U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in the Postal Career Executive Service
(Letter Report, 03/30/2000, GAO/GGD-00-76).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
representation of women and minorities in the U.S. Postal Service's
Career Executive Service (PCES), focusing on: (1) the overall extent
that women and minorities have been represented in the PCES fiscal years
(FY) 1995 through 1999, and have been selected for positions in the
PCES, particularly executive positions, in FY 1999; and (2) efforts
under way by the Service to promote diversity within the PCES.

GAO noted that: (1) at the end of FY 1999, women and minorities
represented about 35 percent of the PCES executive workforce compared to
their representation of about 58 percent in the Service's overall
workforce; (2) similarly, their representation among PCES executives for
each specific women and minority Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
category was lower than their representation in the corresponding EEO
categories in the Service's overall workforce; (3) with respect to the
42 occupied officer positions below the Deputy Postmaster General, women
and minorities held 13, or about 31 percent, as of the end of FY 1999;
(4) over the last 5 fiscal years women and minority representation among
PCES executives has generally increased by about 4 percentage points;
(5) most of this change occurred during the last 2 years of the period
and was primarily accounted for by the increase in the representation of
white women; (6) over the 5-year period, white women's representation
has consistently increased while that of Hispanic, Asian, and American
Indian women also generally increased after FY 1997; (7) with regard to
officers, over the 5-year period, women and minority representation
increased by 6 percentage points; (8) regarding the career Senior
Executive Service (SES), women and minority representation among the
PCES executive workforce was somewhat higher than that in the career SES
in the federal workforce and much higher when compared to the civilian
career SES workforce at Department of Defense; (9) finally, with respect
to selections for PCES executive positions, in FY 1999, women and
minorities represented about 33 percent of PCES executives before the
selections, and they were selected for 25 of the 59 selections for
executive positions; (10) also, women and minority representation as a
group among the selections was the same as their representation in the
PCES potential successor pool for all the positions; (11) outside hires
accounted for 17 percent of all of the executive selections and 24
percent of the 25 women and minority selections; (12) in November 1998,
the Service required that its PCES merit performance evaluation process
address diversity-related activities in individual executive performance
objectives and that executives be accountable for the accomplishment of
those objectives; (13) the Service also developed management training
programs to help employees better manage their careers; and (14) another
Service effort includes the establishment of a diversity oversight
group, which is to oversee corporate diversity initiatives.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-76
     TITLE:  U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in the Postal Career
	     Executive Service
      DATE:  03/30/2000
   SUBJECT:  Women
	     Minorities
	     Postal service employees
	     Employee promotions
	     Fair employment programs
	     Employment of minorities
	     Career planning
	     Labor statistics
IDENTIFIER:  USPS Postal Career Executive Service
	     OPM Central Personnel Data File
	     Senior Executive Service
	     SES
	     USPS Associate Supervisor Program
	     USPS Advanced Leadership Program
	     USPS Career Management Program
	     USPS Career Development Tracks Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on the Postal Service, Committee on

Government Reform, House of Representatives

March 2000

GAO/GGD-00-76

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Diversity in the

Postal Career

Executive Service

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(240358)

Contents
Page 261GAO/GGD-00-76 Diversity in the Postal Career Executive Service
Letter                                                                      1
                                                                             
Appendix I                                                                 28
Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
                                                                             
Appendix II                                                                31
Additional Information
on Women and Minority
Representation in the
PCES
                                                                             
Tables                     Table 1:  PCES Executive                         8
                           Representation, Fiscal Years 1995
                           Through 1999
                           Table 2:  Representation of PCES                10
                           Executive and Officer Levels, Fiscal
                           Year 1999
                           Table 3:  Comparison of Representation          12
                           of Women and Minorities in the PCES
                           With the Career SES in the Federal
                           Government and in the Civilian DOD,
                           Fiscal Year 1999
                           Table 4:  Representation by PCES                15
                           Officer, Executive, and EAS
                           Management Levels, End of Fiscal Year
                           1999
                           Table 5:  Selections for PCES                   18
                           Executive Positions, Fiscal Years
                           1995 Through 1999
                           Table 6:  Comparison of Representation          19
                           by PCES Executives, Selections for
                           Executive Positions, and Potential
                           Successors to PCES Positions, Fiscal
                           Year 1999
                           Table II.1: Comparison of PCES                  31
                           Executive/Officer Workforce
                           Representation With Overall Service
                           Workforce, Fiscal Year 1999
                           Table II.2: Women and Minority PCES             32
                           Officer Representation, Fiscal Years
                           1995 Through 1999
                                                                             
