The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency  
Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation (17-AUG-06,		 
GAO-06-832).							 
                                                                 
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce has historically
been lower than in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Understanding 
factors affecting representation is important to developing and  
maintaining a high-quality and inclusive workforce. In this	 
report, GAO identifies and analyzes factors affecting Hispanic	 
representation in the federal workforce, examines oversight roles
of EEOC and OPM, and provides illustrations of selected federal  
agencies' efforts with respect to Hispanic representation. GAO	 
constructed a multivariate logistic regression model, with advice
from experts, to determine how factors affected the likelihood of
Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal versus 	 
nonfederal workforce. GAO's analyses are not intended to and do  
not show the existence or absence of discrimination in the	 
federal workforce.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-832 					        
    ACCNO:   A58881						        
  TITLE:     The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance 
Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation		 
     DATE:   08/17/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Employment assistance programs			 
	     Employment of minorities				 
	     Employment opportunities				 
	     Federal agencies					 
	     Federal employees					 
	     Higher education					 
	     Hispanics						 
	     Human capital					 
	     Labor statistics					 
	     Minority education 				 
	     Comparative analysis				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-832

     

     * Report to Congressional Requesters
          * August 2006
     * THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
          * Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to
            Hispanic Representation
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
          * Citizenship and Education Had the Largest Effect on Hispanic
            Representation in the Federal Workforce
               * Effect of Citizenship
               * Effect of Education
          * EEOC and OPM Have Taken Steps in Their Oversight Roles to Address
            Hispanic Representation
               * EEOC and OPM Reports on the Federal Workforce
               * EEOC and OPM Guidance on Workforce Analyses
               * OPM Assistance to Agencies
                    * Governmentwide Outreach and Recruitment Initiatives
                    * Student Employment Programs
                    * Leading Practices
                    * Training and Development
          * Agencies Take Steps to Recruit and Develop Hispanics in the
            Federal Workforce
               * Steps Agencies Have Taken
                    * Outreach to the Hispanic Community
                    * Use of Student Hiring Authorities
                    * Career Development Programs
                    * Educational Assistance Programs
               * Agencies Identify Lessons- learned in Addressing Hispanic
                 Representation
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
          * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
     * Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Affecting Hispanic
       Representation in the Federal Workforce
          * Data Sets Used
          * Methodology
          * The Difference between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood
            of Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal
            Workforce
          * The Effect of Citizenship on the Difference between Hispanics'
            and Non- Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal
            Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce
          * Effect of Remaining Factors among Citizens on the Difference
            between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in
            the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce
          * Effect of All Factors Considered Simultaneously on the Difference
            between Hispanics' and Non- Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment
            in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce
          * Additional Explanatory Analyses
          * Limitations
     * Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. Citizens and Nationals
     * Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade and Federal Occupation
     * Comments from the Department of Commerce
     * Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2006

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic
Representation

Contents

Tables

Figures

Abbreviations

August 17, 2006Letter

Congressional Requesters

Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the Civilian Labor Force
(CLF),1 with their representation having increased from 8.5 percent in
1990 to 12.6 percent in 2005. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have reported that
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce has also increased, but
remains lower in the federal workforce than in the CLF. For 2005, OPM
reported that Hispanics were 7.4 percent of the federal workforce, up from
5.3 percent in 1990.2

Previous studies have identified factors that can affect Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce but generally did not assess the
extent to which these factors influence representation. Understanding how
the factors affect Hispanic representation in the federal workforce is
important to guiding agency efforts, under the leadership of OPM and EEOC,
to develop approaches to recruit, develop, and retain a high-quality
workforce that uses the talents of individuals from all segments of
society. In this report, prepared in response to your request, we (1)
identify and analyze the factors that are affecting Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce, (2) examine the steps that EEOC
and OPM, in their oversight roles, are taking related to Hispanic
representation, and (3) illustrate the efforts within selected federal
agencies related to Hispanic representation. We will also be providing
additional data on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce under
separate cover.

In accomplishing our objectives, we interviewed federal agency officials
and representatives from Hispanic-serving organizations and reviewed
previous studies to identify factors that can affect Hispanic
representation. To determine the effect of these factors on Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce, we constructed a multivariate
logistic regression model

using 2000 Decennial Census data.3 Logistic regression analysis is a very
common and widely accepted approach to analyze outcomes that have two
possibilities (such as being in the federal vs. nonfederal workforce) when
the interest is in determining the net effects of multiple factors that
may be related to one another. We used the model to measure the extent to
which the identified factors that could be reliably measured affected the
likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal workforce,
as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. In developing the model, we
obtained the opinions of experts identified by the National Academy of
Sciences as well as officials from EEOC, OPM, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and the Census Bureau. We also obtained the experts' views on the
preliminary results of our analyses. Our analyses are not intended to and
do not show either the existence or absence of discrimination against
Hispanics or any other group in the federal workforce. Our analyses are at
an aggregate level encompassing all occupations governmentwide and do not
reflect factors that affect representation within individual agencies,
individual occupations, different geographic areas, or any other subsets
of the federal government.

To examine the steps that EEOC and OPM have taken in their oversight of
Hispanic representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and
policies relating to Hispanic representation in the federal workforce;
interviewed EEOC and OPM officials; reviewed relevant documents; and
analyzed data on Hispanic representation governmentwide.

To illustrate the efforts related to Hispanic representation within
federal agencies, we selected five agencies-the U.S. Air Force (USAF),
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Small Business
Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration
(SSA)-representing different employee populations, geographic locations,
and concentrations of jobs by grade level and occupational categories. We
interviewed representatives from the selected agencies and reviewed
relevant documents. We also reviewed documents provided by and spoke with
officials from the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for
Hispanic Americans. We conducted our work from October 2004 to June 2006
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The
details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are in appendix I.

Results in Brief

U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of
the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce. Our statistical
model showed that after accounting for citizenship, Hispanics were nearly
as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce,
relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF excluding
federal employees). Citizenship is required for most federal employment
and, in 2005, 99.7 percent of executive branch employees were U.S.
citizens or nationals. In addition, a greater proportion of federal
occupations require higher levels of education than in the CLF. Our
statistical model showed that, as a result, when we compared citizens with
similar levels of education, Hispanics were 16 percent or 1.16 times more
likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce than in
the nonfederal workforce. Other factors in our model, including age,
gender, race, veteran's status, English proficiency, and geography (state
where employed), had a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood
of Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce. When all factors
were considered, our analyses showed that Hispanic citizens were 24
percent or 1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanic citizens to be
employed in the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Our
analyses did not account for differences across and within individual
agencies, by grade and pay level, occupational category, individual
occupation, geographic location, or any other subset of the federal
workforce.

In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM compare and report
representation levels overall and in subsets of the federal workforce and
require that agencies conduct analyses of their own workforces. EEOC, for
example, requires that agencies compare representation of racial, ethnic,
and gender groups in major occupations to representation in similar
occupations in the CLF. Where these analyses identify differences in
representation, EEOC requires agencies to determine if there are barriers
to participation and, if so, develop strategies to address them. However,
the CLF benchmarks that EEOC, OPM, and agencies use to compare
representation do not differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and
therefore do not identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons
qualified to work for the federal government. Such information can help to
provide a more complete picture of where differences in representation may
exist. OPM provides guidance and resources to assist agencies in
implementing human capital strategies. Through these efforts, OPM has
promoted broad outreach to all segments of society and has promoted
establishing relationships with colleges and universities and the use of
student employment programs as a source of qualified candidates. Analyzing
data on agency use of student employment programs, including conversion
rates of participants to permanent employment, could provide OPM with
valuable information to assist agencies in incorporating student
employment programs into their strategic workforce planning as they seek
to recruit and develop talented employees to support agency missions;
ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and
administrative needs; and achieve a diverse, quality workforce.

The agencies we reviewed used a variety of approaches to address Hispanic
representation at their agencies. These approaches included recruiting at
colleges and universities with large Hispanic populations, publicizing
employment opportunities in Hispanic media, reaching out to Hispanic
communities and Hispanic-serving organizations, and using student
employment, internship, career development, and training programs. For
example, the USAF partnered with vocational-technical schools to develop
aircraft maintenance technicians and NASA staff mentored and tutored
students to encourage careers in science, technology, engineering, and
math.

We recommend that the Chair of EEOC and the Director of OPM take
citizenship into account in their comparisons of federal workforce
representation to the CLF. We also recommend that the Director of OPM
provide additional tools for agencies to assess the effectiveness of
student employment programs, such as conversion rates to permanent
employment by racial/ethnic group.

We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney General,
and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for their review
and comment. DOJ and the Department of Commerce had no comments. In its
written comments, EEOC said it found the report to be a useful addition to
the ongoing examination of Hispanic representation in the federal
workforce and plans to use the report as a resource. EEOC agreed that
citizenship data are important. However, EEOC did not specifically address
our recommendation that it take citizenship into account in its comparison
of federal workforce representation to the CLF. EEOC also said that while
citizenship data are a useful benchmark for broad trending, more refined
analyses are necessary, including analyses of applicant pools and
participation rates for specific occupations. OPM provided minor technical
comments but did not otherwise comment on the report or our
recommendations.

Background

For more than 35 years, the federal government has implemented
authorities-applicable to various demographic groups and some specific to
Hispanics-calling for agencies to ensure equal opportunity in the federal
workplace. EEOC and OPM or its predecessor agency, the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), have leadership roles in furthering these authorities.
Signed in 1969, Executive Order No. 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in
the Federal Government, stated that it is the policy of the U.S.
government to provide equal opportunity in federal employment. Later,
Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which
extended to federal workers the protections of title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. This law requires each
federal department and agency to prepare plans to maintain an affirmative
program of equal employment opportunity and establish training and
education programs. Pursuant to this and other authorities, EEOC
establishes equal employment program standards, monitors federal agencies'
compliance with equal employment opportunity laws and procedures, and
reviews and assesses the effectiveness of agencies' equal employment
programs. EEOC has carried out its responsibilities by issuing regulations
and management directives providing guidance and standards to federal
agencies for establishing and maintaining effective programs of equal
employment opportunity.

The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 established the merit
principles governing employment in the federal workforce. The first merit
principle states:

The CSRA also created the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program
(FEORP) to carry out the government's policy to ensure equal employment
opportunity. The act required OPM to evaluate and oversee agency programs
and issue implementing regulations for the program. These regulations
provide that recruitment processes prepare qualifiable applicants (those
who have the potential but do not presently meet valid qualification
requirements) for job openings through development programs.

