than for groups that had a lower rate of applications and referrals. In addition, the

application rate for Hispanic or Latino men and women is less than expected based upon

the CLF which will require analysis of the outreach process to identify barriers within the

application process.

OFFICIALS AND MANAGERS

Officials and managers comprise the largest population of employees within the

nine EEOC categories. This category, as defined by EEOC, includes 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. The analysis of this population will use the nationwide

officials and managers CLF rather than the general CLF.

The population of employees classified as officials and managers in pay grades GS

12-15 is show in figure 23. The population representation changes as the grades increase.

The pay plans ES and IE, the traditional senior executive service and intelligence executives

are included in this data. The percentage of white men in the GS 12 and 13 pay grades is

less than expected, while the representation of white men at the GS 14, 15, and SES level is

greater than expected based upon the officials and managers CLF. The representation of

African-American men and women is greater than expected at all grade levels. The

representation of the Hispanic or Latino men and women is lower than expected at all

EEOC FORM




grade levels as well as in the senior executive service. The percentage of Asian men is less

than expected, except at the GS 14 and senior executive level. The percentages of

individuals in the smaller populations of EEO groups are generally less than expected, with

the exception of American Indian or Alaska Native men and women.

Officials and Managers FY 10

12 13 14 15 ES/IE Totals OM CLF

White Men 43.05% 47.05% 62.57% 29.95% 74.43% 46.66% 52.10%

White Women 26.01% 24.79% 8.08% 36.09% 14.77% 23.62% 30.60%

African American Men 10.10% 9.43% 9.47% 10.65% 4.55% 9.77% 2.80%


9.64% 9.29% 8.33% 7.89% 1.14% 9.26% 3.50%


2.86% 2.23% 2.50% 3.51% 0.57% 2.59% 3.30%


1.90% 1.44% 1.44% 2.26% 0.00% 1.68% 2.40%

Asian Men 1.56% 1.45% 1.69% 3.26% 2.27% 1.59% 2.10%

Asian Women 1.44% 1.15% 1.22% 1.25% 1.14% 1.30% 1.30%


0.39% 0.21% 0.28% 0.25% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00%


0.18% 0.13% 0.17% 0.25% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00%


0.56% 0.65% 0.58% 0.75% 0.57% 0.60% 0.20%


0.41% 0.27% 0.31% 0.38% 0.57% 0.35% 0.20%

Multiracial Men 1.01% 0.96% 2.00% 3.13% 0.00% 1.16% 0.70%

Multiracial Women 0.90% 0.94% 1.36% 0.38% 0.00% 0.95% 0.50%

Total Population 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Figure 23

The population of EEO groups is shown in figure 24. Based on the relationship with

the civilian labor force statistic for officials and managers, the expected population is also

depicted in figure 25. The population of white men relative to their expected population

indicates that at all grade levels expected population of white men is much lower than the

actual population. The population of African-American men meets the expectation of the

officials and managers category, while the population of African-American women meets

the population expectations with the exception of the Senior Executive Service (SES) and

intelligence executives. The population of Hispanic or Latino s and Asian men and women

does not meet the population expected for officials and managers. The population of the

smaller EEO groups varies relative to the officials and managers civilian labor force statistic

EEOC FORM




and their expectations also vary because of their smaller representation in the civilian

labor force statistic.

Group FY 10 12 13 14 15 ES/IE Totals Expected 12 13 14 15 ES/IE

White Men 6,333 5,054 2,253 239 131 14,010 7,664 5,597 1,876 416 92

White Women 3,826 2,663 291 288 26 7,094 4,502 3,287 1,102 244 54


1,486 1,013 341 85 8 2,933 412 301 101 22 5


1,418 998 300 63 2 2,781 515 376 126 28 6


420 240 90 28 1 779 485 354 119 26 6


279 155 52 18 0 504 353 258 86 19 4

Asian Men 229 156 61 26 4 476 309 226 76 17 4

Asian Women 212 123 44 10 2 391 191 140 47 10 2


58 23 10 2 0 93 0 0 0 0 0


26 14 6 2 0 48 0 0 0 0 0


82 70 21 6 1 180 29 21 7 2 0


61 29 11 3 1 105 29 21 7 2 0

Multiracial Men 148 103 72 25 0 348 103 75 25 6 1

Multiracial Women 133 101 49 3 0 286 74 54 18 4 1

Total Population 14,711 10,742 3,601 798 176 30,028 14,679 10,723 3,604 811 0

Figure 24

Officials and Managers – Supervisors

The distribution of EEO groups in supervisory positions within the officials and

managers category is shown in figure 25. The percentage of white men in supervisory

positions exceeds the officials and managers CLF. The representation of African-American

men and women exceeds the officials and managers expect CLF at all grade levels. Hispanic

or Latino men and women meet or exceed this CLF expectation only in grades GS 12 and

13; they did not meet the CLF expectation in grades 14 and 15. Asian men and women meet

the CLF expectation only in grade 12. The remaining EEO group representations meet the

CLF expectations, but the populations are small.

Group FY 09 12 13 14 15 OM CLF

White Men 46% 50% 57% 63% 52.10%

White Women 22% 23% 21% 19% 30.60%



7% 6% 5% 4% 3.50%

EEOC FORM




Group FY 09 12 13 14 15 OM CLF


5% 3% 2% 2% 3.30%


2% 2% 1% 1% 2.40%

Asian Men 2% 1% 1% 2% 2.10%

Asian Women 2% 1% 1% 1% 1.30%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00%


1% 1% 1% 0% 0.20%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.20%




Figure 25

The population of EEO groups in supervisory positions within the officials and

managers category is shown in figure 26. Based on a comparison with the officials and

managers CLF, the expected population of supervisors is also shown in figure 27. The

population of white men in supervisory positions is less than the expected population of

officials and managers at the GS 12 level; however, the population of white men in

supervisory positions in grades 13 through 15 is greater than expected. The population of

white women in supervisory positions is less than expected in all pay grades, while the

population of African-Americans in supervisory positions is greater than expected. The

number of Hispanic or Latino men in pay grades GS 12 is greater than expected, but is less

than expected in all other pay grades. The number of Hispanic or Latino women is less than

expected in all supervisory pay grades. The population of Asian men in supervisory

positions is less than expected in all pay grades, but the population of Asian women meets

the expectations in pay grades 12 and 13. The number of individuals in the remaining EEO

groups tends to meet the expected population because of the small civilian labor force

statistic.

EEOC FORM




Group FY 09 12 13 14 15 Totals Expected 12 13 14 15

White Men 1,079 1,639 1,437 834 4,989 1,217 1,711 1,323 695

White Women 524 767 546 257 2,094 715 1,005 777 408

African American Men 235 290 188 78 791 65 92 71 37


159 206 121 53 539 82 115 89 47



40 51 25 15 131 56 79 61 32

Asian Men 43 49 33 22 147 49 69 53 28

Asian Women 36 42 26 10 114 30 43 33 17


8 6 5 2 21 0 0 0 0


2 6 1 2 11 0 0 0 0


17 34 13 6 70 5 7 5 3


9 11 5 3 28 5 7 5 3

Multiracial Men 49 63 54 22 188 16 23 18 9


Total Population 2,336 3,284 2,540 1,334 9,494 2,341 3,287 2,546 1,345

Figure 26

Officials and Managers – Applicant Pool Analysis

The number of applications received for positions in the officials and managers

category is shown on figure 28. In addition, the number of applications expected based on

the relationship with the officials and managers CLF is also shown in figure 27. Within each

grade level, the largest number of applications received was from white men; the numbers

of applications received from African-American men were nearly as many as those received

from white women in most grade levels. For example, in pay grades 12, 13 and 14, the

number of applications received from African-American men was greater than those

received from White women. The exception was a great 15 in which the number of

applications received from White women exceeded those of African-American men.

The number of applications received from white men exceeded the expectations in

all pay grades, while the number of applications received from White women was

significantly less than expected. At all grade levels, the number of applications received

from African-Americans exceeded expectations. With the exception of pay grade 15, the

number of applications received from Hispanic or Latino men exceeded the expectations at

all grade levels. The applications received from Asian men at grade 12 and 13 exceeded

expectations, but fell below expectations at grades 14 and 15.