Figures                    Figure 1:  PCES Executive Workforce,             2
                           Fiscal Year 1999
                           Figure 2:  Women and Minority PCES               7
                           Executive Representation, Fiscal
                           Years 1995 Through 1999
                           Figure 3:  Women and Minority PCES               9
                           Executive and Service Workforce
                           Representation, Fiscal Year 1999
                           Figure 4:  Women and Minorities                 14
                           Represent About 35 Percent of PCES
                           Executives, Fiscal Year 1999
                           Figure 5:  Comparison of Women and              17
                           Minority Representation in Fiscal
                           Year 1999 PCES Executive Positions
                           (Before the Selections) and Among
                           Executive Selections, Fiscal Year
                           1999
                                                                             

Abbreviations

ALP       Advanced Leadership Program
CDT       Career Development Tracks
CMP       Career Management Program
CPDF      Central Personnel Data File
DOD       Department of Defense
EAS       Executive and Administrative Schedule
EEO       equal employment opportunity
IDP       individual development plan
OPM       Office of Personnel Management
PCES      Postal Career Executive Service
SES       Senior Executive Service

B-283761

Page 24GAO/GGD-00-76 Diversity in the Postal Caree
r Executive Service
     B-283761

     March 30, 2000

The Honorable Chaka Fattah
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
 
 Dear Mr. Fattah:

     This report is a continuation of our work on
diversity issues in the U.S. Postal Service (the
Service) and responds to your August 4, 1999,
request for information on the representation of
women and minorities in the Postal Career
Executive Service (PCES), which includes officers
and executives.1 Because officers, the most senior
level of the PCES, are appointees serving at the
pleasure of the Postmaster General,2 for the
purposes of this review, we include separate
analyses for the 42 occupied officer positions3
and approximately 800 executive positions in the
PCES workforce. Specifically, this report provides
information on (1) the overall extent that women
and minorities have been represented in the PCES,
fiscal years 1995 through 1999, and have been
selected for positions in the PCES, particularly
executive positions, in fiscal year 1999 and (2)
efforts under way by the Service to promote
diversity within the PCES.4

     To provide context for the results of our
analysis of women and minority representation
within the PCES, we gathered information from the
Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Central
Personnel Data File (CPDF) on women and minority
representation in the career Senior Executive
Service (SES) in (1) the federal government,
excluding the Department of Defense (DOD), and (2)
the civilian workforce of DOD, whose numbers of
executives are reasonably close to those in the
Service's PCES.

Results in Brief
At the end of fiscal year 1999, women and
minorities represented about 35 percent of the
PCES executive workforce compared to their
representation of about 58 percent in the
Service's overall workforce. Similarly, their
representation among PCES executives for each
specific women and minority EEO category was lower
than their representation in the corresponding EEO
categories in the Service's overall workforce.
With respect to the 42 occupied officer positions
below the Deputy Postmaster General, women and
minorities held 13, or about 31 percent, as of the
end of fiscal year 1999.

Figure 1:  PCES Executive Workforce, Fiscal Year
1999

Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data as
of the end of fiscal year 1999.

Over the last 5 fiscal years-September 1995
through September 1999-women and minority
representation among PCES executives has generally
increased by about 4 percentage points while white
men's representation has correspondingly
decreased. Most of this change occurred during the
last 2 years of the period and was primarily
accounted for by the increase in the
representation of white women. Over the 5-year
period, white women's representation has
consistently increased while that of Hispanic,
Asian, and American Indian women also generally
increased after fiscal year 1997. Representation
among minority men decreased for the 5-year
period. With respect to officers, over the 5-year
period, women and minority representation
increased by 6 percentage points, with most of
this change occurring during the last year of the
period.

Regarding the career SES, women and minority
representation among the PCES executive
workforce-about 35 percent-was somewhat higher
than that in the career SES in the federal
workforce (excluding DOD)-about 32 percent-and
much higher when compared to the civilian career
SES workforce at DOD-about 18 percent.

Finally, with respect to selections5 for PCES
executive positions, in fiscal year 1999, women
and minorities represented about 33 percent of
PCES executives before the selections, and they
were selected for 25, or about 42 percent, of the
59 selections for executive positions. Also, women
and minority representation as a group among the
selections was the same as their representation in
the PCES potential successor pool for all the
positions-about 42 percent.6 Outside hires
accounted for 17 percent of all of the executive
selections and 24 percent of the 25 women and
minority selections.