Programs specific to Hispanics include the 16-Point Program for
Spanish-Speaking citizens, established in 1970, which outlined steps
agencies should take to ensure equal opportunity in federal employment for
Hispanics. In 1997, OPM implemented the 9-Point Plan calling for agencies
to recruit greater numbers of qualified Hispanic Americans for federal
service and improve their opportunities for management and senior
executive positions. More recently, Executive Order No. 13171, Hispanic
Employment in the Federal Government, signed in 2000, provides that
agencies, among other actions, (1) develop recruiting plans for Hispanics
and (2) assess and eliminate any systemic barriers to the effective
recruitment and consideration of Hispanics. The order requires OPM to take
the lead in promoting diversity to executive agencies and for the director
of OPM to establish and chair an Interagency Task Force on Hispanic
employment in the federal government to review best practices, provide
advice, assess overall executive branch progress, and recommend further
actions related to Hispanic representation.5

As an indicator to Congress and the President of the government's progress
toward ensuring equal employment opportunity, both EEOC and OPM, in their
oversight roles, analyze and report on governmentwide and agency workforce
data. The most recent data show that in September 2005, Hispanics
constituted 7.4 percent of the permanent federal workforce while making up
12.6 percent of the CLF. While both EEOC and OPM report these data
annually, neither agency has assessed on a governmentwide level the
factors contributing to the differences in Hispanic representation between
the two workforces.

Citizenship and Education Had the Largest Effect on Hispanic
Representation in the Federal Workforce

Citizenship and educational attainment had the most effect on the
likelihood of Hispanics' representation in the federal workforce, relative
to the nonfederal workforce.6 Other measurable factors in our statistical
model-gender, veteran's status, race, English proficiency, age, disability
status, school attendance (enrolled or not enrolled), employment status
(full or part-time), and geography (state where employed)-had a more
limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being in the
federal workforce.7 When we analyzed the effect of all the factors
simultaneously, we found that, among citizens, Hispanics were 24 percent
or 1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal
workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. (See app. II for a detailed
discussion of the steps we took to conduct our analyses and our results.)

Effect of Citizenship

Our analysis showed that citizenship had the greatest effect of the
factors we analyzed on Hispanics' representation in the federal workforce.
We analyzed the effect of citizenship before analyzing any other
individual factor because of long-standing policy and practice to restrict
federal government hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals-99.7 percent of
federal executive branch employees were U.S. citizens or nationals in
2005. (See app. III for a discussion of the federal government's policy
and practice on the employment of citizens.) Before accounting for the
effect of citizenship, Hispanics 18 and older were 30 percent less likely
than non-Hispanics to be employed (i.e., represented) in the federal
workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce. However, when we analyzed
the likelihood of only citizens 18 and older being employed in the federal
workforce, we found that Hispanics were 5 percent less likely than
non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce compared to their
representation in the nonfederal workforce.

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that Hispanics had lower
citizenship rates than other racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of
Asians who had similar rates. In 2000, of those 18 and older in the
combined federal and nonfederal CLF, 65 percent of the Hispanics were U.S.
citizens compared with 95 percent of blacks, 96 percent of whites, 65
percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and 96
percent of American Indians/Native Alaskans. Additionally, Hispanic
immigrants have lower naturalization rates than other immigrant groups.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 27 percent of the adult foreign-born
Hispanic population in the United States were naturalized citizens in 2004
compared with 54 percent of the adult foreign-born non-Hispanic
population.

Hispanic-serving organizations have undertaken citizenship initiatives.
For example, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
encourages legal residents of the United States to become citizens and
reports that it conducts a national drive to have those eligible for
citizenship apply for and attain citizenship.

Effect of Education

After citizenship, education had the largest effect on Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce. We compared Hispanic and
non-Hispanic citizens with similar levels of education. We limited our
examination of the effect of education to citizens because citizenship is
a basic qualification for most federal employment. As discussed above,
among citizens, Hispanics were 5 percent less likely to be employed in the
federal government. After accounting for education, Hispanic citizens were
1.16 times or 16 percent more likely than similarly educated non-Hispanic
citizens to be in the federal workforce than the nonfederal workforce.

The federal workforce contains a greater percentage of occupations that
require higher levels of education than the CLF. EEOC divides occupations
in the federal workforce and the CLF into nine categories, including among
others professionals, operatives, and laborers. For example, in 2000, the
year in which EEOC data on the CLF are based, occupations in the
professional category-those occupations, such as lawyers, engineers,
accountants, and registered nurses, requiring either college graduation or
experience of such kind and amount as to provide a comparable
background-constituted 29 percent of the federal workforce versus 18
percent of the CLF. Conversely, occupations in the operatives (semiskilled
workers) and laborers (unskilled workers) categories, which generally do
not require high education levels, constituted 3 percent of the federal
workforce compared to 16 percent of the CLF. Figure 1 shows the
composition of the federal workforce and the CLF by EEOC's occupational
categories.

Figure 1: Composition of Federal Workforce and CLF by EEOC's Nine
Occupational Categories, 2000

Note: Federal workforce percentages do not reflect individuals that could
not be classified into categories, and CLF percentages do not reflect
individuals that were unemployed.

Our analyses showed that the likelihood of being a federal worker
increased with higher levels of education. A person with some college was
1.7 times more likely to be a federal worker than a person with only a
high school diploma, a person with a bachelor's degree was 2.2 times more
likely, and a person with more than a bachelor's degree was 2.7 times more
likely. OPM reported that in 2004, 42 percent of federal workers had a
bachelor's degree or higher. In addition, approximately 60 percent of new
permanent hires to the federal government in 2005 had at least some
college-20 percent with some college, 23 percent with a bachelor's degree,
and 17 percent with more than a bachelor's degree.

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that regardless of citizenship
status, Hispanics overall have lower educational attainment than other
groups, with non-U.S. citizens having the lowest levels of educational
attainment. Among citizens in the CLF 18 and older, as table 1 shows,
Hispanics had a higher percentage of those without a high school
diploma-26.4 percent-and lower percentage of those with a bachelor's
degree or higher-15.4 percent-than most other racial/ethnic groups.

Table 1: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Citizens 18
and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000

                                        

             Percent            
Highest level of education   Hispanic White Black Asian Hawaiian/ American 
                                                             Pacific  Indian/ 
                                                            Islander          
                                                                       Alaska 
                                                                       Native 
Less than high school            26.4  10.1  18.0  10.5      12.5     17.6 
diploma                                                           
High school diploma              27.0  27.9  30.7  15.8      33.1     29.6 
Some college                     31.2  33.2  34.5  29.7      37.0     37.3 
Bachelor's degree                10.6  18.8  11.5  28.3      12.4     10.1 
Graduate degree                   4.8  10.1   5.3  15.7       5.0      5.3 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

When noncitizens were included, as table 2 below shows, the proportion of
Hispanics with less than a high school diploma increased and the
proportion having bachelor's degree or higher decreased.

Table 2: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Residents 18
and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000

                                        

        Percent      
Highest level of  Hispanic White Black Asian Hawaiian/    American Indian/ 
education                                      Pacific       Alaska Native 
                                                 Islander 
Less than high        39.0  11.3  18.4  13.2      15.3                19.3 
school diploma                                         
High school           24.2  27.5  30.5  15.8      32.4                29.2 
diploma                                                
Some college          24.6  32.6  34.2  25.8      35.4                36.3 
Bachelor's degree      8.2  18.5  11.5  27.4      12.0                 9.9 
Graduate degree        4.0  10.1   5.4  17.9       4.9                 5.3 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

Educational attainment for Hispanics 18 and older in the CLF who were not
citizens was lower compared with those who were U.S. citizens. Table 3
shows that, among Hispanics in the CLF who were not U.S. citizens, 62.8
percent had less than a high school diploma while 6.2 percent had a
bachelor's degree or higher.

Table 3: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among Non-U.S. Citizens
18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000

                                        

        Percent      
Highest level of  Hispanic White Black Asian Hawaiian/    American Indian/ 
education                                      Pacific       Alaska Native 
                                                 Islander 
Less than high        62.8  39.9  26.2  18.4      32.9                54.9 
school diploma                                         
High school           19.0  20.2  26.3  15.8      27.8                20.4 
diploma                                                
Some college          12.0  18.1  28.4  18.4      25.3                14.7 
Bachelor's degree      3.6  11.5  12.2  25.7       9.8                 6.1 
Graduate degree        2.6  10.3   6.8  21.8       4.2                 3.9 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

In addition to having lower educational attainment levels than other
racial/ethnic groups, there were differences in Hispanics' educational
patterns. For example, Hispanics have enrolled in 2-year colleges at a
higher rate than other racial/ethnic groups. According to data reported in
the American Council on Education's Minorities in Higher Education,
Twenty-First Annual Status Report, 2003-2004, 59 percent of Hispanics
enrolled in postsecondary institutions are enrolled in community colleges,
compared to 37 percent of whites, 43 percent of blacks, 41 percent of
Asians, and 50 percent of American Indians. In addition, Hispanics are
less likely than other groups to complete a bachelor's degree. According
to data from the National Center for Education Statistics' National
Educational Longitudinal Study beginning in 1988,8 by age 26, 47 percent
of white students who had enrolled in postsecondary education had
completed a bachelor's degree compared to 23 percent of Hispanics-lower
than other racial/ethnic groups.9

The federal government and Hispanic-serving organizations have implemented
initiatives to address gaps in Hispanics' educational achievement. In
October 2001, Executive Order No. 13230 created the President's Advisory
Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, within the
U.S. Department of Education, to examine issues related to the achievement
gap between Hispanic Americans and their peers. The commission issued an
interim report in September 2002, The Road to a College Diploma: The
Complex Reality of Raising Educational Achievement for Hispanics in the
United States, and a final report in March 2003, From Risk to Opportunity:
Fulfilling the Educational Needs of Hispanic Americans in the 21st
Century. The commission's final report, concluding its work, contained six
recommendations, which encompassed the entire education continuum, from
early childhood through postsecondary, as well as federal accountability
and coordination and research. According to the White House Initiative on
Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, which provided the staff
support and assistance to the commission and continues to work within the
Department of Education, it is taking steps to implement the commission's
six recommendations and is working with the Department of Education, other
federal agencies, and public and private organizations.

In addition to federal government initiatives, Hispanic-serving
organizations also have ongoing efforts to improve the educational
attainment of Hispanics. According to LULAC, the organization has 16
counseling centers whose mission is to increase educational opportunities
and attainment for Hispanic Americans through the development and
implementation of programs in Hispanic communities throughout the United
States. LULAC also reports that it provides educational counseling,
scholarships, mentorships, leadership development, and literacy programs.
According to its Web site, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) works to
build and strengthen community-based educational institutions, to improve
the quality of instruction for Hispanic students, and to more effectively
involve Hispanic families in the education of their children. NCLR reports
that its education program services and activities are targeted to over
300 affiliated organizations while its education policy work addresses
national issues in public education. NCLR also reports that it cochairs
the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national
organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for Latinos
living in the United States and Puerto Rico. Other organizations such as
the Hispanic College Fund also work to provide college scholarships for
Hispanic youth.