EEOC FORM





White Men 57,584 56,296 24,720 6122 144,722 79,419 71,104 29,196 6,279

White Women 23,242 18,793 7,091 1538 50,664 46,645 41,762 17,148 3,688

African American Men 23,973 22,356 7,905 1460 55,694 4,268 3,821 1,569 337

African American Women 19,794 17,191 7,026 933 44,944 5,335 4,777 1,961 422

Hispanic or Latino Men 5,783 4,862 1,776 480 12,901 5,030 4,504 1,849 398

Hispanic or Latino Women 2,454 1,512 696 80 4,742 3,658 3,275 1,345 289

Asian Men 3,074 2,933 1,090 175 7,272 3,201 2,866 1,177 253

Asian Women 1,946 1,374 618 71 4,009 1,982 1,774 728 157


606 347 162 47 1,162 2 1 1 0


248 93 43 14 398 2 1 1 0


1,021 965 315 68 2,369 305 273 112 24


431 421 239 18 1,109 305 273 112 24

Multiracial Men 7,649 6,036 2,742 675 17,102 1,067 955 392 84

Multiracial Women 4,631 3,297 1,615 370 9,913 762 682 280 60


Figure 27

The population of EEO groups that were referred for selection is shown in figure 28 which

indicates that white men were the largest group of individuals referred for selection, and

were the largest group of individuals selected within the EEOC category of officials and

managers.

Group - FY 10 Referred 12 13 14 15 Totals Selected 12 13 14 15 Totals

White Men 16,706 16,537 7,104 1825 42,172 736 498 129 32 1,395

White Women 7,113 6,402 2,337 576 16,428 431 331 70 18 850

African American Men 6,352 5,866 2,169 412 14,799 141 104 32 2 279

African American Women 5,810 5,349 2,102 298 13,559 175 110 26 2 313

Hispanic or Latino Men 1,611 1,177 496 115 3,399 31 23 10 1 65

Hispanic or Latino Women 722 476 226 16 1,440 30 11 4 1 46

Asian Men 1,075 938 336 64 2,413 33 14 5 3 55

Asian Women 768 537 239 32 1,576 23 13 4 0 40


167 114 54 16 351 4 0 1 0 5


58 32 19 8 117 1 0 2 0 3


358 324 89 16 787 13 6 0 0 19


195 150 96 7 448 5 4 2 0 11

Multiracial Men 2,063 1,594 755 229 4,641 34 27 11 0 72

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 Referred 12 13 14 15 Totals Selected 12 13 14 15 Totals

Multiracial Women 1,286 925 540 124 2,875 34 11 3 0 48

Total Population 44,284 40,421 16,562 3,738 105,005 1,691 1,152 299 59 3,201

Figure 28

The data in figure 29 shows that of EEO groups with larger populations, Asian men

and women were the largest group that applied for positions and were subsequently

referred, followed by White women and African-American women. This infers that

members of these groups would be selected at a rate proportional to their referral rate. The

data indicates that within the large EEO groups that the percentage of individuals being

referred is more than 25%.

Applied Who has the Were Referred

12 13 14 15

White Men 29.01% 29.38% 28.74% 29.81%

White Women 30.60% 34.07% 32.96% 37.45%

African American Men 26.50% 26.24% 27.44% 28.22%


29.35% 31.12% 29.92% 31.94%


27.86% 24.21% 27.93% 23.96%


29.42% 31.48% 32.47% 20.00%

Asian Men 34.97% 31.98% 30.83% 36.57%

Asian Women 39.47% 39.08% 38.67% 45.07%


27.56% 32.85% 33.33% 34.04%


23.39% 34.41% 44.19% 57.14%


35.06% 33.58% 28.25% 23.53%


45.24% 35.63% 40.17% 38.89%

Multiracial Men 26.97% 26.41% 27.53% 33.93%



Figure 29

EEOC FORM




The data in figure 29 indicates that within the large EEO groups that African-American men

that were referred had the lowest rate of those referred for selection. This is contrasted

with the information in figure 28 that indicates that the average referral rate was 28%.

Referred who were Selected

12 13 14 15

White Men 4.41% 3.01% 1.82% 1.75%

White Women 6.06% 5.17% 3.00% 3.13%

African American Men 2.22% 1.77% 1.48% 0.49%


3.01% 2.06% 1.24% 0.67%


1.92% 1.95% 2.02% 0.87%


4.16% 2.31% 1.77% 6.25%

Asian Men 3.07% 1.49% 1.49% 4.69%

Asian Women 2.99% 2.42% 1.67% 0.00%


2.40% 0.00% 1.85% 0.00%


1.72% 0.00% 10.53% 0.00%


3.63% 1.85% 0.00% 0.00%


2.56% 2.67% 2.08% 0.00%

Multiracial Men 1.65% 1.69% 1.46% 0.00%



Figure 30

Officials and Managers – Summary

The relationship between the applicant pool and EEO group population infers that,

as with the population overall, that a key element in the representation of EEO groups is

maintaining a well supplied pool of qualified individuals. Exact statistical tests to show

specific significance levels should be conducted at the operational level to validate this

inference. Because this category contains occupational series with very specific special

occupational codes, more specific analysis can be conducted on this category of series to

determine relationships between populations and supporting applicant pool data. Using

this type of analysis on the general population does not provide the appropriate statistical

controls and specificity needed to provide answers that lead to supportable strategies.

This means that problem identification is one of the first steps to be implemented in the

EEOC FORM




development of an over arching strategy that addresses specific barriers that may be

identified.

Three triggers have been identified: the relationship between African-American

men being referred for selection and their selection rate, the less than expected application

rate of white women based upon the CLF, and the representation of Hispanic or Latino men

and women not only in the specific job categories, but in the applicant pool.

Professionals

The population of those individuals classified as professionals within the EEOC

categories in pay grades 12 to 15 is depicted in figure 31. This group is the second largest

employee group in the Army. This group includes occupations that normally require formal

education as a basic job qualification. White men and women are the largest EEO groups

within this category, followed by African-American men and women. Asian men and

women are the third largest EEO group within this category, followed by Hispanic or Latino

men and women which of the fourth-largest population. The percentage of white men is

greater than the professional civilian labor force statistic. The percentage of African-

American men and women is also greater than the civilian labor force statistic, while the

percentage of White women in all pay grades is lower than the civilian labor force statistic.

The percentage of Hispanic or Latino s and Asians relative to the professional CLF varies by

pay grade.

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Professionals CLF

White Men 52% 64% 62% 63% 37.10%

White Women 22% 20% 19% 19% 42.30%



6% 4% 4% 3% 4.90%


3% 3% 2% 2% 2.29%


1% 1% 1% 1% 2.80%

Asian Men 5% 0% 5% 4% 3.20%

Asian Women 2% 0% 1% 2% 2.60%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00%


0% 1% 0% 0% 0.20%

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Professionals CLF


0% 0% 0% 0% 0.30%




Figure 31

The population of professional employees in pay grades 12 through 15 is shown in

figure 32, along with the expected population. White men are the largest population and

with African-American men and women, Hispanic or Latino and Asian men, exceed their

population expectations based upon the professional CLF depending on the pay grade.

White women comprise the next largest group, but do not exceed their population

expectations. Because the civilian labor force statistic for the remaining EEO groups is

small, the population expectations reflect a smaller range of population expectations. The

expected population of white women is larger than expected population of white men and

of any other EEO group. This is directly related to the civilian labor force statistic for white

women, which is 42%, while the civilian labor force statistic for white men is 37%.


White Men 8,657 7,644 2,802 941 20,044 6,175 4,411 1,690 551

White Women 3,672 2,322 850 286 7,130 7,041 5,029 1,927 629

African American Men 1,095 616 212 51 1,974 449 321 123 40


1,037 517 167 45 1,766 816 583 223 73



219 97 33 12 361 466 333 128 42

Asian Men 763 16 207 55 1,041 533 380 146 48

Asian Women 294 12 60 24 390 433 309 118 39


37 19 8 2 66 0 0 0 0


17 11 4 1 33 0 0 0 0


83 61 16 7 167 33 24 9 3


39 12 5 2 58 50 36 14 4

Multiracial Men 149 153 54 22 378 100 71 27 9



Figure 32

EEOC FORM




Professionals – Applicant Pool Analysis

The applicant pool data for professional positions in grades 12-15 is shown in figure

33. The data shows that the majority of the applications received were from White men,

followed by African American men and women. When compared to the professional CLF,

White men, followed by African American men, had the highest average number of

applications submitted. The average submission rates exceed the CLF for all men’s groups

and African American women, while the average application rate for women was generally

less than expected.