The Service has various efforts under way or
planned that relate to increasing diversity among
its PCES executives. For example, in November
1998, the Service required that its PCES merit
performance evaluation process address diversity-
related activities in individual executive
performance objectives and that executives be
accountable for the accomplishment of those
objectives. Objectives could include, for example,
providing training opportunities to diverse groups
of employees to enhance their career development.
The Service also developed management training
programs to help employees better manage their
careers. For example, one such recently developed
program targets Executive and Administrative
Schedule (EAS) levels 15 through 22 employees and
links with training programs for EAS levels 22
through 26 employees-thus closing a training gap.
According to the Service, potential successors to
PCES executive positions are generally selected
from EAS levels 22 through 26. Another Service
effort includes the establishment of a diversity
oversight group, which is to oversee corporate
diversity initiatives.

Background
The Postal Service had 796,535 career employees7
at the end of fiscal year 1999. Service employees
include craft employees, the largest group; the
EAS employees; the PCES; and others, such as
inspectors for the Postal Inspection Service. The
Postal Inspection Service workforce includes two
types of executive positions: Inspector-in-Charge
and Deputy Chief Inspector. The EAS workforce
consists primarily of employees in EAS 11 through
26 positions and includes management-level
positions, such as postmaster, manager of customer
services, and manager of postal operations.

The PCES, established in 1979, is made up of two
levels-PCES 01, which comprises executives, and
PCES 02, which comprises senior-level officers who
are appointees serving at the pleasure of the
Postmaster General. PCES executives include, among
others, district managers and bulk-mail center
managers. PCES officers include, among others,
area vice presidents and the Deputy Postmaster
General. At the end of fiscal year 1999, 854
employees (including 42 officers, but excluding
the Postmaster General and Deputy Postmaster
General) were in PCES positions.

Vacant PCES executive positions are generally
filled either by (1) selection of an individual
who has been identified as a potential successor
for the position through the Service's succession
planning program or (2) outside recruitment. Each
PCES executive position has a corresponding
potential successor pool. Potential successors are
individuals who may be considered, along with
others (e.g., from outside of the Service), for an
executive position as vacancies occur. Generally,
the process for selecting a candidate for a PCES
executive position involves the selecting
officer's, usually the area vice president,
reviewing and then narrowing down those potential
successors for the position to those who are
considered to have the necessary leadership
skills, expertise, and track record to succeed in
the vacant position; otherwise, the official may
seek approval for outside recruitment. The
selection of an individual to an executive
position is not made final until the selecting
officer submits the rationale for the selection
and the selection is approved by a higher level
officer.

The SES in the federal government has both career
and noncareer positions. According to data
collected by OPM, 6,160 employees were in the
career SES across the government, and 858
employees were in the noncareer SES, as of March
30, 1999. In one agency, DOD, the career SES in
the civilian workforce included 1,102 SES
employees, which is closer in size to the PCES in
the Postal Service, which had 854 employees at the
end of fiscal year 1999. With respect to
appointments to the SES, initial career
appointments must be based on merit competition.
By statute,8 agencies are required to establish an
Executive Resources Board to conduct the process.

Generally this process includes preliminary review
of applications by an agency personnel specialist;
rating and ranking of applicants by an agency
panel with in-depth knowledge of the job's
requirements; and evaluation of each candidate's
qualifications by the agency's Executive Resources
Board, which is to recommend the best candidates
to the selecting official, who is then to make a
choice and certify that the candidate meets the
qualifications for the position. The agency is to
submit the candidate's application to an OPM-
administered Qualifications Review Board for
certification of executive qualifications, after
which the agency can appoint the candidate to the
position.9

The Postal Service Board of Governors commissioned
Aguirre International, a contractor, to undertake
a 6-month study, beginning in May 1997, of overall
workforce diversity at the Service.10 The study
addressed personnel and supplier (contractor)
diversity, and Aguirre issued its report in
October 1997. The report stated that the Service
was a leader in meeting affirmative action goals
as well as in striving for parity between its
workforce and the Civilian Labor Force. However,
it contained a number of recommendations to the
Service for increasing its diversity. In response
to these recommendations, the Service developed 23
initiatives in the following six areas: (1)
policy, structure, and staffing; (2) goal-setting
and accountability; (3) recruitment and outreach;
(4) promotion and outreach; (5) education and
communications; and (6) supplier diversity.