EEOC and OPM Have Taken Steps in Their Oversight Roles to Address Hispanic
Representation

In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM report
representation levels of racial, ethnic, and gender groups overall and in
subsets of the federal workforce and require that agencies conduct
analyses of their own workforces. However, the benchmarks that EEOC, OPM,
and agencies use to compare federal workforce representation levels to the
CLF do not differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore
do not identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to
work for the federal government. Where differences in representation
occur, such as within occupations or by grade, agencies are to determine
if there are barriers to participation and, if so, develop strategies to
address any barriers. OPM provides human resource guidance and resources
to agencies to assist agencies in implementing these strategies.

EEOC and OPM Reports on the Federal Workforce

In its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, prepared pursuant to its
oversight responsibilities, EEOC provides data on the representation of
racial, ethnic, and gender groups, including Hispanics, compared to the
CLF overall, by senior pay and average grade level, and for selected
agencies with 500 or more employees. To make its comparisons, EEOC uses
the Census 2000 Special EEO File, which provides workforce data on the
CLF. The Census 2000 Special EEO File is a special tabulation constructed
by the U.S. Census Bureau according to the specifications of, and under a
reimbursable agreement with, a consortium of agencies-EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and
the Department of Labor (DOL). The Special EEO File, which has been
prepared every 10 years since 1970 based on the Decennial Census, serves
as the primary external benchmark to compare the racial, ethnic, and
gender composition of each employer's workforce to its available labor
market. The datasets on the Census 2000 Special EEO Tabulation present
data on race and ethnicity cross-tabulated by other variables such as
detailed occupations, occupational groups, gender, worksite geography,
residence geography, education, age, and industry. Data are available at
the national level and by state, metropolitan area, county, and place.10

However, the Census 2000 Special EEO File data does not include
citizenship data. According to a Census Bureau official, at DOJ's request,
the Census 2000 Special EEO File specifications originally included
citizenship data for metropolitan statistical areas in four states for
persons in the CLF 20 to 34 years of age, with 4 or more years of high
school, by race and ethnicity. Because of narrow data specifications,
concerns were raised about the privacy of Census respondents and the
request was withdrawn. The consortium and Census are planning the 2010
Special EEO File, which will be based on 5 years (2005-2009) of American
Community Survey (ACS) data-which is replacing the long form of the
Decennial Census. Subsequent to the completion of our audit work, EEOC
sent a letter requesting that the Census Bureau review the possibility of
including citizenship data in the 2010 Special EEO File. According to the
Census Bureau, citizenship data can be included but at an additional cost
to consortium members based on the extent of data requested (e.g.,
geographic or occupational specificity) and amount of staff and
programming resources to produce the requested data. In addition, the
Census Bureau said that the extent of geographic or occupational
specificity of citizenship data could be limited based on the risk of
disclosing the identity of a respondent. Census Bureau officials also
noted that because the 2010 Special EEO File will be based on a 5-year
roll up of annual ACS data, current plans are to produce an updated
Special EEO File every 5 years.

OPM also presents data on Hispanic representation in its reports to the
President under Executive Order No. 13171 and to Congress under the FEORP.
In its Annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in the
Federal Government, prepared pursuant to Executive Order No. 13171, and in
Statistical Information on Hispanic Employment in Federal Agencies, OPM
has included data on Hispanic representation overall, for each agency, by
pay plan/group, and among new hires.11 The FEORP report compares overall
representation levels in the federal workforce to the CLF and provides
representation levels by pay group, in occupational categories, and within
each agency. OPM also uses the Census 2000 Special EEO File when comparing
representation of women and minorities within agencies to the relevant CLF
(the labor force comprising only the particular occupations for the
particular agency) for its FEORP report. However, in making comparisons of
the demographic composition of the overall federal workforce to the CLF
for the FEORP and the statistical reports on Hispanic employment, OPM has
used the Current Population Survey (CPS). By using the CPS, OPM reports
more-current CLF data than EEOC's and reflects the changing composition of
the CLF. At the time of our review, OPM was benchmarking to the September
2005 CPS, which showed Hispanic representation in the CLF to be 12.6
percent. In its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, EEOC uses the 2000
Special EEO File as its benchmark showing Hispanic representation in the
CLF to be 10.7 percent. Although using the CPS enables OPM to report
more-current data on Hispanic representation in the CLF, OPM does not
distinguish between citizens and noncitizens in its analysis of the CPS
data.

Figure 2 shows Hispanic representation in the permanent federal workforce
compared to the CLF with and without noncitizens from 1994 to 2005, based
on data from the CPS and OPM. These data show how citizenship affects the
pool of Hispanics eligible for federal employment and that, when only
citizens are considered in the CLF, Hispanic representation in both the
federal workforce and CLF is more comparable.

Figure 2: Hispanic Representation in the Permanent Federal Workforce, CLF,
and among U.S. Citizens in the CLF, 1994-2005

Note: Prior to 1994, citizenship was not a variable in the CPS.

EEOC and OPM Guidance on Workforce Analyses

EEOC's Mangement Directive 715 (MD-715) provides guidance and standards to
federal agencies for establishing and maintaining effective equal
employment opportunity programs, including a framework for agencies to
determine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity exist and to
identify and develop strategies to mitigate the barriers to participation.
EEOC defines barriers as agency policies, principles, or practices that
limit or tend to limit employment opportunities for members of a
particular gender, race, or ethnic background, or based on an individual's
disability status. EEOC requires agencies to report the results of their
analyses annually.

The initial step is for an agency to analyze its workforce data with
designated benchmarks. As part of this analysis, in addition to comparing
the overall workforce to the CLF, EEOC instructs agencies to compare major
(mission-related and heavily populated) occupations to the CLF in the
appropriate geographic area in order to get a more accurate picture of
where differences in representation may exist and to guide further
analysis. Agencies may use the Census 2000 Special EEO File and the Census
2000 EEO Data Tool, which allows agencies to tailor the Special EEO File
data in accordance with EEOC instructions. In their analyses, agencies may
find that Hispanic representation in some of their major occupations is
higher than in similar occupations in the CLF, but lower in others.
Similarly, our review of data on the 47 occupations with 10,000 or more
federal employees showed that Hispanic representation was higher in the
2005 federal workforce than the 2000 CLF in 22 of those occupations and
lower in 25.12 (See app. IV.) EEOC also instructs agencies to analyze
workforce data by grade level, applicants, new hires, separations,
promotions, career development programs, and awards to identify where
there may be barriers to participation. With respect to grade level, our
review of data on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce showed
that Hispanics are more highly represented in the lower grade levels than
in higher grade levels (see app. IV). Our review was based on descriptive
data and did not take into account citizenship, education, or other
factors that can affect an individual's placement in the federal
government.

When numerical measures indicate low representation rates, EEOC instructs
that agencies conduct further inquiry to identify and examine the factors
that contributed to the situation revealed by the data. Below is an
example from EEOC's MD-715 instructions of such an analysis to determine
the existence of limits or barriers to participation.

Under OPM's FEORP regulations and guidance under the Human Capital
Accountability and Assessment Framework (HCAAF), agencies are also to
analyze their workforces. Under FEORP, agencies are required to determine
where representation levels for covered groups are lower than the CLF and
take steps to address them. Agencies are also required to submit annual
FEORP reports to OPM in the form prescribed by OPM. These have included
(1) data on employee participation in agencywide and governmentwide career
development programs broken out by race, national origin, gender, and
grade level and (2) a narrative report identifying areas where the
agencies had been most successful in recruiting, hiring, and formal
training of minorities and women, and how they were able to achieve those
results. The HCAAF, according to OPM, fuses human capital management with
merit system principles and other civil service laws, rules, and
regulations and consists of five human capital systems that together
provide a consistent, comprehensive representation of human capital
management for the federal government. According to recently proposed
regulations, each system consists of standards against which agencies can
assess their management of human capital and related metrics.13 The HCAAF
practitioners guide outlines suggested performance indicators reflecting
effective practices in meeting these standards. One suggested performance
indicator, for example, is that agencies have systems that track and
analyze workforce diversity trends in mission-critical occupations in
order to continually adjust the agency's recruitment and retention
strategy to its current state of need.

OPM Assistance to Agencies

OPM provides assistance to agencies in recruiting Hispanics as part of
broad-based recruitment efforts and developing employees onboard through
(1) governmentwide outreach and recruitment initiatives; (2) providing
information on student employment programs; (3) disseminating information
on leading practices; and (4) providing guidance on training and
development of employees.

Governmentwide Outreach and Recruitment Initiatives

In 2003 and 2004, OPM held recruitment fairs in cities across the country,
including those with high concentrations of Hispanics, such as Los
Angeles, San Antonio, Tucson, Miami, and New York. Additionally, in 2005,
OPM participated in 25 career fairs sponsored by others including LULAC,
the National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives, and the
University of New Mexico. Under its Veteran Invitational Program, launched
in 2004, OPM has conducted career fairs, visited military installations
and veterans' medical facilities, and provided information on employment
opportunities for veterans on its Web site. In 2004, OPM signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the American GI-Forum-an organization
that works on behalf of Hispanic veterans-in support of Executive Order
No. 13171.

OPM has also taken steps to improve the USAJOBS Web site, the federal
government's official source for jobs and employment information. As part
of its Recruitment-One Stop Initiative, launched in 2003, OPM reports that
the Web site contains improved search capability options, a more
user-friendly resume builder, and a streamlined job application process.
USAJOBS also links to OPM's Student Jobs Web site, which contains listings
of federal student employment positions, and e-scholar, a listing of
federal educational scholarships, fellowships, grants, internships,
apprenticeships, and cooperative programs offered by federal departments
and agencies and partnering organizations. The USAJOBS Web site provides
information in both English and Spanish.

Student Employment Programs

According to OPM, student employment programs can help agencies recruit
and develop talented employees to support agency missions; ensure that
they can meet their professional, technical, and administrative needs;

and achieve a diverse, quality workforce.14 OPM assists agencies on the
use of student employment programs by issuing regulations and providing
technical assistance through its Web site. There are three federal student
employment hiring programs that can lead to noncompetitive conversion to
permanent employment-the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP), Federal
Career Intern Program (FCIP), and Presidential Management Fellows Program
(PMF).

Under SCEP, agencies may hire students as interns while they are pursuing
high school diplomas or equivalent vocational or technical certificates,
and associate's, bachelor's, graduate, or professional degrees. Upon
completion of their degree program and SCEP requirements, agencies may
noncompetitively convert participants to permanent employment. Recently
revised SCEP regulations allow agencies to credit up to 320 hours of the
640 hours of career-related work experience required for conversion from
active duty military service or from comparable nonfederal internship,
work-study, or student volunteer programs where work is performed at
federal agencies.15 Comparable work experience can include those
internships sponsored by the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities' (HACU) National Internship Program. The regulations also
permit agencies to waive up to 320 SCEP hours of required work experience
for students who have demonstrated exceptional job performance and
outstanding academic achievement.