Group - FY 10 Applied

12 13 14 15 Totals Average Professionals CLF

White Men 42.99% 46.16% 43.76% 54.93% 44.72% 46.96% 37.10%

White Women 12.81% 12.26% 11.53% 10.10% 12.30% 11.67% 42.30%


14.39% 13.47% 16.52% 10.69% 14.27% 13.77% 2.70%


10.12% 7.69% 7.52% 5.61% 8.62% 7.73% 4.90%


2.71% 2.60% 2.46% 2.79% 2.63% 2.64% 2.29%


1.30% 0.74% 0.73% 0.35% 0.97% 0.78% 2.80%

Asian Men 5.76% 8.12% 8.51% 6.06% 7.11% 7.11% 3.20%

Asian Women 1.09% 1.43% 0.96% 0.72% 1.19% 1.05% 2.60%


0.18% 0.16% 0.22% 0.25% 0.18%

0.20%

0.00%


0.15% 0.26% 0.13% 0.01% 0.19%

0.14%

0.00%


0.53% 0.41% 0.55% 0.51% 0.49%

0.50%

0.20%


0.35% 0.30% 0.39% 0.28% 0.33%

0.33%

0.30%

Multiracial Men 4.97% 4.01% 3.97% 5.92% 4.47% 4.72% 0.60%

Multiracial Women

2.65% 2.41% 2.73% 1.77% 2.54% 2.39% 0.80%

Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Figure 33

EEOC FORM




As the data in figure 34 shows, on average White men and African American men

and women were largest group of applicants, followed by Asian men. The number of

women applying for professional positions smaller than the number received from men in

the same EEO group. For example, the number of White, African American, Hispanic or

Latino , Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander and American Indian or Alaska Native –

Alaskan Native women applications was less than those received from the men of their EEO

group.

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Totals Average

White Men 41,663 40,027 16,482 4181 102,353 25,588

White Women 12,414 10,626 4,343 769 28,152 7,038

African American Men 13,945 11,677 6,224 814 32,660 8,165


9,804 6,666 2,833 427 19,730 4,933


2,626 2,256 928 212 6,022 1,506


1,264 644 276 27 2,211 553

Asian Men 5,578 7,037 3,204 461 16,280 4,070

Asian Women 1,060 1,236 363 55 2,714 679


175 135 84 19 413 103


149 225 50 1 425 106


509 357 207 39 1,112 278


338 256 147 21 762 191

Multiracial Men 4,819 3,476 1,495 451 10,241 2,560

Multiracial Women 2,572 2,089 1,029 135 5,825 1,456

Total Population 96,916 86,707 37,665 7,612 228,900 57,225

Figure 34

EEOC FORM




The data in figure 35 shows the number of applications expected from each EEO

group relative to the CLF. The number of applications received from White and African

American men and women was greater than expected, as it was for Asian men. The number

of applications received from Hispanic or Latino s was less than expected while the data

from the remaining EEO groups is varied.

Expected 12 13 14 15 Average

White Men 35,956 32,168 13,974 2,824 84,922

White Women 40,995 36,677 15,932 3,220 96,825

African American Men 2,617 2,341 1,017 206 6,180


4,749 4,249 1,846 373 11,216


2,219 1,986 863 174 5,242


2,714 2,428 1,055 213 6,409

Asian Men 3,101 2,775 1,205 244 7,325

Asian Women 2,520 2,254 979 198 5,951


1 1 0 0 2


0 0 0 0 0


194 173 75 15 458


291 260 113 23 687

Multiracial Men 581 520 226 46 1,373

Multiracial Women 775 694 301 61 1,831

Total Population 96,714 86,526 37,586 7,596 228,422

Figure 35

The data in figure 36 depicts the percentage of those referred and selected. The

majority of individuals referred and selected at all grade levels were white men. This is

related to figure 35 that shows that the majority of applications received were from White

men. The referral and selection rate varies by pay grade, as the percentage of African

EEOC FORM




American men were referred than White women, but the percentage of White women

selected was greater than the African American men.

Referred 12 13 14 15 Selected 12 13 14 15

White Men 44.14% 46.42% 46.07% 55.70% 53.99% 52.93% 64.32% 58.33%

White Women 12.80% 12.65% 13.13% 10.55% 20.26% 18.88% 16.76% 8.33%


12.85% 11.08% 12.69% 8.55% 6.79% 5.59% 3.78% 8.33%


9.08% 7.75% 7.61% 6.42% 5.29% 4.65% 5.41% 0.00%


2.94% 2.69% 3.06% 3.25% 2.10% 2.26% 1.62% 8.33%


1.34% 0.80% 0.94% 0.23% 0.70% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00%

Asian Men 7.54% 9.42% 7.86% 5.76% 3.89% 6.38% 5.41% 0.00%

Asian Women 1.13% 1.54% 0.84% 0.65% 1.50% 2.53% 1.08% 0.00%


0.26% 0.19% 0.18% 0.42% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


0.13% 0.17% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00%


0.55% 0.41% 0.42% 0.70% 0.40% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00%


0.29% 0.30% 0.33% 0.09% 0.20% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00%

Multiracial Men 4.78% 4.23% 3.78% 5.90% 3.29% 3.59% 1.08% 16.67%

Multiracial Women 2.16% 2.36% 2.90% 1.77% 1.40% 1.46% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Figure 36

Figure 37 shows that on average there is variation in the referral and selection rates

between EEO groups. For example, the average referral rate for White men is 48%, while

the average selection rate was 55% which was 7% more than their average referral rate.

The average referral rate for White women was 12% while the average selection rate as

16% with a difference of almost 4% between their average referral and selection rates.

African American men, on average, comprised 11% of those referred but their selection

rate were -5% when their average referral and selection rates were compared. The

comparisons of rates from other groups vary but most other EEO group referral to

selection rate differences were less than their referral rates.

Referred Average Referred

Average Selected

Difference

White Men 48.08% 55.53% 7.45%

White Women 12.28% 16.06% 3.77%

EEOC FORM




Referred Average Referred

Average Selected

Difference

African American Men 11.29% 6.12% -5.17%


7.71% 3.84% -3.88%


2.99% 3.58% 0.59%


0.83% 0.37% -0.45%

Asian Men 7.65% 3.92% -3.73%

Asian Women 1.04% 1.28% 0.24%


0.26% 0.05% -0.21%


0.12% 0.14% 0.01%


0.52% 0.20% -0.32%


0.25% 0.18% -0.07%

Multiracial Men 4.67% 6.16% 1.48%

Multiracial Women 2.30% 0.71% -1.58%

Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Figure 37

Further analysis indicates that Hispanic or Latino men, on average, who applied for

positions were referred at the highest rate of the large EEO groups, followed by Asian men.

The rate of those who applied and were referred varied by grade; on average 30% of the

applications were referred. The applications of African American men were referred on

average 25%; at the GS 12 level, Asian men were referred almost 40% of the time but at

grades 14-15, the referral rate was less than the average.

Applied Who Were Referred

12 13 14 15 Average Median

White Men 31.11% 31.58% 31.31% 28.65% 30.66% 31.21%

White Women 30.28% 32.42% 33.87% 29.52% 31.52% 31.35%

EEOC FORM




Applied Who Were Referred



African American Women 27.20% 31.64% 30.11% 32.32% 30.32% 30.87%

Hispanic or Latino Men 32.90% 32.45% 36.96% 33.02% 33.83% 32.96%


31.01% 33.85% 38.04% 18.52% 30.36% 32.43%

Asian Men 39.71% 36.46% 27.47% 26.90% 32.63% 31.97%

Asian Women 31.32% 33.90% 25.90% 25.45% 29.14% 28.61%


42.86% 37.78% 23.81% 47.37% 37.95% 40.32%


26.17% 20.44% 42.00% 0.00% 22.15% 23.31%


31.83% 31.09% 22.71% 38.46% 31.02% 31.46%


24.85% 31.64% 25.17% 9.52% 22.80% 25.01%

Multiracial Men 29.11% 33.14% 28.36% 28.16% 29.69% 28.74%



Figure 38

The data in figure 39 indicates that on average 2% of those referred were selected.