     For this report, we obtained and analyzed
Service data that were related primarily to the
PCES workforce, PCES executive selections and
potential successors, certain EAS levels, and
overall Service workforce characteristics-that is,
employees' PCES positions and 10 equal employment
opportunity (EEO) groups identified on the basis
of gender and race/ethnic origin. We obtained
selected employee data for all Service employees
from the Service's Master File database for the
last pay period of each fiscal year between 1995
and 1999 to have stability and comparability
between fiscal years 1995 and 1999 data. Before
fiscal year 1995, the Service was undergoing a
reorganization at the area level that involved the
creation of new PCES positions. We did not verify
the accuracy of workforce data provided by the
Service.  However, we did have the Service confirm
the PCES selection data that we extracted from the
Service's workforce data. To better understand the
Service's PCES corporate succession planning
process, through which the Service seeks to
develop individuals for higher level positions, we
selected and obtained information on seven
individuals who had advanced to PCES executive
positions during fiscal year 1999. We judgmentally
chose these seven executives for variety on the
basis of gender and race/ethnic origin, previous
position and the position for which they were
selected; and type of selection, that is, selected
from within or outside the Service.

     We performed our work from August 1999
through February 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. We
obtained oral comments on a draft of this report
from the Postal Service, which are discussed near
the end of this letter. (For further details on
our scope and methodology, see app. I.)

Representation in and Selection of Women and
Minorities for the PCES
In the following analyses, we show the
representation of women and minorities among PCES
executives (1) over the 5-fiscal-year period of
1995 through 1999 and (2) compared with their
representation in

ï¿½    the Service workforce overall, fiscal year
1999;
ï¿½    the federal government career SES (excluding
DOD) and DOD's career SES, separately, fiscal year
1999;
ï¿½    EAS levels 17 through 26, fiscal year 1999;
ï¿½    PCES executive selections, fiscal year 1999;
and
ï¿½    components associated with succession
planning (e.g., the pool of potential successors
for executive positions in fiscal year 1999).

In addition, we provide selected information on
women and minority representation among PCES
officers.

Representation of Women and Minorities in the
PCES, Fiscal Years 1995 through 1999
Figure 2 shows the representation of women and
minorities among PCES executives at the end of
fiscal years 1995 through 1999. The representation
of women and minorities as a group generally
increased by about 4 percentage points to about 35
percent while that of white men correspondingly
decreased over this 5-year period to about 65
percent. However, during the first 3 years of this
period, women and minority representation remained
at about 31 percent. Most of the change over the 5-
year period occurred during the last 2 years of
the period.

Figure 2:  Women and Minority PCES Executive
Representation, Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999

Source: GAO analysis of Service PCES workforce
data at the end of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.

Table 1 gives a detailed breakdown of the
percentage of representation for each of the 10
EEO groups over the 5-year period. As shown, the
increase in women and minority representation
among PCES executives was primarily from gains
among white women, whose representation increased
4.4 percentage points (from 9.4 percent in fiscal
year 1995 to 13.8 percent in fiscal year 1999).
Representation of women in other EEO groups also
increased over this 5-year period. For example,
the representation of black women increased by 0.8
percentage points, while that of Asian women
increased by 0.2 percentage points. Representation
among minority men for the 5-year period
decreased. For example, black men's representation
was 9.5 percent in fiscal year 1995 and 9.0
percent in fiscal year 1999, while Asian men's
representation was 1.1 percent at the beginning of
the period and 1.0 percent at the end of the
period. The representation of white PCES
executives remained largely unchanged during this
period because the decrease in the representation
of white men was offset by a corresponding
increase in the representation of white females
(see table 1).

Table 1:  PCES Executive Representation, Fiscal
Years 1995 Through 1999
Fiscal                            EEO group                         
year
          Whit White Blac Black Hispan Hispan Asian Asian Native Native   Total
            e women   k women ic men     ic  men women Americ Americ percenta
          men       men              women                an     an      ge
                                                         men  women      of
                                                                     women/
                                                                   minoriti
                                                                         es
1999      64.8 13.8% 9.0%  5.3%  4.8%   0.5% 1.0%  0.5%   0.1%   0.1%  35.1%a
            %
1998      66.  12.5 9.6   4.2   5.0    0.4  0.9   0.4    0.1    0.1   33.2a
            7
1997      69.  10.8 9.1   4.4   4.9    0.4  0.8   0.3    0.1    0.0   30.9a
            0
1996      69.   9.7 9.8   4.7   4.8    0.5  1.1   0.3    0.2    0.0    30.9
            1
1995      68.   9.4 9.5   4.5   5.5    0.5  1.1   0.3    0.2    0.0   30.9b
            9
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
aTotal does not include one male (0.1%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin.
bTotal does not include one male (0.2%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data,
end of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.