Under FCIP, agencies may appoint individuals to 2-year internships in
entry-level positions that would lend themselves to internal formal

training/developmental programs.16 After 2 years, if program requirements
are met, an agency can noncompetitively convert them to competitive civil
service status. OPM issued final regulations on FCIP in 2005.17

The Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program is a 2-year internship
program open to students who have completed graduate degree programs, been
nominated by their school officials, and passed OPM's assessment. In 2005,
OPM issued final regulations implementing Executive Order No. 13318,
issued in 2003,18 removing the cap on the number of PMF appointments,
providing agencies greater flexibility in promoting fellows, and
establishing training and development requirements.19

Other organizations have also realized that various intern programs
provide valuable recruitment sources. According to the Partnership for
Public Service, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to revitalizing
public service, internship programs such as SCEP provide agencies a pool
of diverse, tested, and easy-to-hire potential employees.20 Yet, the
Partnership found that very few are drawn from the pool into permanent
federal jobs. On the basis of the Partnership's analysis of the rates at
which SCEP program participants are converted to permanent federal
employment, agencies may not be realizing the full potential of this
program. The Partnership reported that in 2001, agencies converted 17
percent of SCEP participants to permanent federal employment, and in 2000,
11 percent. In contrast, the Partnership's report stated that more than 35
percent of interns in the private sector accepted jobs with the companies
for which they interned.

While OPM has reported data on SCEP participants governmentwide by
racial/ethnic group in its Fact Book and on SCEP new hires by agency in
its statistical reports on Hispanic employment, OPM does not report
demographic data on SCEP participants by agency and on FCIP and PMF
participants governmentwide or by agency, or rates of conversion to
permanent positions for SCEP, FCIP, and PMF either governmentwide or by
agency. According to OPM, data on conversions to permanent employment by
racial/ethnic group for SCEP and FCIP are available from the Central
Personnel Data File (CPDF). Currently, OPM does not analyze these data.
Similar data are available for the PMF. Analyzing data on conversion rates
could provide OPM with valuable information on agencies that appear to be
maximizing their use of these programs as well as those that are not fully
utilizing them. With this information, OPM could then provide assistance
to agencies to help them incorporate student employment programs into
their strategic workforce planning as they seek to recruit and develop
talented employees to support agency missions; ensure that they can meet
their professional, technical, and administrative needs; and achieve a
diverse, quality workforce. Such information from OPM could also enable
agencies to perform more complete assessments of their programs.

Leading Practices

OPM disseminates leading-practices information through the reports it
issues pursuant to FEORP and Executive Order No. 13171 and through the
Interagency Task Force on Hispanic employment, chaired by the Director of
OPM. In its annual FEORP reports, OPM presents a summary of agency
practices on workforce planning, recruitment and outreach, mentoring, and
career development based on the information agencies submit to OPM in
their annual FEORP reports. In its Annual Report to the President on
Hispanic Employment, OPM presents what agencies report as effective
recruitment, outreach, career development, and accountability practices.
To prepare the reports pursuant to the order, OPM annually asks agencies
to submit information concerning steps taken related to these areas. OPM
also shares information on leading practices at meetings of the
Interagency Task Force. Through this guidance, OPM promotes broad outreach
to all groups and encourages agencies to establish relationships with
colleges and universities as a means to attract qualified candidates.

Training and Development

Once onboard, training and development programs can assist employees in
further developing skills and helping them qualify for higher-level
positions. OPM provides guidance to agencies on its training and
development Web page and has issued regulations on training and
development tools available to agencies, such as academic degree and other
employee training programs. In 2004, OPM finalized regulations21 on a
training provision of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title
XIII of the Homeland Security Act), which expanded agency authority to pay
or reimburse employees for the cost of academic degree training when such
training contributes significantly to meeting an identified agency
training need, resolving an identified agency staffing problem, or
accomplishing goals in an agency's human capital management strategic
plan.22

Agencies Take Steps to Recruit and Develop Hispanics in the Federal
Workforce

The five agencies in our review have taken a variety of approaches to
address issues concerning Hispanic representation in their workforces,
particularly in competing for a limited number of qualified candidates and
addressing Hispanic representation at higher levels. At NASA, where
Hispanics represented 5.3 percent of the workforce in 2005, one of the
major occupations is aerospace engineering.23 There, Hispanics represented
5.0 percent of aerospace engineers, according to EEOC's Annual Report on
the Federal Workforce, 2004. In the CLF, Hispanics represented 4.6 percent
of aerospace engineers, according to the Census 2000 Special EEO File.
NASA said it must compete with the private sector for the pool of
Hispanics qualified for aerospace engineering positions, which is often
attracted by more-lucrative employment opportunities in the private sector
in more-preferable locations. FNS, where Hispanics represented 7 percent
of the workforce in 2005,24 reports that its ability to successfully
recruit Hispanics was affected by low Hispanic representation in areas
where some of its regional offices are located. Similarly, the USAF, with
7.4 percent of its workforce Hispanic in 2005, also reported difficulties
in recruiting Hispanics at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton,
Ohio, where Hispanics represent approximately 2 percent of the local CLF,
according to the USAF. Moreover, the USAF attributes, in part, the
decrease in overall Hispanic representation levels (from 7.7 percent in
2000 to 7.4 percent in 2005) to the closure of Air Force bases in the
southwestern United States where Hispanics were more highly represented
than at other bases. Finally, agencies also reported that Hispanic
representation in mid- and upper-level positions was an issue they were
addressing. While both SSA, where Hispanics represented 12.5 percent of
the workforce in 2005, and the SBA, where Hispanics represented 10.8
percent in 2005, reported success recruiting Hispanics for lower-level
positions, each noted that Hispanic representation in certain mid- or
upper-level positions was lower.

Steps Agencies Have Taken

The agencies reported using a variety of approaches that enhanced their
ability to recruit and develop Hispanic employees. These included outreach
to the Hispanic community and Hispanic-serving organizations, including
participating in conferences sponsored by LULAC and others; recruiting at
Hispanic-Serving Institutions-defined by statute as an eligible
institution having an undergraduate enrollment of at least 25 percent
Hispanic full-time students and at least 50 percent of the institution's
Hispanics students qualifying as low income;25 sponsoring interns through
the HACU National Internship Program; use of student employment programs
such as SCEP and FCIP; advertising in both English- and Spanish-language
Hispanic media; and career development and training programs. Below we
describe some of the specific approaches agencies in our study used to
recruit and provide training and development opportunities for Hispanics.
While data on the outcomes are limited and we have not assessed the
effectiveness of these programs, the agencies reported that these
approaches have enhanced their ability to recruit and develop qualified
Hispanics.

Outreach to the Hispanic Community

NASA-Part of NASA's strategy to recruit Hispanics centers on increasing
educational attainment, beginning in kindergarten and continuing into
college and graduate school, with the goal of attracting students into the
NASA workforce and aerospace community. NASA centers sponsor, and its
employees participate in, mentoring, tutoring, and other programs to
encourage Hispanic and other students to pursue careers in science,
engineering, technology, and math. For example, the Marshall Space Center
in Huntsville, Alabama, annually sponsors a Hispanic Youth Conference
attended by students from across Alabama that includes workshops on
leadership development and pursuing NASA career fields and provides
opportunities to establish mentoring relationships. NASA also provides
grants to fund educational support programs including in locations where
there are high concentrations of Hispanics. For example, the Ames Research
Center in Moffett Field, California, provided a grant for the development
and implementation of a K-12 technology-awareness program designed to
expose students to NASA and higher education through competitive team
activities based on key aeronautic concepts. The program has been
implemented in schools throughout California that have a high percentage
of Hispanic students. Various centers also participate in high school and
college internship programs, such as the Summer High School Apprenticeship
Research Program where high school students spend 8 weeks working with
engineers on scientific, engineering, mathematical, and technical
projects. NASA centers also provide scholarships and research grants. For
example, Ames provides scholarships to Hispanic college students at a
community college and the Dryden Flight Research Center sponsors
fellowships for students in engineering and science to continue their
graduate studies. In addition, NASA has recently developed the Motivating
Undergraduates in Science and Technology scholarship program designed to
stimulate a continued interest in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics.

USAF-To reach potentially qualified Hispanics from all areas of the
country, the USAF outreach strategy focuses on partnering and improving
working relationships with Hispanic-serving organizations at the national,
regional, and local levels. At the national level, the USAF has
established relationships with professional, educational, and broad-based
Hispanic-serving organizations. For example, it signed a memorandum of
understanding with LULAC agreeing to collaborate on, among other things,
increasing USAF career opportunities. Through the Department of Defense
partnership with HACU, the USAF participates in a national working group
that meets semiannually to develop initiatives to expand recruitment at
Hispanic-Serving Institutions. At the local and regional levels, the USAF
has a variety of outreach efforts that involve both providing information
to, and gaining feedback from, the Hispanic community. It works with
organizations to educate potential employees on the application process.
For example, Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico has sponsored "train
the trainer" workshops with area organizations, high schools, and colleges
and universities. The USAF also participates in programs working directly
with local students, such as serving as mentors for Hispanic students. In
addition, the USAF regularly provides vacancy announcements to, and has
ongoing dialogues with, local Hispanic community organizations.

Use of Student Hiring Authorities

NASA-During fiscal year 2004, NASA implemented the corporate college
recruitment initiative using FCIP hiring authority to recruit individuals
to mission-critical positions. As part of this strategy, NASA participates
in recruitment events at colleges and universities and conferences around
the country, which it selects based on academic programs, diversity of
attendee population, or involvement in NASA research. For each recruitment
site, it invites academic institutions within reasonable geographical
proximity, allowing it to maximize opportunities to reach students at
Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In fiscal year 2004, 15 Hispanic-Serving
Institutions participated from Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico,
New York, Puerto Rico, and Texas, which included universities with
well-established engineering, science, and technology curricula. Prior to
each event, NASA publishes event-specific vacancies and encourages
students to apply in advance in order to create a pool of applicants from
which to schedule interviews at the site. NASA reported that it was most
successful in competing for top talent and filling critical competency
positions at the earliest possible time when it extended job offers at the
recruitment site or within 30 days after the conclusion of the recruitment
visit.

USAF-The USAF uses student employment programs to attract Hispanics and
other qualified applicants for positions ranging from those requiring
training at the vocational-technical schools to the graduate level. The
USAF-which employs approximately half of the federal government's civilian
aircraft maintenance workers-has implemented the "Grow Your Own" aircraft
maintenance program at three of its Texas bases. In partnership with
vocational-technical schools, the program includes both on-the-job
training and classroom education. It provides the USAF with a pool of
trained candidates to replace retiring federal employees and a vehicle to
increase Hispanic representation. Students are initially appointed through
SCEP, and upon completion of the educational program and 640 hours of
career-related work, students may be converted to permanent employment
within 120-days without further competition.