The selection rates by grade varied, but at the GS 15 level, the Hispanic or Latino men,

followed by White men had the highest rate. White women, followed by white men were

selected at a higher rate at the GS 12 level and had a higher average score than members of

other EEO groups while the selection rate for African American and Asian men were the

same.



White Men 4.17% 3.15% 2.31% 1.17% 2.70% 2.73%

White Women 5.40% 4.12% 2.11% 0.88% 3.13% 3.11%



1.99% 1.66% 1.17% 0.00% 1.20% 1.42%


2.43% 2.32% 0.87% 2.86% 2.12% 2.38%

EEOC FORM







1.79% 2.75% 0.00% 0.00% 1.13% 0.89%

Asian Men 1.76% 1.87% 1.14% 0.00% 1.19% 1.45%

Asian Women 4.52% 4.53% 2.13% 0.00% 2.80% 3.32%


2.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00%


0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 1.19% 0.00%


2.47% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 1.29% 1.23%


2.38% 4.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1.83% 1.19%

Multiracial Men 2.35% 2.34% 0.47% 3.15% 2.08% 2.35%



Figure 39

Supervisors

The population percentage distribution of supervisors in the professionals category

is shown in figure 40. The majority of supervisors are White men followed by White

women across all pay grades, although the expected population of white women exceeds

the expected population of white men. This is because the CLF for white women is 42%,

while the CLF for white men is 37%. This means that white women would have the largest

population if that population were based on matching the CLF.

Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Totals Professionals CLF

White Men 55.11% 61.04% 64.65% 67.92% 61.50% 37.10%

White Women 17.90% 19.06% 16.31% 16.98% 17.90% 42.30%



6.81% 4.04% 3.73% 3.33% 4.44% 4.90%


3.40% 2.86% 2.40% 2.22% 2.78% 2.29%


1.35% 0.84% 0.97% 0.55% 0.94% 2.80%

Asian Men 1.82% 3.13% 3.73% 2.44% 2.95% 3.20%

Asian Women 0.76% 0.94% 0.41% 0.78% 0.75% 2.60%


0.29% 0.13% 0.18% 0.11% 0.18% 0.00%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0.23% 0.16% 0.14% 0.11% 0.17% 0.00%

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Totals Professionals CLF

Women


0.65% 0.57% 0.41% 0.22% 0.51% 0.20%


0.18% 0.27% 0.09% 0.22% 0.20% 0.30%

Multiracial Men 1.64% 1.38% 1.24% 1.66% 1.43% 0.60%



Figure 40

The population of GS 12 through 15 supervisors within the professional’s category

is shown in figure 41, along with the expected population. The largest population is White

men and White women. The number of African American men and women supervisors

exceeds their expected number, but the number of Hispanic or Latino men and women and

Asian men and women supervisors is less than the expected distribution. The population of

the remaining EEO groups in supervisory positions varies because of the smaller CLF

statistic for each group.


White Men 939 2,264 1,403 612 5,218 632 1,376 805 334

White Women 305 707 354 153 1,519 721 1,569 918 381

African American Men 163 185 110 31 489 46 100 59 24


116 150 81 30 377 83 182 106 44


58 106 52 20 236 39 85 50 21


23 31 21 5 80 48 104 61 25

Asian Men 31 116 81 22 250 55 119 69 29

Asian Women 13 35 9 7 64 44 96 56 23


5 5 4 1 15 0 0 0 0


4 6 3 1 14 0 0 0 0


11 21 9 2 43 3 7 4 2


3 10 2 2 17 5 11 7 3

Multiracial Men 28 51 27 15 121 10 22 13 5

EEOC FORM






Total Population 1,704 3,709 2,170 901 8,484 1,700 3,701 2,165 899

Figure 41

Professional Category – Summary

The population of employees in the professional categories is dominated by White

men. The applicant pool data infers that because White men are the largest group of

applicants, exceeded their expected applicant pool population, that there is a relationship

between the applicant pool and the resulting population. Although the CLF statistic for

White women is larger than the CLF statistic for White men, the applicant data indicates on

average White men apply for professional positions at a rate more than 3 times that of

White women. The rate that White men who apply for positions are referred is controlled

in part by the volume of applications received from this group. It appears that when

applications from an EEO group exceed the expected distribution based upon the CLF, that

group establishes a statistical expectation that the selection rate would follow. This theory

was not validated because of the variation in selection rates experienced by the EEO groups

other than White men and women. This establishes a trigger to examine the relationship

between the referral and selection rate by examining the underlying occupational series

data to find out if specific barriers exist.

The federal initiatives to focus on STEM6 occupational series creates visibility to find

out if STEM based initiatives with minority colleges and universities can be successful.

However, the analysis in this report focuses on positions above the entry level. This means

that STEM initiatives should focus on workplace issues of existing employees as well as

entry level positions.

Senior Level Positions

The population of individuals in senior level positions is shown in figure 42. The pay

plans include executive service (ES), intelligence executives (IE), intelligence professionals

(IP), science and technology positions (ST), and senior level positions (SL). No applicant

pool analysis is provided because the data was not available. There is a common

assumption that the feeder pool into these positions is created by GS 14 and 15 positions.

The population of senior executives is small relative to the overall population of the Army.

Although a number of senior executives are appointed from the Army pool of GS 14 and 15

employees, a number of these positions are filled with individuals from outside the Army.

6 STEM; Science, Technology, Engineering, Medical occupational categories

EEOC FORM




Because the applicant pool data is not available, the assumption that the GS 14 and 15

positions provide a substantial feeder pool into these positions cannot be tested.

Even though these positions include occupational series that are normally classified

in other EEOC categories, the basis of comparison is the officials and managers civilian

labor force statistic. The population within each pay plan is depicted in figure 42. The

percentages within each pay plan are shown in figure 43, while the expected population is

shown in figure 44. White men are the largest population within each pay plan, followed by

white women and African-American men. Although the ES positions comprise the largest

group, and is dominated by white men, with the exception of Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander men and women, every EEO group is represented. However, the positions

in the intelligence community (IE and IP) have seven white women and one Hispanic or

Latino man within its 47 positions. As figure 43 indicates, 73% of the positions in pay plan

ES are held by white men, 82% of the positions in IE are held by white men.

Group - FY 10 ES IE IP ST SL Totals Average

White Men 211 9 28 31 3 282 56

White Women 48 2 5 2 0 57 11

African American Men 12 0 0 1 0 13 3


2 0 0 0 0 2 0

Hispanic or Latino Men 2 0 1 2 0 5 1


2 0 0 0 0 2 0

Asian Men 7 0 2 5 0 14 3

Asian Women 2 0 0 1 0 3 1


0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 0 0 1 0


1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Multiracial Men 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Multiracial Women 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Population 289 11 36 42 3 381 76

Figure 42

The distribution of EEO groups by percentage is shown in figure 43 with group average

population and the officials and managers CLF statistic. The overall evaluation is that the

EEOC FORM




population of White men is greater than expected, which impacts the population of other

EEO groups. The largest population is contained in the ES pay plan and population of

African American men exceeds the CLF in pay plans ES and ST. However there are no

African American men in pay plan IE and IP. The population of White and African American

women, Hispanic or Latino s and Asians is less than the CLF in all pay plans.

Group - FY 10 ES IE IP ST SL Totals Average OM CLF

White Men 73.01% 81.82% 77.78% 73.81% 100.00% 74.02% 81.28% 52.10%

White Women 16.61% 18.18% 13.89% 4.76% 0.00% 14.96% 10.69% 30.60%

African American Men 4.15% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 3.41% 1.31% 2.80%

African American Women 0.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 0.14% 3.50%

Hispanic or Latino Men 0.69% 0.00% 2.78% 4.76% 0.00% 1.31% 1.65% 3.30%

Hispanic or Latino Women 0.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 0.14% 2.40%

Asian Men 2.42% 0.00% 5.56% 11.90% 0.00% 3.67% 3.98% 2.10%

Asian Women 0.69% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 0.79% 0.61% 1.30%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.07% 0.20%


0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.07% 0.20%

Multiracial Men 0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.07% 0.70%

Multiracial Women 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%

Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Figure 43

The expected population for each pay plan is shown in figure 44, which are the calculations

of the senior level population when distributed with the CLF. The data indicates that the

expected populations of all EEO groups would be higher if the population was distributed

according the CLF.