Using FCIP authority, the USAF hires recent college graduates into its
PALACE Acquire and Copper Cap internship programs. The Copper Cap program
is designed to train college graduates as contract specialists by
assigning them to work with professional contracting officers. The PALACE
Acquire program fills a variety of positions in approximately 20 career
fields including logistics, civilian personnel, scientists and engineers,
criminal investigator, intelligence specialists, public affairs, and
education specialists. Participants may be promoted in 1-year intervals up
to a certain level based on satisfactory or successful performance and are
eligible for student loan repayment and tuition assistance for graduate
school.

Career Development Programs

SBA-The SBA's District Director Candidate Development Program (DDCDP) is
designed to recruit and develop a diverse group of highly qualified and
trained managers at the General Schedule grade 13, 14, and 15 levels to
fill district director positions on a noncompetitive basis as they become
vacant. At the SBA, district director positions are key managerial career
positions responsible for providing agency services to the small business
community. The program is a 6- to 18-month development program and
candidates who are competitively selected for, and successfully complete,
the DDCDP program are eligible for noncompetitive selection for a period
of 3 years from the time they have successfully completed the program.

FNS-Since 2000, FNS has sponsored the Leadership Institute, which is a
15-month full-time leadership training program. The program focuses on
five core competencies: leading change, leading people, achieving results,
business acumen, and building coalitions/communications. Participants, who
are competitively selected from grades 11-14, attend core seminars on such
topics as leading teams, problem solving, and decision making and
participate in individual and team projects. As of February 2006, there
were 98 graduates from five classes.

SSA-SSA sponsors national, headquarters, and regional career development
programs for employees in grades 5 to 15. At the national level, the
Leadership Development Program is an 18-month program designed to provide
employees in grades 9 to 12 with developmental experiences through
placement in designated trainee positions. The Advanced Leadership Program
is an 18-month program designed to provide employees in grades 13 and 14
experience to become future agency leaders through rotational assignments,
training, and other developmental experiences. Upon successful completion
of these programs, participants receive a 3-year Certificate of
Eligibility for a onetime, noncompetitive promotion, used at the
discretion of SSA management. SSA also has a 12- to 18-month Senior
Executive Service Candidate Development Program to prepare individuals in
grade 15 or equivalent to assume senior executive-level responsibilities
and develop their executive core qualifications. For employees in grades 5
through 8, SSA offers career development programs in its Office of Central
Operations based in Baltimore and Office of Disability Adjudication and
Review, which has regional and local hearing offices throughout the
country. These, as well as other regional and headquarters component
career development programs, are modeled after its three national programs
for which employees are competitively selected.

Educational Assistance Programs

USAF-The USAF provides a variety of opportunities for current employees to
increase their educational attainment through tuition assistance and
degree completion programs, in-residence and distance-learning educational
programs, and long-term academic programs. Its tuition assistance program
covers mission-related coursework for designated positions toward degrees
at a higher-level than the employee has already attained. Employees attend
courses on a voluntary off-duty basis. Degree completion programs offer
selected employees in designated career fields the opportunity to complete
their degree during duty hours on a full- or part-time basis. In addition,
the USAF also provides opportunities for employees to earn graduate
degrees from its academic institutions, such as the Air Force Institute of
Technology. Moreover, its professional military education programs-such as
the Squadron Officer College and Air War College-are available for
civilian employees depending upon grade level. These programs are offered
in residence and by correspondence. Both provide opportunities for
participants to earn credits toward degree programs.

The USAF has obtained the recommendations on college credit for these and
other courses and training programs from the American Council on
Education's (ACE) College Credit Recommendation service. ACE is an
association of approximately 1,800 accredited, degree-granting colleges
and universities as well as higher-education-related associations,
organizations, and corporations. It reviews training programs and courses
offered by government agencies and corporations and other training
providers at the providers' request and makes recommendations concerning
the type of academic credit, if any, appropriate for the program.
Approximately 1,200 accredited colleges or universities have agreed to
consider ACE recommendations for courses, apprenticeship programs, and
examinations, including community colleges and universities such as the
University of California at Berkeley, George Washington University, and
Indiana University, Bloomington.26 ACE has also recommended credit for
various courses from NASA's Academy of Program and Project Leadership that
may be used toward a graduate degree.

Agencies Identify Lessons-learned in Addressing Hispanic Representation

In response to our inquiry, the agencies included in our review reported
three primary lessons important to the success of their efforts-commitment
of agency leadership, taking a strategic workforce planning approach, and
working with the Hispanic community:

o Commitment of agency leadership: Agencies reported that their programs
were most successful when agency leadership was committed to addressing
Hispanic representation. As we found in our prior work on diversity
management, leaders and managers within organizations are primarily
responsible for the success of diversity management because they must
provide the visibility and commit the time and necessary resources.27 For
example, SSA included diversity as part of its strategic and human capital
plans and developed an agencywide marketing and recruitment strategy to
address the representation of any underrepresented group, including
Hispanics. Additionally, it tracks the outcomes of its recruitment and
hiring initiatives.

o Strategic workforce planning: Agencies also recognized the importance of
taking a strategic workforce planning approach in their efforts to recruit
a diverse workforce. Strategic workforce planning addresses two critical
needs: (1) aligning an organization's human capital program with its
current and emerging mission and programmatic goals and (2) developing
long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to
achieve programmatic goals.28 For example, NASA's recruitment strategy
focuses on both developing the pipeline to fill its mission-critical
occupations by encouraging students to pursue degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and math and attracting graduates into the NASA
workforce and aerospace community. Additionally, SSA developed a business
case for bilingual public contact employees in its field offices and
bicultural employees in policy-making staff positions in its regional
offices and headquarters components. Similarly, FNS said it began to
realize the need for bilingual professionals, and as a result, has
advertised positions requiring fluency in Spanish.

o Working with Hispanic communities: Finally, agencies told us that it is
important to work with Hispanic communities to understand one another's
needs and find mutually beneficial solutions. The USAF at Kirtland Air
Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has taken steps in this regard. In
this geographic area where Hispanics represented 41.6 percent of the
population according to the 2000 Census, the base has an alliance with the
local public schools and colleges and universities to ensure that it is
providing career and mentoring opportunities for area students and that
schools are producing a pipeline of qualified students to meet base needs.
Base representatives also work with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on
issues pertaining to Hispanic communities.

Conclusions

Providing federal agencies with benchmarks that consider citizenship would
allow agencies to get a more accurate picture of differences in
representation levels and more effectively identify and address barriers
to equal employment opportunity. Current CLF benchmarks do not include
citizenship; however, two annual official data sources-the CPS and ACS-are
available that would allow EEOC and OPM to separate citizens and
noncitizens in analyzing federal workforce representation by racial,
ethnic, and gender groups. Additionally, agencies analyze their workforces
using the Census Special EEO Files prepared at the direction of the
consortium of agencies-EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and DOL. Although the 2000 Special
EEO File did not contain citizenship data, EEOC and DOJ have expressed
interest in and the need for including such data in the 2010 Special EEO
File but must address issues including cost and privacy.

As part of their barrier analyses, where representation differences
between occupations in their workforces and similar ones in the CLF exist,
agencies are to determine whether the qualifications established for those
occupations are appropriate. Additionally, agencies are required to
determine whether they have considered all sources of qualified
individuals. OPM currently provides guidance to federal agencies on
recruiting at colleges and universities. Because the majority of Hispanics
enrolled in postsecondary education attend community colleges and
vocational schools, identifying effective outreach practices to such
schools could help those agencies that have occupations requiring the
education and training provided at these institutions to meet workforce
needs and further equal employment opportunity. OPM already shares
effective recruiting practices through its Annual Report to the President
under Executive Order No. 13171.

OPM has recognized the importance of student employment programs, in
particular SCEP, in providing a unique opportunity for agencies to recruit
students from high school through graduate school, depending on agencies'
needs. These programs not only serve as a mechanism to address future
federal workforce needs, they offer students the incentive to complete
their education as well. OPM has provided data on SCEP new hires in its
statistical reports on Hispanic employment and SCEP participants
governmentwide in its Fact Book. While data on conversation rates for SCEP
and FCIP are available from the CPDF, OPM does not analyze these data by
agency or governmentwide. Such analyses could provide OPM with valuable
information to help agencies maximize their use of these programs as part
of their overall strategic workforce planning. Additionally, such
information from OPM could enable agencies to perform more complete
assessments of their programs.

While federal agencies are taking steps to address Hispanic representation
issues, as an employer, the federal government is limited in its ability
to address the effects of citizenship and education on Hispanic
representation throughout the federal workforce. As these are multifaceted
issues, developing strategies to address them will require partnerships
between Hispanic-serving organizations, federal agencies, state and local
governments, educational institutions, and other interest groups.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Director of OPM and the Chair of EEOC do the
following:

o Include citizenship in their annual comparisons of representation in the
federal workforce to the CLF. To help ensure consistency, both agencies
should agree upon a single source of citizenship data.

o Work with other Consortium agencies and the Census Bureau to incorporate
citizenship data into the 2010 Census Special EEO File and incorporate
such data into analyses under MD-715, FEORP, and Executive Order No.
13171.

We recommend that the Director of OPM do the following:

o Assess the extent of participation by racial and ethnic groups in
student employment programs-SCEP, FCIP, and PMF-to help agencies maximize
the use of these programs in their overall strategic workforce plan. This
effort should include:

o analyzing participation in, and conversion rates to, permanent positions
from these programs and

o reporting governmentwide and agency-specific demographic data for the
different racial and ethnic groups reflecting participation in, and rates
of conversion to, permanent employment from these programs. These data are
in addition to the data already reported on these programs in its reports,
such as in its statistical reports on Hispanic employment and in the Fact
Book.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney General,
and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for their review
and comment. In an e-mail, DOJ said it had no comments. In a written
response, the Department of Commerce said it had no comments. (See app.
V.) In its written comments, EEOC said it found the report to be an
extremely interesting and useful addition to the ongoing examination of
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce and indicated its plans
to use the report as a resource. EEOC agreed that citizenship data are an
important aspect that appears applicable not only to Hispanics, but to
other census population groups as well. In this regard, EEOC has requested
that the Census Bureau review the possibility of including citizenship
data in the 2010 Special EEO File. The availability of citizenship data
would enhance the analyses required under MD-715. However, EEOC did not
address our recommendation that it include citizenship data in its annual
comparisons of representation in the federal workforce to the CLF, which
can be based on currently available CPS or ACS data. EEOC also said that
while citizenship data are a useful benchmark for broad trending, more
refined analyses are necessary, including analyses of applicant pools and
participation rates for specific occupations. EEOC also said that analysis
of the on-board federal workforce, such as analysis of promotions and
participation in career development, employee recognition, and awards
programs, is important in assessing equality of opportunity. We agree with
EEOC that more refined analyses are necessary to assess equality of
opportunity. EEOC's comments are reprinted in appendix VI. OPM provided
minor technical comments via e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate,
but did not otherwise comment on the report or our recommendations.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. We will then send copies of this report to the Chair
of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Commerce, and other interested parties. Copies will be made available to
others upon request. This report will also be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9490. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix VII.