Expected ES IE IP ST SL

White Men 151 6 19 22 2

White Women 88 3 11 13 1

African American Men 8 0 1 1 0


10 0 1 1 0

Hispanic or Latino Men 10 0 1 1 0


7 0 1 1 0

EEOC FORM




Expected ES IE IP ST SL

Asian Men 6 0 1 1 0

Asian Women 4 0 0 1 0


0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 0 0

Multiracial Men 2 0 0 0 0

Multiracial Women 1 0 0 0 0

Total Population 288 11 36 42 3

Figure 44

Senior Executive Summary

The population analysis of the senior executive positions is incomplete because the

applicant pool data was not available. Without this information it becomes difficult to

validate the relationship between the feeder groups and senior executive appointments.

The population data indicates that while pay plans ES shows a more diverse demographic,

that the intelligence play plans do not reflect the diversity that the ES pay plans do. This

establishes a trigger to examine the senior level appointment process to include a range of

policies that impact the feeder group developmental process to determine the barriers to a

greater degree of senior level diversification.

Non Appropriated Fund Employees

The population of employees in non foreign national non appropriated fund

positions is shown in figure 45. Many NAF positions mirror the appropriated fund while

supporting basic operations in the US and overseas. Using the general CLF, the expected

population is provided. The large number of employees classified as more than one racial

group is due to the total and global unavailability of self identification capability at various

work sites; this problem is being corrected. The data also indicates net losses in population

in NAF positions, with a net loss of 408 employees.

Group - FY 10 FY 10 FY 09 Change Expected

White Men 1,825 2,118 -293 11,653

White Women 2,393 2,780 -387 10,069

African American Men 820 919 -99 1,434

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 FY 10 FY 09 Change Expected

African American Women 1,644 1,853 -209 1,703

Hispanic or Latino Men 314 350 -36 1,852

Hispanic or Latino Women 619 693 -74 1,345

Asian Men 185 202 -17 568

Asian Women 474 515 -41 508


44 53 -9 30


83 89 -6 30


17 19 -2 90


23 31 -8 90

Multiracial Men 7,136 6,826 310 239

Multiracial Women 14,302 13,023 1,279 239

Total Population 29,879 29,471 -408 29,849

Figure 45

The data in figure 46 depicts the population percentage distribution with the

general CLF. The NAF population is dominated by White men and women, African

American men and women, followed by Hispanic or Latino men and women. The data for

NAF does not indicate any Army wide triggers.

Group - FY 10 General CLF

White Men 6.11% 39.00%

White Women 8.01% 33.70%

African American Men 2.74% 4.80%


5.50% 5.70%

Hispanic or Latino Men 1.05% 6.20%


2.07% 4.50%

Asian Men 0.62% 1.90%

Asian Women 1.59% 1.70%


0.15% 0.10%


0.28% 0.10%


0.06% 0.30%


0.08% 0.30%

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 General CLF

Multiracial Men 23.88% 0.80%

Multiracial Women 47.87% 0.80%

Total Population 100.00%

Figure 46

Educational Summary

The data summarizing the Army workforce by education is provided to demonstrate

the formal education EEO groups bring to their workplace experience. The data in figure

47 is the demographic distribution of Army employees who have one or more years of

formal college education when aligned with the total population of the individual EEO

group. The majority of employees with degrees ranging from bachelors degree to doctorate

degrees are White men followed by White women. As the data in figure 48 indicates, White

men are 45% of the total Army population and represent nearly 49% o those with a degree,

followed by White women, African Americans, and Hispanic or Latino s; at the doctorate

level White men and women hold more doctorate degrees, followed by Asians and African

Americans.

Group - FY 10

Population by degree

Total Employee Population

With 1+Yrs Of College

Bachelors Degree

Masters Degree

Doctorate Professional Degree

White Men 117,344 67,621 31,076 15,842 3,217 650

White Women 61,600 35,571 15,338 7,418 1,339 328

Black Men 21,930 10,562 4,267 2,150 146 58

Black Women 24,125 13,128 5,306 2,703 165 56

Hispanic or Latino Men 9,045 4,200 1,723 773 68 24

Hispanic or Latino Women 5,006 2,518 1,026 402 25 14

Asian Men 5,717 4,380 2,172 1,132 407 40

Asian Women 4,687 3,288 1,523 733 245 48


719 298 114 48 9 4


635 308 109 56 5 2


1,524 741 271 152 22 9


962 486 183 78 4 2

Multiracial Men 4,140 2,500 1,102 556 63 14

Multiracial Women 3,113 1,923 829 367 64 11

Total Population 260,547 147,524 65,039 32,410 5,779 1,260

Figure 47

EEOC FORM




White men and women dominate the population of those with professional degrees

followed by African Americans and Asians as shown in figure 48.

Group - FY 10

Population by degree

Pop Percent

Percent With

Degree

With 1+Yrs Of College

Bachelors Degree

Masters Degree


White Men 45.04% 48.60% 45.84% 47.78% 48.88% 55.67% 51.59%

White Women 23.64% 23.37% 24.11% 23.58% 22.89% 23.17% 26.03%

African American Men 8.42% 6.34% 7.16% 6.56% 6.63% 2.53% 4.60%

African American Women 9.26% 7.88% 8.90% 8.16% 8.34% 2.86% 4.44%

Hispanic or Latino Men 3.47% 2.48% 2.85% 2.65% 2.39% 1.18% 1.90%


1.92% 1.40% 1.71% 1.58% 1.24% 0.43% 1.11%

Asian Men 2.19% 3.59% 2.97% 3.34% 3.49% 7.04% 3.17%

Asian Women 1.80% 2.44% 2.23% 2.34% 2.26% 4.24% 3.81%


0.28% 0.17% 0.20% 0.18% 0.15% 0.16% 0.32%


0.24% 0.16% 0.21% 0.17% 0.17% 0.09% 0.16%


0.58% 0.43% 0.50% 0.42% 0.47% 0.38% 0.71%


0.37% 0.26% 0.33% 0.28% 0.24% 0.07% 0.16%

Multiracial Men 1.59% 1.66% 1.69% 1.69% 1.72% 1.09% 1.11%

Multiracial Women 1.19% 1.22% 1.30% 1.27% 1.13% 1.11% 0.87%

Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Figure 48

The information in figure 49 indicates that within each educational level for each

EEO group the proportion of degrees held by each group tends to be higher than their

overall workforce percentage. Of the degrees held by White men, 61% are bachelor’s

degrees, 31% are master’s degrees and 6% are at the doctoral level. A similar trend is

evident for White women and African Americans. The proportion of doctorate degrees for

African American and Hispanic or Latino men and women tends to drop off at 2% while the

portion of doctorate degrees increases significantly for Asian men and women.

EEOC FORM




Group - FY 10 College

degrees within EEO

groups

Percent With

Degree

Bachelors Degree

Masters Degree


White Men 48.60% 61.19% 31.19% 6.33% 1.28%

White Women 23.37% 62.80% 30.37% 5.48% 1.34%



7.88% 64.47% 32.84% 2.00% 0.68%



1.40% 69.94% 27.40% 1.70% 0.95%

Asian Men 3.59% 57.90% 30.18% 10.85% 1.07%

Asian Women 2.44% 59.75% 28.76% 9.61% 1.88%


0.17% 65.14% 27.43% 5.14% 2.29%


0.16% 63.37% 32.56% 2.91% 1.16%


0.43% 59.69% 33.48% 4.85% 1.98%


0.26% 68.54% 29.21% 1.50% 0.75%

Multiracial Men 1.66% 63.52% 32.05% 3.63% 0.81%



Figure 49

Educational Summary

The educational data indicates that with the exception of doctoral degrees, the

educational attainment by EEO groups tend to cluster in patterns that emulate their

population percentages. This may be due to the educational requirements for professional

positions or the Army culture that views formal education as a professional additive. Even

though OPM guidelines do not require formal education in the majority of occupational

series, the percentage of Army employees with formal degrees closes matches their

percentage in the overall population. This does not create any triggers but indicates that

data analysis of identified triggers should examine the role formal education plays in the

applicant selection process for pay grades 12 through 15.

EEOC FORM




Individuals with Disabilities (IWD) Program

The Army’s IWD program continues to evolve to support civilian employees as well

as service members. A number of command activities illustrate the outreach efforts

undertaken by various commands. One of the areas of interest is the development of

enterprise software to track provision of reasonable accommodations for employees. This

will provide greater visibility to the Army’s effort to support individuals with disabilities.