George H. Stalcup Director, Strategic Issues

List of Requesters

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Government Reform House of Representatives

The Honorable Danny K. Davis Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on the
Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Grace Flores Napolitano House of Representatives

The Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez House of Representatives

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) identify and analyze the factors that are
affecting Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, (2) examine
the steps that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in their oversight roles, are taking
related to Hispanic representation, and (3) illustrate the efforts within
selected federal agencies related to Hispanic representation.

To answer our first objective, we interviewed representatives from
Hispanic-serving and other relevant organizations,1 and federal agency
officials; reviewed previous studies; and obtained the opinions of experts
identified by the National Academy of Sciences to identify possible
factors that affect Hispanic representation in the federal workforce.
Next, we researched available data sources that included sufficiently
detailed data on Hispanic ethnicity, employer (federal or nonfederal), and
the identified factors that could be reliably measured. We concluded that
the 2000 Decennial Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent
File was the best data source for our purposes. We conducted bivariate and
multivariate analyses of data from the 2000 Decennial Census PUMS to
determine the effect of the identified factors that could be reliably
measured in this dataset on Hispanic representation in the federal
workforce. Our methodology and results of these analyses are more
specifically described in appendix II. We obtained opinions on our
methodology from EEOC, OPM, the Census Bureau, and the Department of
Justice (DOJ). The experts identified by the National Academy of Sciences
also reviewed and provided comments on both our methodology for conducting
these analyses and our preliminary results. Our analyses are not designed
to prove or disprove discrimination in a court of law like analyses
conducted by EEOC or DOJ, nor do they establish whether the differences
would require corrective action by any federal agency. Rather, our
analyses use a standard statistical method designed to provide information
at an aggregate level about factors that explain levels of Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal
workforce.

To determine steps EEOC and OPM have taken related to Hispanic
representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, executive orders,
policies, guidance, program information, and reports issued related to
Hispanic representation in the federal government. At EEOC, we met with
officials and representatives, including from its Office of Federal
Operations, Office of General Counsel--Research and Analytic Services, and
Office of Legal Counsel. At OPM, we met with officials, including from the
Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability Division,
Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, and the Office of General
Counsel.

To illustrate the efforts of federal agencies, we selected five Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies or their subagencies of different
sizes, geographic locations, concentrations of jobs by grade level, and
OPM's occupational categories.2 They were the United States Air Force,
Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration, and
Social Security Administration. We provided written questions and document
requests to agency officials and reviewed the responses received from each
of the five agencies. We also had discussions at each agency with
officials that oversee offices and programs related to Hispanic
representation. We also reviewed documents provided by, and spoke with
officials from, the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for
Hispanic Americans.

In addition, we analyzed Hispanic representation in the federal workforce
governmentwide (1) compared to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF), including
and excluding noncitizens; (2) in federal occupations compared to similar
occupations in the CLF;3 and (3) by pay plan/grade.

o To compare Hispanic representation in the federal workforce
governmentwide4 to the CLF, we used data from 1994 to 2005. For the
federal workforce, we used data reported by OPM on the permanent federal
workforce. For the CLF, which includes both permanent and nonpermanent
employees, we analyzed the March supplements to the Current Population
Survey (CPS)-the 1994-2002 Annual Demographic Files and the 2003-2005
Annual Social and Economic Supplements (ASEC).5

o To compare Hispanic representation in federal occupations to similar
occupations in the CLF, we selected the occupations which in September
2004 had 10,000 or more federal employees, 47 occupations in total (see
app. IV). For this analysis, we included both permanent and nonpermanent
federal employees for comparability to the CLF. For Hispanic
representation in these occupations in the federal workforce, we analyzed
the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) for 2000-2005. For Hispanic
representation in these occupations in the CLF, we analyzed the Census
2000 Special EEO File, which was created from the 2000 Census.6 To
determine occupations that are similar in the CLF and the federal
workforce, we used the crosswalk for 2000 provided to us by EEOC to match
federal occupations with similar occupations in the CLF.

o To examine Hispanic representation by grade governmentwide, we analyzed
1990-2005 CPDF data for permanent and nonpermanent employees in groupings
of General Schedule grades 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12, separately for grades 13,
14, and 15, and separately for those in the  Senior Executive Service, in
Senior Level/Senior Technical positions, and under the Executive Schedule.
(See app. IV.)

We believe the CPDF, CPS, and Census 2000 Special EEO File are
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study. Regarding the CPDF,
we have previously reported that governmentwide data from the CPDF for the
key variables in this study-race/Hispanic origin, occupation, and pay
plan/grade-were 97 percent or more accurate.7 We believe the CPDF data are
sufficiently reliable for purposes of this study. Regarding the CPS, to
assess the reliability of its data, we reviewed the technical
documentation for these data files, including the coding and definition of
variables of interest, the procedures for handling missing data, coding
checks, and imputation procedures for missing data. We also interviewed
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) staff about how federal employment and
race/ethnicity are reported and imputed and to determine how this would
affect our analyses. We considered the response rate, allocation rate (or
the rate at which responses are imputed for unanswered questions), and
size of confidence intervals. Because the CPS had a very high response
rate, a low allocation rate, and narrow confidence intervals, the
1994-2005 CPS data were sufficiently reliable. Regarding the Census 2000
Special EEO File, although we and others have cited a number of
limitations of Census 2000 data, we believe these data are sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this study (see app. II for a full
description of what we did to assess the reliability of Census data).

We conducted our work from October 2004 to June 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation
in the Federal Workforce

This appendix describes our analyses of factors that are affecting
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. We included those
factors identified by representatives of Hispanic-serving organizations,
agency officials, outside experts, and previous studies, which could be
reliably measured in the data set we used. These factors were citizenship,
gender, education, veteran's status, race, English proficiency, age,
disability status, in-school status, employment status (full- or
part-time), and geography (state where employed). To assess the effect of
these factors on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, we
analyzed how these factors affect the likelihood of Hispanics and
non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce as opposed to the
nonfederal workforce. We used logistic regression models to estimate
likelihood of federal employment. This is a widely accepted method of
analyzing dichotomous or binomial outcomes-like being in the federal
versus nonfederal workforce-when the interest is in determining the
effects of multiple factors that may be related to one another. In
developing the model, we solicited the opinions of experts identified by
the National Academy of Sciences as well as officials from OPM, EEOC, DOJ,
and the Census Bureau. We also sought the experts' views on the
preliminary results of our analysis.1

Data Sets Used

We analyzed data from the 2000 Decennial Census Public Use Microdata
Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent File because it (1) included variables needed for
our analyses and (2) had the largest sample size of the datasets
containing the variables in our analyses.2 To confirm our results, we also
analyzed data from the 2004 American Community Survey (ACS) because it
contains more recent data. In this appendix, however, we present only the
results using the PUMS data because its larger sample size makes it less
prone to sampling error than the ACS data.3 In addition, the results of
the analyses of the ACS data were largely consistent with the results
using the PUMS data.

To assess the reliability of the PUMS and ACS, we reviewed the technical
documentation for these data files, including the coding and definition of
variables of interest, the procedures for handling missing data, coding
checks, and imputation procedures for missing data. We also interviewed
Census Bureau staff about how federal employment and race/ethnicity are
reported and imputed and to determine how this would affect our analyses.
We considered the response rate, allocation rate (or the rate at which
responses are imputed for unanswered questions), and size of confidence
intervals. Because PUMS and ACS both had a very high response rate, a low
allocation rate, and narrow confidence intervals, the 2000 PUMS and 2004
ACS were sufficiently reliable for our objectives.

The PUMS and ACS both contain self-reported data on whether someone is
part of the CLF. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines the CLF as
including persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and
the District of Columbia, who are not institutionalized (i.e., in penal
and mental facilities, or homes for the aged) and who are not on active
duty in the Armed Forces.4 For purposes of our logistic regression models,
we divided the CLF into two groups-the federal workforce and the
nonfederal workforce.5 Further, we restricted our analyses to individuals
18 and older because, with a few exceptions, 18 years is the minimum age
for federal employment and our analysis of the government's official
personnel data-the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)-showed that in
September 2004 individuals under 18 years of age constituted only 0.10
percent of the federal workforce.

Methodology

We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models to estimate
the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal
workforce relative to being in the nonfederal workforce. There were four
steps to these analyses.

1.For the first step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to
estimate the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the
likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce, relative to the
nonfederal workforce, before controlling for any of the identified
factors.

2.For the second step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to
determine how our estimated difference in likelihood of Hispanics and
non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce was affected by U.S. citizenship. We estimated the
difference in likelihood between Hispanic citizens and non-Hispanic
citizens being employed in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce and compared it to the difference in likelihood of
federal employment among both citizens and noncitizens combined, obtained
in step 1. We analyzed the effect of citizenship before all other factors
because the federal government has a general policy and practice of
restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals.

3.For the third step, we restricted our analyses to citizens only and used
a series of multivariate logistic regression models, controlling for each
factor one at a time, to estimate how each of the other factors affected
the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic citizens and non-Hispanic
citizens being in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal
workforce. Because of the large effect of education on the difference
between Hispanics and non-Hispanics that was revealed in this step, we ran
a bivariate model that estimated the effect of education among all
individuals-citizens and noncitizens combined-on the likelihood of being
in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce.

4.In the fourth step, we used a multivariate logistic regression model
that estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic and
non-Hispanic citizens being employed in the federal workforce versus the
nonfederal workforce after controlling for all other factors
simultaneously. Among citizens, we controlled simultaneously for gender,
education, veteran's status, race, English proficiency, age, disability
status, school attendance (enrolled or not enrolled), employment status
(full- or part-time), and geography (state where employed).

In our analyses, we express differences in the likelihoods of being in the
federal workforce rather than the nonfederal workforce using odds ratios.6
An odds ratio is generally defined as the ratio of the odds of an event
occurring in one group compared to the odds of it occurring in another
group-the reference or comparision group. In our analyses, the event of
interest to us was employment in the federal workforce versus employment
in the nonfederal workforce. We computed odds ratios to indicate the
difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being
employed in the federal workforce (1) before controlling for any of the
other factors, (2) after controlling for all of the factors one at a time,
and (3) controlling for all factors simultaneously.

In our analyses, an odds ratio of 1.0 would indicate that Hispanics and
non-Hispanics were equally likely to be employed in the federal workforce
as in the nonfederal workforce, or that the ratio of Hispanics to
non-Hispanics was the same in the two workforces. An odds ratio of less
than 1.0 would imply that Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanics to
be in the federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce, while
an odds ratio greater than 1.0 would imply that Hispanics were more
likely. For example, an odds ratio of 0.5 would indicate that Hispanics
were only half or 50 percent as likely as non-Hispanics to be in the
federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. An odds ratio of
2.0 would indicate that Hispanics were twice as likely as non-Hispanics to
be in the federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. We
also use odds ratios to indicate the effects of the other factors we
considered (i.e., education, race, etc.), and they can be similarly
interpreted.