The requirement development was begun during this reporting period. In addition, the

development of online training modules for EEO careerists and the general workforce are

being planned. The software development is moving through the secondary requirements

phase towards design and prototype testing.

The Army effort to support the employment of persons with disabilities achieved

mixed results. The proportion of persons with disabilities increased as the Army

population increased. The DOD goal that 9% the Army population should include persons

with disabilities was met, but the EEOC guideline of 2% for persons with targeted

disabilities was not met as shown in figure 50. Absent a validated CLF for persons with

disabilities, it is difficult to judge whether or not Army has been able to reach out to the

available population of persons with disabilities.

Group - FY 10 FY 09 FY 10 Change

No Disability 254,264 268,444 14,180

Total Disability 26,114 27,611 1,497

Targeted Disabilities 1,832 1,880 48

Totals 280,378 296,055 15,677

Change

No Disability 90.69% 90.67% -5.28%

Total Disability 9.31% 9.33% 5.42%

Targeted Disabilities 0.65% 0.64% 2.55%

Figure 50

The data in figure 51 shows the population of persons with disabilities and includes

the population of persons with targeted disabilities distributed in the EEOC Fed9

Categories. The majority of persons with disabilities work in positions classified as

professionals, officials and managers and administrative support workers, followed by

craft workers.

EEOC FORM




Occupational Groups Total Detail by Disability Status

(05) No Disability

(01) Not Identified

(06 - 94) Disability

Targeted Disability

Officials and Managers # 68,648 61,234 1,336 6,078 391

Professionals # 90,141 82,276 1,611 6,254 495

Technicians # 18,733 16,788 376 1,569 136

Sales Workers # 75 69 0 6 0


# 38,569 33,789 715 4,065 461

Craft Workers # 25,979 23,715 438 1,826 168

Operatives # 11,992 10,793 225 974 83

Laborers and Helpers # 1,022 904 13 105 30

Service Workers # 11,024 10,070 198 756 47

Total # 266,183 239,638 4,912 21,633 1,811

Figure 51

The date in figure 52 shows the percentage of individuals with disabilities and that the

majority of individuals with targeted disabilities work on positions classified as

professionals, officials and managers and administrative support workers.

Occupational Groups (05) No Disability

(01) Not Identified


Targeted Disability

Officials and Managers % 25.78% 25.55% 27.19% 28.09% 21.59%

Professionals % 33.86% 34.33% 32.79% 28.90% 27.33%

Technicians % 7.03% 7.00% 7.65% 7.25% 7.50%

Sales Workers % 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%


% 14.48% 14.10% 14.55% 18.79% 25.45%

Craft Workers % 9.75% 9.89% 8.91% 8.44% 9.27%

Operatives % 4.50% 4.50% 4.58% 4.50% 4.58%

Laborers and Helpers % 0.38% 0.37% 0.26% 0.48% 1.65%

Service Workers % 4.14% 4.20% 4.03% 3.49% 2.59%

Total % 100.00%

100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

100.00%

Figure 52

In the absence of a CLF for persons with disabilities, the federal high7 percentage

issued by EEOC is the basis of comparison to determine what the agency distribution for

7 http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/qanda_md715.cfm The participation rate of the agency (with

500 or more permanent employees) which had the greatest participation rate of employees with targeted disabilities during the prior fiscal year.

http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/qanda_md715.cfm

EEOC FORM




persons with targeted disabilities should approximate. Within the Fed9 categories, only

laborers and helpers meet or exceed the EEOC standard as shown in figure 53.

Occupational Groups (05) No Disability

(01) Not Identified


Targeted Disability

2.16%

Officials and Managers % 89.19% 1.94% 8.85% 0.570%

Professionals % 91.27% 1.78% 6.93% 0.549%

Technicians % 89.61% 2.00% 8.37% 0.726%

Sales Workers % 92.00% 0.00% 8.00% 0.000%

Administrative Support Workers % 87.60% 1.85% 10.53% 1.195%

Craft Workers % 91.28% 1.68% 7.02% 0.647%

Operatives % 90.00% 1.87% 8.12% 0.692%

Laborers and Helpers % 88.45% 1.27% 10.27% 2.935%

Service Workers % 91.34% 1.79% 6.85% 0.426%

Total % 90.03% 1.85% 8.13% 0.680%

Figure 53

The applicant pool data for persons with disabilities is shown in figure 54. The data

indicates that of the total ratio of applicants, almost 10% were persons with disabilities but

only .06% of the applicants were persons with targeted disabilities. The EEOC guidelines

for persons with targeted disabilities were met.

Group - FY 10 Persons with Disabilities

Apply Referred Selected

No Disability 1,823,401 435,625 19,842

Not Identified 46,442 12,100 428

With Disability 203,505 52,785 1,830

Total Disability 249,947 64,885 2,258

Targeted 12,085 2,933 109

Total 2,073,348 500,510 22,100

Percentages Apply Referred Selected

No Disability 87.9% 87.0% 89.8%

Not Identified 2.2% 2.4% 1.9%

With Disability 9.8% 10.5% 8.3%

Total Disability 12.1% 13.0% 10.2%

Targeted 4.8% 4.5% 4.8%

Figure 54

EEOC FORM




The data in figure 55 shows the distributions of the applicant pool based on the DOD

and EEOC goals for persons with disabilities. The application of the DOD 9% goal for

persons with disabilities would generate an expected result of 186k applicants having

disabilities, the actual number of applicants with disabilities was 250k as shown in figure

57; therefore the DOD goal was met. The number expected to be referred was 45k and the

Army’s actual number referred was almost 65k, therefore the goal was met. The number

expected to be selected was 1,989, and the actual number selected in Army was 2,258;

therefore the goal was met.

The evaluation of the goals accomplished by the Army for applicants with targeted

disabilities indicates that the EEOC goal was met, as shown in figure 58. The EEOC goal is

2%, which meant that the expected number of applicants with targeted disabilities is 5k,

the actual number of Army applicants with targeted disabilities just over 12k; the Army

goal for applicants was met. The expected number of persons referred was 1.3k, the actual

number referred was 2.9k; the Army goal was met. The goal for selections generated an

expectation that 45 persons would have been selected and the Army selected 109; the

selection goal was met.

Goals Expected to Apply

Expected to be

Referred

Expected to be

Selected

9.0% 186,601 45,046 1,989

Evaluation Met Met Met

2.0% 4,999 1,298 45

Evaluation Met Met Met

Figure 55

The population of persons with disabilities is multidimensional. The data in figure

56 shows the distribution of persons with disabilities by Race and Ethnicity Indicators

origin (RNO). There is no CLF for this data and no expected numbers were calculated. The

data shows that White men and women, followed by African American Men were the

largest population of persons with disabilities and targeted disabilities. This is expected

since these EEO groups are also the largest employee population.

Group - FY 10 Persons with Disability by RNO

No Disability

Not Identified

With Disability

Targeted Total Disabled

White Men 120,161 2,341 10,365 858 12,706

White Women 63,081 899 4,050 477 4,949

African American Men 22,391 512 2,333 125 2,845

African American Women 24,567 379 1,801 119 2,180

EEOC FORM





No Disability

Not Identified

With Disability


Hispanic or Latino Men 9,097 176 862 71 1,038


5,059 78 368 24 446

Asian Men 5,785 105 342 23 447

Asian Women 4,736 75 221 30 296


728 20 90 3 110


648 12 43 2 55


1,544 52 210 14 262


978 18 83 7 101

Multiracial Men 4,211 170 581 40 751

Multiracial Women 3,197 75 284 18 359

Total Population 266,183 4,912 21,633 1,811 26,545

Men 163,917 3,376 14,783 1,134 18,159

Women 102,266 1,536 6,850 677 8,386

Figure 56

The data in figure 57 shows the percentage distribution of persons with disabilities by

RNO. The population of persons with disabilities is closely correlated to the individual

populations of each RNO group. However, the EEOC goal of 2% was not met.


No Disability

Not Identified

With Disability


White Men 45.14% 47.66% 47.91% 47.38% 47.87%

White Women 23.70% 18.30% 18.72% 26.34% 18.64%


African American Women 9.23% 7.72% 8.33% 6.57% 8.21%



1.90% 1.59% 1.70% 1.33% 1.68%

Asian Men 2.17% 2.14% 1.58% 1.27% 1.68%

Asian Women 1.78% 1.53% 1.02% 1.66% 1.12%


0.27% 0.41% 0.42% 0.17% 0.41%


0.24% 0.24% 0.20% 0.11% 0.21%

American Indian or Alaska Native and Alaskan Native Men

0.58% 1.06% 0.97% 0.77% 0.99%

American Indian or Alaska 0.37% 0.37% 0.38% 0.39% 0.38%

EEOC FORM





No Disability

Not Identified

With Disability


Native and Alaskan Native Women Multiracial Men 1.58% 3.46% 2.69% 2.21% 2.83%



Total with Disability 0.68% 9.97%

Men 61.58% 68.73% 68.34% 62.62% 68.41%

Women 38.42% 31.27% 31.66% 37.38% 31.59%

0.66% 8.20%

Figure 57

A major initiative in the Army’s persons with disabilities program is the

management of the efforts to support disabled veterans not only in employment efforts, but

as part of the overarching program for persons with disabilities. The population of veterans

is predictably large based on the Army mission. The data in figure 58 shows that slightly

more than 51% of Army veterans are white men followed by White women and African

American men and women.

Group - FY 10 Veterans Status

Veterans Percentage

30%DAV 30%Perc Population Percent

White Men 79,268 50.88% 12,552 50.08% 45.04%

White Women 25,763 16.53% 2,274 9.07% 23.64%

African American Men 18,086 11.61% 4,849 19.34% 8.42%

African American Women 12,942 8.31% 2,193 8.75% 9.26%

Hispanic or Latino Men 6,625 4.25% 1,116 4.45% 3.47%

Hispanic or Latino Women 2,059 1.32% 230 0.92% 1.92%

Asian Men 3,169 2.03% 365 1.46% 2.19%

Asian Women 1,367 0.88% 105 0.42% 1.80%


540 0.35% 134 0.53% 0.28%


232 0.15% 29 0.12% 0.24%


1,066 0.68% 202 0.81% 0.58%


429 0.28% 44 0.18% 0.37%

Multiracial Men 2,992 1.92% 754 3.01% 1.59%

Multiracial Women 1,271 0.82% 219 0.87% 1.19%

Total Population 155,809 100.00% 25,066 100.00% 100.00%

Figure 58

EEOC FORM




The applicant pool data for veterans who have a 30% of more compensated

disability is shown in figure 59. There is no CLF for this category of data but the majority of

applications received from veterans were received from veterans who are White men

followed by African American men and women, and from White women. Hispanic or Latino

men and women are the next largest group of applicants although the percentage of

Hispanic or Latino women in the selection process is low. There is no CLF for veterans and

therefore expected numbers were not calculated.

Group - FY 10 - 30% DAV Applied Percent Referred Referred Selected Selected

White Men 115,450 39.23% 31,995 41.62% 1518 48.50%

White Women 29,610 10.06% 7,101 9.24% 354 11.31%

African American Men 72,081 24.50% 18,075 23.51% 522 16.68%

African American Women 38,022 12.92% 9,223 12.00% 298 9.52%

Hispanic or Latino Men 12,273 4.17% 3,165 4.12% 104 3.32%

Hispanic or Latino Women 2,409 0.82% 676 0.88% 33 1.05%

Asian Men 3,884 1.32% 1,154 1.50% 48 1.53%

Asian Women 1,148 0.39% 251 0.33% 17 0.54%


1,968 0.67% 605 0.79% 25 0.80%


413 0.14% 130 0.17% 3 0.10%


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Multiracial Men 12,387 4.21% 3,345 4.35% 159 5.08%

Multiracial Women 4,620 1.57% 1,146 1.49% 49 1.57%

Total Population 294,265 100.00% 76,866 100.00% 3130 100.00%

Figure 59

EEOC FORM




Appendix D

Command Summaries

The following information provides a sampling of the major accomplishments

provided by Army commands.

HQ Army Material Command (AMC)

Conducted college recruitment with 25 colleges in FY 10. Some of the colleges

visited were Alabama A&M, University of Alabama at Huntsville, UAB, Auburn,

University of Alabama, Mississippi State, and University of Mississippi.

Joint Munitions Command will have thirty-eight interns at thirteen locations

throughout the JMC/ASC beginning in Jan 2011; assignments are 10 to 15 weeks in

duration. The MCRP Team is continuing to refine the FY11 program; one goal is for

Rock Island to host a Diversity Workshop with all participating minority

institutions. For FY10, 67 students participated in the spring and summer programs.

In FY10, there were two awards to AAMU Research Institute (HBCU), and Chicago

State University (MI) with a total dollar value of $144,995.

The recruitment team attended events at various minority universities including

Delaware State, Virginia State, Howard University, Morgan State, Maryland Eastern

Shore, and North Carolina A&T. In addition, the team participated in specific

diversity-focused events to include the 9th Annual Latino Job Fair held in

Philadelphia, PA, the University of Virginia’s Diversity Job Fair, the Employment

Guide Diversity Job Fair held in Baltimore, MD, and the Diversity Job Fair held in

College Park, MD. The recruitment team also participated in job fairs aimed at

recruiting transitioning military veterans and more experienced, mid to senior level

job candidates through the Wounded Warrior Program, the VA Sponsored Veterans’

Job Fair, and company sponsored events such as Corporate Grey, Military Stars,

Recruit Military, and Tech Expo, held throughout Maryland, Pennsylvania, and

Virginia. The team also took part in job fairs held at Fort Meade, MD, Fort Dix, NJ,

and a West Point Job Fair held in Arlington, VA.

Tobyhanna Army Depot (TYAD) EEO Office arranged for a shadow program for 27

high school students from the Monroe Career and Technical Institute (MCTI). MCTI

is one of the most diverse schools in the local community, and their students

shadowed a variety of our employees, to include employees with positions in

carpentry; Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC); automotive;

EEOC FORM




Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS); security; sheet metal; machine

shop; welding; information technology; and electronics. In order to educate Monroe

County students about TYAD, TYAD arranged three visits to two Monroe County

high schools (Stroudsburg and East Stroudsburg South). The discussion panel

consisted of engineer and electronic employees who discussed the value of

absorbing the data being taught in the classroom. They put emphasis on the

benefits of paying careful attention during classroom instructions and its related job

benefits. TYAD also spoke about why TYAD is a great place to work and about the

Student Career Experience Program (SCEP).

RDECOM signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)

with Morgan State University on 10 May 2010. The CRADA formalizes a partnership

between RDECOM and the university to work on research projects through school

laboratories, personnel, facilities, equipment and other resources. The partnership

reinforces the command’s expanding teamwork between Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland and local universities.

HQ TACOM actively pursues relations with several minority institutions:

Coordinated job fairs with CPAC, ILSC, TACOM Contracting (TCC), and TARDEC at

Wilberforce, Central State, Texas-San Antonio. Visited the Michigan and Michigan

State Universities career services in an effort to build a partner and gain access to

student minority clubs/organizations.

On 25 August 2010, the HQ TACOM EEO Office hosted a visit from Wilberforce

University, Wilberforce, Ohio. Wilberforce is historically Black university near the

metropolitan Dayton, Ohio area. The visit consisted of briefs from the Integrated

Logistics Service Center (ILSC), TACOM Contracting Command (TCC), G-1, Civilian

Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC) followed by a tour of TARDEC facilities and brief

in the afternoon. The attendees from Wilberforce were the Senior Dean, Business &

Engineering; Career Services Director; and other principal staff from the Business

and Engineering Department, Wilberforce, OH.

Anniston Army Depot has partnered with local schools in the Mentoring Program

for many years; the participation has increased through the years to include

sponsoring mentors at eighteen (18) schools in four (4) school systems: Oxford City

Schools, Anniston City Schools, Calhoun County Schools and Gadsden City Schools.

ANAD currently has a roster of 80 mentors. The mentoring program assists at-risk

EEOC FORM




students in academics, emotional conflicts, self-concept, and critical thinking skills.

Students with language and cultural barriers are included in those considered at-

risk.

HQ USA EUROPE

A USAREUR European Diversity Council is being re-established to coordinate

installation programs and activities that enhance development and employment;

improve and promote training of special emphasis program managers; serve as an

informal liaison and provide online training that enhances cultural awareness; serve

as a networking and sharing resource to communicate and exchange information

about programs, advancement, education, and training to further goals of

establishing a model EEO program. Information about employment for disabled

veterans will be shared and posted on the Council’s webpage for dissemination at

installations across Europe.