Given the large sample size of the PUMS file, all of the results reported
are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Thus, we
concentrated our analysis on the size or magnitude of the odds ratio-that
is, how much smaller or larger than 1.0 they were-rather than the
statistical significance of the odds ratios.

The Difference between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of
Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce

We initially estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanics and
non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce versus the
nonfederal workforce before controlling for any of the identified factors.
Table 4 shows the numbers, odds, and odds ratio derived from the PUMS to
estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in
the federal workforce relative to being in the nonfederal workforce. The
odds ratio of 0.698 indicates that the odds of Hispanics being in the
federal workforce rather than the nonfederal workforce were about 30
percent lower than the corresponding odds for non-Hispanics.

Table 4: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees among
Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens and Noncitizens, and Odds and
Odds Ratios Derived from Them, 2000

                                        

Ethnicity    Number in   Number in          Odds of being in federal  Odds 
                  federal  nonfederal                         workforce ratio 
                workforce   workforce                                   
Hispanic       219,893  15,228,215                            0.0144 
Non-Hispanic 2,438,122 117,921,113                            0.0207 0.698 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.

We calculated the odds ratio of 0.698 by first deriving the odds of being
a federal employee rather than a nonfederal employee for both Hispanics
and non-Hispanics. For Hispanics, we divided the number of the Hispanic
federal employees by the number of Hispanic nonfederal employees, or
219,893/15,228,215, which equals 0.0144. This implies that the odds of
being a federal employee among Hispanics were 0.0144; that is, there were
14.4 Hispanics who are federal employees for every 1,000 Hispanics who
were nonfederal employees. For non-Hispanics, by comparison, the odds were
2,438,122/117,921,113 = 0.0207, which means that there were 20.7
non-Hispanics who were federal employees for every 1,000 non-Hispanics who
are nonfederal employees. The odds ratio, or ratio of these two odds,
which is 0.0144/0.0207 = 0.698, indicates that the odds on being a federal
employee (i.e., represented in the federal workforce) were lower for
Hispanics than non-Hispanics, by a factor of 0.698.

The Effect of Citizenship on the Difference between Hispanics' and
Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal Workforce versus
the Nonfederal Workforce

We examined the effect of citizenship on the difference in the likelihood
of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce,
relative to the nonfederal workforce, before examining the effect of all
other factors because the federal government has a general policy and
practice of restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals. Table 5
shows the odds and odds ratio that are obtained when citizens only are
used to estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being
employed in the federal workforce relative to being in the nonfederal
workforce. When these same odds and odds ratio were calculated for
citizens only, the odds were similar (0.0200 and 0.0210), and the odds
ratio of 0.953 implies that the odds of being a federal employee, among
Hispanic citizens, were lower than for non-Hispanic citizens by about 5
percent. Comparing this to the odds ratio indicating the difference in the
likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal
workforce among the both citizens and non-citizens-0.698-indicates that
citizenship accounts for much of the difference in the likelihood of
federal employment between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, since the
difference in the odds changes from about 30 percent to roughly 5 percent.

Table 5: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees among
Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens Only, and Odds and Odds Ratio
Derived from Them, 2000

                                        

Ethnicity    Number in   Number in          Odds of being in federal  Odds 
                  federal  nonfederal                         workforce ratio 
                workforce   workforce                                   
Hispanic       198,603   9,905,447                            0.0200 
Non-Hispanic 2,386,192 113,424,164                            0.0210 0.953 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.

Effect of Remaining Factors among Citizens on the Difference between
Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal
Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce

To determine the effect of the remaining factors on likelihood of
Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal workforce relative to
being in the nonfederal workforce, we restricted our analysis to U.S.
citizens because the federal government has a general policy and practice
of hiring only U.S. citizens. We then controlled for each of the other
factors one at a time among U.S. citizens in a series of multivariate
logistic regression models. Table 6 shows the odds ratios representing the
difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being
employed in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce,
when the other factors are controlled one at a time. The effect that each
factor has on the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the
likelihood of being in the federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal
workforce can be discerned by comparing each of the odds ratios in Table 6
to 0.95-the odds ratio indicating the likelihood of Hispanic and
non-Hispanic citizens being employed in the federal workforce before
controlling for the other factors. For example, as table 6 shows,
controlling for differences in education-or estimating the effect of being
Hispanic on the likelihood of being in the federal workforce after
allowing for the differences in education between Hispanics and
non-Hispanics-changes the odds ratio from 0.95 to 1.16. That is, among
similarly educated workers, Hispanic citizens were more likely than
non-Hispanic citizens, by a factor of 1.16, or 16 percent, to be in the
federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. Controlling for
race, veteran status, and to a lesser extent age also changed slightly the
estimated difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanics in the likelihood
of being a federal employee.

Table 6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic Citizens Being Employed in the Federal Workforce After
Controlling for Different Factors

                                        

  Factor    Category   Reference  Odds 
                         group   ratio 
Gender     Female      Male       0.95 
Level of   Bachelor's                                                                                                     
           degree                                                                                                          
Age        c           c          1.03 
Disability Disabled    Not        0.96 
status                 disabled        
School     Enrolled in Not        0.96 
attendance School      enrolled        
Work       Full-time   Part-time  0.97 
status                                 
State      Each state  Ohio       0.98 
employed   except                      
           reference                   
           group                       

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.

a"Not English-proficient" includes responses of "not very well" and "not
at all" to Census questions about English proficiency.

b"English-proficient" includes responses of "well" and "very well" to
Census questions about English proficiency.

cAge (in years) was entered in our models as a linear covariate; thus, the
odds ratio for age represents the effect that a 1-year difference in age
makes with respect to the likelihood of being a federal employee.

Because of the large effect of education on the difference between
Hispanics and non-Hispanics, we also analyzed the effect of education
among all individuals. The odds ratios indicating the differences in the
likelihood of being in the federal workforce between workers who have some
college, a bachelor's degree, and more than a bachelor's degree, relative
to workers with a high school diploma, were 1.74, 2.15, and 2.69,
respectively. In other words, each of those three categories of workers
was almost twice as likely (1.74) or more than twice as likely (2.15 and
2.69) to be employed in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal
workforce as workers with only a high school diploma. Persons with less
than a high school degree, by contrast, were less than half as likely as
persons with a high school degree to be employed in the federal workforce
relative to the nonfederal workforce.

Effect of All Factors Considered Simultaneously on the Difference between
Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal
Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce

When we estimated the difference in the likelihood of being in the federal
workforce between Hispanics and non-Hispanics using a multivariate model
that accounted for all of the factors simultaneously among citizens, we
found that the odds of being a federal rather than a nonfederal employee
were higher for Hispanic citizens than for non-Hispanic citizens, by a
factor of 1.24. That is, when all other factors we examined were
controlled, the odds of being in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce were 24 percent higher for Hispanics than
non-Hispanics.

Additional Explanatory Analyses

In response to comments from expert reviewers on a preliminary draft of
these results, we conducted additional analyses to determine whether (1)
our results were affected by the method we used to control for
citizenship, (2) there was any difference between the effect of education
for Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and (3) Hispanics' odds of federal
employment were affected by changing the reference group from all
non-Hispanics to white non-Hispanics.

First, we analyzed whether controlling for citizenship by excluding
noncitizens produced different results than controlling for citizenship by
including both groups in our model and introducing a control variable for
citizenship status. We used a multivariate logistic regression model
controlling for all the factors simultaneously among both citizens and
noncitizens and controlled for citizenship status using a dummy variable
(rather than excluding them). When we controlled for citizenship status
using a dummy variable for citizenship status, the odds ratio indicating
the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of
being in the federal workforce was 1.22, not appreciably different from
the odds ratio of 1.24 reported above.

Second, we analyzed whether the effect of education on being employed in
the federal workforce was different for Hispanics and non-Hispanics. We
used an interaction model, which allowed us to assess whether the effect
of education on the odds of federal employment varied between Hispanics
and non-Hispanics. This model revealed that while education affected the
odds of federal employment for both Hispanics and non-Hispanics, the
effect of education was generally more pronounced for Hispanics than
non-Hispanics. For example, Hispanics with a bachelor's degree were 2.27
times more likely to be employed in the federal workforce than Hispanics
with a high school diploma. Among non-Hispanics, those with a bachelor's
degree were 2.04 times more likely than those with only a high school
diploma to be employed in the federal workforce.

Third, to analyze whether Hispanics' odds of federal employment were
affected by changing the reference group from all non-Hispanics to white
non-Hispanics, we used dummy variables for race and ethnicity when
comparing Hispanics, black non-Hispanics, and other nonwhite
non-Hispanics, to white non-Hispanics as opposed to comparing Hispanics to
non-Hispanics when controlling for all other factors. Including dummy
variables for race and ethnicity yielded an odds ratio distinguishing
Hispanics from white non-Hispanics of 1.55, which is greater than the odds
ratio of 1.24 distinguishing Hispanics and non-Hispanics. The greater odds
ratio resulted from black non-Hispanics and other nonwhite
non-Hispanics-who were 1.82 and 1.89 times more likely to be employed in
the federal workforce than white non-Hispanics-being taken out of the
reference category. We did not analyze the effect of the interaction
between race and Hispanic ethnicity; that is, comparing odds of federal
employment among white Hispanics, black Hispanics, and other Hispanics
because of differences in the reporting of race between Hispanics and
non-Hispanics.7

Limitations

Due to limitations in the data and the methods we used, we did not include
in our analyses some variables that were identified during the course of
our research that could potentially affect Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce. We did not analyze whether discrimination against or
attitudes towards Hispanics or any other group affected representation in
either the federal or nonfederal workforces because, using our data
sources, it was not possible to conduct such an analysis. We did not
analyze Hispanic subgroup data because of concerns we expressed in our
prior work and

those expressed by the Census Bureau and outside researchers.8
Additionally, some factors identified were not asked on the Census and we
could not identify an adequate proxy suitable for our methodology; we
cannot say how, or if, these factors would affect the results of our
analyses. Variables for which we could not control include experience in a
particular occupation, number of years naturalized U.S. citizens have been
citizens of the United States, and an individual's preference for
employment in either the federal or nonfederal workforce. Additionally, we
did not control for Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area or other
geographical units smaller than states because these would result in
sample sizes too small to control for the full range of factors. For
foreign-born respondents, we did not control for years since arrival in
the United States because the data were insufficiently reliable. Finally,
we could not control for how unemployment affects the likelihood of being
in the federal workforce because unemployment perfectly predicts not being
in the federal workforce; however, unemployed individuals are considered
part of the CLF.

Additionally, with respect to race-one of the factors for which we
controlled-some have suggested that many Hispanics view race differently
than non-Hispanics and consider their ethnicity as a separate racial
category.9 Such differences in the perception of race could affect our
estimates on the effect of race on the likelihood of Hispanics and
non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, among Hispanics
in the 2000 Decennial Census, 47.9 percent reported themselves as white,
2.0 percent as black, 1.2 percent as American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.3
percent as Asian, 0.1 percent as native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, 6.3 percent as two or more races, and 42.2 percent as some other
race.10 Among non-Hispanics, 79.1 percent reported themselves as white,
13.8 percent as black, 0.8 percent as American Indian/Alaska Native, 4.1
percent as Asian, 0.1 percent as native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, 1.9 percent as two or more races, and 0.2 percent as some other
race. Some studies suggest that the difference in the percentage of "other
race" responses between Hispanics and non-Hispanics-42.2 and 0.2-reflects
many Hispanics' view that their race is Hispanic, rather than one of the
racial categories listed in the Census.11

Additionally, while assessing the reliability of the PUMS for our
analysis, we found that the number of federal employees reflected in the
PUMS was larger than the number reported in either OPM's Central Personnel
Data File (CPDF) as of September 2000 or OPM's report Employment and
Trends (March 2000). In the PUMS there were about 2,658,000 federal
employees (excluding the Postal Service) compared to slightly less than 2
million reported by OPM for 2000 in either of its sources. There was also
a similar discrepancy in 2004, with nearly 2 million federal employees
reported by OPM (CPDF as of September 2004, Employment and Trends, March
2004) compared to about 2,757,000 identified in the ACS.

Although we were unable to fully account for these differences, we did
identify some known sources for lower numbers of federal employees
reported by OPM. Neither of OPM's data sources include (1) federal
employees working for the intelligence agencies such as the Central
Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency; (2) most
personnel on federal installations paid from non-appropriated funds, such
as workers in military commissaries; and (3) those in the Commissioned
Corps of the Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. In addition, OPM's CPDF data do not include judicial and
some legislative branch employees and employees of the Tennessee Valley
Authority. Another potential source of the difference in the number of
federal employees is that employees of federal contractors who work at
federal agencies or on military installations might have responded on the
Census that they were employees of the federal government. Several experts
who commented on our methodology and results expressed a similar view.

To assess whether our results were affected by the difference in the
number of federal employees in the PUMS and CPDF datasets, we substituted
the federal employees from the CPDF for the federal employees in the PUMS.
Our analysis, using the combined CPDF and PUMS data, confirmed that
citizenship and education accounted for the difference in likelihood of
Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce. Given
these, the large sample size of PUMS, the high response rate to the Census
2000 long form that is the basis for PUMS, and the quality control
measures Census uses in collecting the PUMS data, we believe our reported
results are sound and the conclusions we reached are reasonable.

Like reported federal employment in PUMS, reports of citizenship in
self-reporting surveys may be inflated. As we lacked benchmark data to
assess the potential effect of misreporting of citizenship, we cannot say
if or how the results would be affected by such misreports. Additionally,
because we used data from a single census, we cannot make statements
regarding future trends in the estimates. For example, changes in the
number or geographic distribution of Hispanics might affect the likelihood
of federal employment in future censuses.

Finally, our results are limited and intended to only reflect the effect
of selected factors on Hispanic employment in the overall federal
workforce and cannot be applied to individual occupations, grades,
agencies, or other subsets of the federal government. We attempted to
analyze the effect of selected factors on the federal occupations that
employed 10,000 or more federal employees in 2004 and similar occupations
in the nonfederal workforce, but we found that our results were not
reliable. First, sample size within job categories is much smaller and
subject to much greater sampling variability than in the full data set.
Sample sizes this small preclude controlling for the full range of factors
considered in our model. Second, PUMS data and our models cannot account
for specific skills and certification, which might be particularly
relevant for a given occupation. For example, the education categories do
not distinguish between a bachelor's degree in chemistry or in English
literature. Third, we could not account for the specific career paths
required for certain occupations or those that can only be obtained on the
job. For example, job seekers with a background in policing may be more
qualified to be a federal officer. Fourth, we could not account for
individuals who may be qualified for a given occupation, but holding a
different one. For example, some of the individuals coded as accountants
may be qualified to be financial specialists, a separate occupation.
Restricting the sample to financial specialists might result in an
understated pool of qualified workers.

Appendix III

Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. Citizens and Nationals

Various authorities have restricted hiring for most federal employment to
U.S. citizens and nationals. Under Executive Order No. 11935, only U.S.
citizens and nationals may be appointed into competitive service
positions.1 In 2005, 72 percent of executive branch employees were in the
competitive service.2 In rare cases, noncitizens may be appointed when
necessary to promote the efficiency of the service, such as if an agency
is unable to find a qualified citizen to fill a position (5 C.F.R.
S:7.3(c) and S:338.101). Such appointments, however, must also be in
compliance with other laws on federal hiring of noncitizens.3

For decades, Congress has passed an annual ban on the use of appropriated
funds for compensating federal employees who are not U.S. citizens or
nationals.4 Broader in scope than the Executive Order, the appropriation
ban applies to all compensable positions within the federal government,
not just to competitive service positions. There are exceptions to this
ban that permit the compensation of non-U.S. citizens who are from certain
countries or under special circumstances. For example, South Vietnamese,
Cambodian, or Laotian refugees paroled in the United States after January
1, 1975, are excluded from the ban. Also, citizens from Ireland, Israel,
or the Republic of the Philippines, or nationals of countries "allied with
the United States in a current defense effort" are excluded from coverage
of the appropriation ban. Even though the appropriation ban may not apply
under a particular circumstance, the hiring of a noncitizen may
nevertheless be prohibited because the position is within the competitive
service and covered by the Executive Order ban.

Congress has excluded some agencies (or certain types of positions within
some agencies) from the restrictions on hiring or compensating
noncitizens. For example, the Department of Defense is excluded from
restrictions on employment and payment of noncitizens.5

This page is left intentionally blank.

Appendix IV

Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade and Federal Occupation

Table 7: Hispanic Representation in the Federal Workforce by Pay Plan and
Grade, 1990-2005

Source: GAO analysis of the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), 1990-2005
for the permanent and nonpermanent federal workforce.

aSES includes those in the Senior Executive Service and those in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who have equivalent positions. These
are the highest non-politically-appointed leaders in the federal
workforce.

bSL/ST includes those in the Senior Level and Senior Technical pay plans
and those in FAA who have equivalent positions. These are primarily
engineers, scientists, and other top-level professionals. They do not have
the leadership roles of the SES.

cExecutives include agency leaders who are political appointees above the
General Schedule grade 15 level who are not in the SES.

dOther includes those that could not be placed in one of the above pay
plans or grades. From 1990 to 2005, the percentage of federal employees
that could not be placed in a pay plan or grade increased from about 4
percent to 8 percent.

Table 8: Hispanic Representation in the 2000 CLF and 2000-2005 Federal
Workforce by Federal Occupation

Source: GAO analysis of (1) the Census 2000 Special EEO File to determine
Hispanic representation in the CLF, (2) the CPDF, 2000-2005, to determine
Hispanic representation in the permanent and nonpermanent federal
workforce for each occupation, and (3) OPM's Fifth Annual Report to the
President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government for Hispanic
representation in the overall 2000-2005 permanent federal workforce.

aData are listed by OPM's occupational codes and OPM job titles. The EEOC
crosswalk also contains Census job codes and job titles, and Bureau of
Labor Statistics job codes. We analyzed federal occupations that had
10,000 or more federal employees as of September 2004.

bThe overall Hispanic representation is based on all occupations in the
CLF, according to the Census 2000 Special EEO File, and the permanent
federal workforce, according to OPM.

cFederal occupation code 1895 did not exist until 2004.

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix VI

Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Appendix VII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

George H. Stalcup, (202) 512-9490 or [email protected]

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Belva M. Martin, Assistant
Director; Carl S. Barden; Jeffrey A. Bass; Benjamin A. Bolitzer; Karin K.
Fangman; Anthony P. Lofaro; Anna Maria Ortiz; Rebecca Shea; Douglas M.
Sloane; Tamara F. Stenzel; and Gregory H. Wilmoth made major contributions
to this report.

(450361)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-832 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact George H. Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-832 , a report to congressional requesters

August 2006

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic
Representation

Hispanic representation in the federal workforce has historically been
lower than in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Understanding factors
affecting representation is important to developing and maintaining a
high-quality and inclusive workforce. In this report, GAO identifies and
analyzes factors affecting Hispanic representation in the federal
workforce, examines oversight roles of EEOC and OPM, and provides
illustrations of selected federal agencies' efforts with respect to
Hispanic representation. GAO constructed a multivariate logistic
regression model, with advice from experts, to determine how factors
affected the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the
federal versus nonfederal workforce. GAO's analyses are not intended to
and do not show the existence or absence of discrimination in the federal
workforce.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EEOC and OPM take citizenship into account when
comparing federal workforce representation to the CLF to provide a more
complete picture of, and reasons for, differences in representation. In
comments on a draft of this report, EEOC said citizenship data are
important but EEOC did not address GAO's recommendations. OPM provided
minor technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate, but did
not otherwise comment on the report or recommendations.

U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of
the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce. Our statistical model showed that when accounting for
citizenship, required for most federal employment, Hispanics were nearly
as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce,
relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF excluding
federal employees). In addition, the federal workforce has a greater
proportion of occupations that require higher levels of education than the
CLF. When we compared citizens with similar levels of education, Hispanics
were more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal
workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce. Other factors in our
model, including age, gender, race, veteran's status, English proficiency,
and geography (state where employed), had a more limited or almost no
effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being in the federal workforce.

In addition to reporting and comparing representation levels overall and
in subsets of the federal workforce to the CLF, EEOC and OPM require that
agencies analyze their own workforces. However, the CLF benchmarks of
representation that EEOC, OPM, and the agencies use do not differentiate
between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore do not identify how
citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to work for the federal
government. Where these analyses identify differences in representation,
EEOC, for example, requires agencies to determine if there are barriers to
participation and develop strategies to address them. OPM provides
resources and guidance to assist agencies in implementing human capital
strategies. Through these efforts, OPM has promoted the use of student
employment programs as a source of qualified candidates. Analyzing agency
use of these programs, including the extent to which agencies convert
participants to permanent employment, could provide OPM with valuable
information to assist agencies in maximizing the use of these programs in
their strategic workforce planning.

The agencies we reviewed use a variety of approaches to address Hispanic
representation, including recruiting at colleges and universities with
large Hispanic populations, publicizing employment opportunities in
Hispanic media, reaching out to Hispanic communities and Hispanic-serving
organizations, and using student employment, internship, career
development, and training programs. For example, the U.S. Air Force
partners with vocational-technical schools to develop aircraft maintenance
technicians, and staff at selected National Aeronautics and Space
Administration facilities mentor and tutor students to encourage careers
in science, technology, engineering, and math.
*** End of document. ***