HQ INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND

IMCOM is committed to taking care of people as evidenced by numerous efforts to

keep the workforce informed on major initiatives such as Base Realignment and

Closure (BRAC), Joint Basing and Transformation. This commitment is further

demonstrated by routine strategic communication to the workforce via various

social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Other communication vehicles

include the D6 Sends Articles, Town Hall and the AUSA Installation Management

Campaign Plan Roll-out Conference.

HQ IMCOM continues its efforts to develop and deploy the web-based Equal

Employment Opportunity Self Assessment Tool (EEOSAT) enterprise wide in FY

2010. EEOSAT creates efficiencies and serves to measure the effectiveness of EEO

programs at the garrisons. This tool gives the operating EEO Office control at the

first stage of the evaluation process to identify program strengths and/or

weaknesses and helps to develop strategies for improvement. The EEOSAT, via

three distinct survey Modules (employee, manager/supervisor, and EEO staff)

collects information from all major program areas for an accurate picture of the

total EEO operation. This approach provides a 360 degree snapshot of the EEO

program at that particular point in time. Once results are evaluated, the HQ IMCOM

staff in conjunction with the Garrison staff prepares an action plan to address non-

compliance issues identified in the assessment.

EEOC FORM




Training via webcast was available to all IMCOM EEO Disability Program Managers

by EEOC and OPM trainers on Oct. 26, 2010. The training was entitled, “How To

Comply With The Executive Order 13548 And Actually Increase Federal

Employment Of Individuals With Disabilities At Your Agency.” The training

provided Disability Program Managers with relevant, practical and useful

information.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 teleconference

training has been held at numerous IMCOM installations during FY 2010. The

training is targeted for EEO Managers, Labor Counselors, and Personnelists and is

eligible for 1.5 hours of Continuing Legal Education credit. Fort Bragg’s EEO office

serves as an example; providing training to 179 managers and supervisors on the

Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008; an Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge facilitated the training and discussed

amendments to the ADA and responsibilities of managers and supervisors under the

law.

The Fellows Program is a five-year program which was established to create future

multi-functional leaders for the Army. During the course of the program, Fellows

earn master’s degrees and begin a series of on-the-job training assignments in

which they learn two career programs. Fellows are on ACTEDS rolls and funding for

the first two years of training and thereafter are transferred to HQ IMCOM rolls for

the duration of their training prior to final placement. IMCOM currently employs 8

Fellows (3 Fellows from Class 6 graduating in July 2010; 5 Fellows from Class 7

graduating in July 2011). IMCOM gained 4 Fellows in July 2009 (Class 8 graduating

in July 2012) and due to a program change, 7 Fellows in August (Class 9 graduating

in July 2013).

Newly established EEO Program: implementation of the FMWRC and AEC EEO

Program that exclusively serviced FMWRC and AEC. Both developed Mid Point MD

715 Reports as their baseline. The FMWRC and AEC EEO team hit the ground

running to ensure sexual harassment and EEO training was conducted for all of the

AFRC employees and that Directors and leaders receive staff assistance visits when

they are made aware of potential trends or issues negatively affecting the

organization.

EEOC FORM




In the West Region, USAG Carson chartered an EEO Council whose purpose is to

have regular, proactive and effective dialogue with senior leaders concerning EEO

and diversity issues impacting the workforce.

During FY 2010, the European EEO Regional Director continued to emphasize that

garrisons must provide consistent EEO services to their customers and ensure

timely complaint processing. As a result of this focus the Region’s overall EEO

performance rating for FY 2010 was green. Workforce Recruitment Program

(WRP): Eight college students were placed throughout the Europe Region during the

FY 2010 WRP season. The WRP student employed at the USAG Heidelberg EEO

Office was instrumental in the production of several marketing tools to advertise the

program including a “WRP Supervisor Information Guide.”

The Fort Carson Employment Services Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Representative is fully immersed in assisting the Washington based Veterans

Employment Services Team in the strategic planning and follow-on execution in

support of the Presidential Executive Order aimed at hiring more Veterans to work

in the federal government. Through the efforts of the Fort Carson OPM

Representative in collaboration with the Wounded Warrior Occupational Therapist

and the Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP) the Operation Warfighter

Program in Colorado stood up in January 2010. Combined with FY09 and now, a

total of 43 have been hired with 12 potential hires.

Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP): In February 2010, the HQ IMCOM SEPM

served as a WRP Recruiter interviewing numerous college students for summer

employment. For the summer of FY 2010, fifteen placements have been made; in

the Southeast Region: 2 at Fort Benning and 2 at Fort Bragg. In the North East

Region, a WRP student was selected for placement at the US Army Garrison, Rock

Island Arsenal, one at Fort Monroe and one at Fort Belvoir. In the Korea Region,

USAG Humphreys acquired 2 new college student employees and USAG Yongsan

acquired one new college student through WRP. In the Europe Region, three WRP

students were selected for placement at the US Army Garrison, Ansbach. Finally, in

the West Region, one WRP placement was made at Fort Bliss and on at Presidio of

Monterey

SPACE MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND

EEO collaborated with the G1 office in developing a recruitment schedule for FY

2010 to visit minority institutions for recruiting entry level positions. Command

management representatives visited Alabama A&M University (AAMU), a local

EEOC FORM




Historically Black College/University (HBCU), to attend a career fair for recruiting

students under the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP). Those

organizations requiring resumes from minority institutions were assisted by the G1

office through posting of student/intern vacancies on electronic bulletin boards at

various minority universities.

Assisted some organizations in collecting resumes through networking with deans

of engineering schools at HBCUs. During FY 2010, the MCRP manager visited an

HBCU, Jackson State University in Mississippi, and met with university placement

office officials to review their career center, and inform them about jobs within

USASMDC/ARSTRAT. Resumes were also collected for vacant entry level

engineering positions and disseminated to supervisors with entry level positions.

The command continues to hire/recruit students under the SCEP appointing

authority and Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP). During FY 2010, there were a

total of 4 students recruited and hired under SCEP and FCIP appointments from

HBCUs. Seven students were hired under the SCEP in FY 2010 which was a

significant increase over the one hire in FY 2009.

The command participated in the employment of students under the STEP in FY

2010 by hiring 3 students. The STEP workforce for FY 2010, consisting of FY 10

gains and prior students, was a total of 14 students. The STEP student workforce

has historically served as a source for converting students to the SCEP for future

employment with the command.

RESERVE COMMAND

Conducted 20 Staff Assistance Visits (SAV) in FY10 and provided training at 154

different training forums in 58 different locations across the United States and

Puerto Rico. Over 5,700 employees received some form of in-person EEO training; a

72% increase from FY09. A total of 3,446 employees received in-person sexual

harassment training by a member of the EEO Staff, which amounts to approximately

27% of the total workforce. Because of the transition of distance learning

courseware from the Virtual University to the Army Learning Management System

(ALMS), there was a loss in data on the number of employees who completed on-

line sexual harassment training in FY10. More than a quarter of employees

EEOC FORM




completed No FEAR Act training in FY10. No FEAR Act training was provided in-

person to 472 employees and an additional 2,950 employees completed the course

on-line. This represents a 40% increase from FY09. In total, 48% of the workforce

has completed this bi-annual training in a timely fashion.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

Community Outreach: Members of USASOC's EEO staff attended the Sanderson

High School 5th Annual Hispanic or Latino Career Fair, Raleigh, NC, to provide

employment information to students, faculty, and members of the Hispanic or

Latino community. The staff set up an informational display and shared

information about federal employment and career opportunities to include

information regarding USASOC's Student Educational Employment Program (SEEP).

Approximately 200 students ranging from ninth to twelfth grades participated in

the fair. Many students were interested in the Call to Serve initiative and the fact

that they could serve their country as civilians in the federal government. The Call

to Serve initiative is aimed at highlighting the importance of recruiting and

maintaining a well-qualified, diverse civil service workforce.

Minority College Relations Program (MCRP): USASOC has cooperative educational

employment agreements with two Historically Black Colleges and Universities

(HBCUs), Fayetteville State University in Fayetteville, NC and Savannah State

University in Savannah, GA. An agreement is being finalized with North Carolina

A&T State University in Greensboro, to increase the number of participating HBCUs

to three. In FY 10, 54 college students participated in the MCRP.