In addition, as shown in figure 3, we compared the
representation of women and minorities among PCES
executives with their representation in the
Service's workforce overall at the end of fiscal
year 1999. Their representation as a group among
PCES executives-about 35 percent-was lower than
their representation as a group in the Service's
overall workforce-about 58 percent (see table 2).
Further, our analysis showed that the
representation of each women and minority EEO
group among PCES executives was lower than it was
in the Service's workforce. For example, white
women represented 13.8 percent of the PCES
executives compared with their 22.2 percent
representation in the Service's overall workforce;
black women represented 5.3 percent of executives
compared with their 10.2 percent workforce
representation; and Hispanic women represented 0.5
percent of executives compared with their 2.2
percent workforce representation. Black men
represented 9.0 percent of the executives compared
with their 11.4 percent representation in the
workforce; Hispanic men represented 4.8 percent of
executives compared with their 5.0 percent
workforce representation.

Figure 3:  Women and Minority PCES Executive and
Service Workforce Representation, Fiscal Year 1999

Note: See table 2 for more details.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data,
end of fiscal year 1999.

Although we focused mainly on PCES executive
positions, we also looked at the 42 occupied PCES
officer positions below the Deputy Postmaster
General. As shown in table 2, as of the end of
fiscal year 1999, women and minorities held 13, or
31 percent, of the PCES officer positions,
although their representation varied among
individual EEO groups. This level of
representation is 4.1 percentage points lower than
that of PCES executives. Of the 13 officer
positions, white women held 8 of the positions;
black men, 3; and Hispanic men, 2. Our analysis
showed that the representation of each women and
minority EEO group among PCES officers was also
lower than it was in the Service's workforce.
Also, some EEO groups were not represented among
officers.

Table 2:  Representation of PCES Executive and
Officer Levels, Fiscal Year 1999
Level                              EEO group                        
           White White Black Black Hispan Hispan Asian Asian Native Native   Total
            men women  men women ic men    ic  men women Americ Americ percenta
                                      women           an men     an     ge/
                                                              women  number
                                                                         of
                                                                     women/
                                                                   minoriti
                                                                         es
PCES officer
Percentage 69.0% 19.0% 7.1% 0.0%   4.8%  0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   31.0%
Number       29    8    3    0      2     0    0    0      0      0      13
(N=42)
PCES executive
Percentage 64.8% 13.8% 9.0% 5.3%   4.8%  0.5% 1.0% 0.5%   0.1%   0.1%  35.1%a
Number      526  112   73   43     39     4    8    4      1      1    285a
(N=812)
Total Service workforce
Percentage 42.2% 22.2% 11.4% 10.2%   5.0%  2.2% 3.9% 2.3%   0.3%   0.2%  57.6%b
Number     335,9 176,6 90,74 80,87 39,443 17,587 30,93 17,93  2,302  1,952 459,191
(N=796,535   43   98    7    3                 6    3                     b
)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
aTotal does not include one male (0.1%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin.
bTotal does not include 1,401 males (0.2%) of
unknown race/ethnic origin, but does include 719
females (0.1%) of unknown race/ethnic origin and
one black (0.0%) of unknown gender.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data,
end of fiscal year 1999.

     Over the 5-year period reviewed, the
representation of women and minorities among the
small number of PCES officers relative to those of
executives increased by more percentage points
than did the executive component of the PCES. Over
the period, women and minority executive
representation increased by 4.2 percentage points
whereas officer representation increased by 6
percentage points, with most of this change
occurring during the last year of the period (see
app. II). For example, women and minority
representation among officers increased from 24.4
percent at the end of fiscal year 1998 to 31.0
percent at the end of fiscal year 1999. Women and
minorities held 13 of the 42 occupied officer
positions below the Deputy Postmaster General at
the end of fiscal year 1999. This was an increase
of 3 officer positions held by women and
minorities when compared to the previous year,
fiscal year 1998, when women and minorities held
10 (about 24 percent) of the 41 occupied officer
positions (see app. II for more details).

Comparison of PCES Women and Minority
Representation With the Career SES in the Federal
Sector
We believe that a comparison with women and
minority representation within the federal
executive ranks provides a context in which to
consider the results of our analysis. Therefore,
we compared the representation of women and
minorities in the Service's executive workforce
with executives in the career SES in the federal
government (excluding DOD) as well as with
executives in the career SES in the civilian
workforce of DOD, an agency whose number of
executives is reasonably close to those in the
Service's PCES.

As shown in table 3, when comparing the
representation of women and minorities as a group
among the Service's PCES executives, our analysis
showed that it is higher than their representation
in the comparison groups we selected.  The
representation among the PCES executive
workforce-about 35 percent-was somewhat higher
than the career SES within the federal workforce
(excluding the civilian DOD)-about 32 percent-and
much higher than the career SES within the
civilian component of DOD-about 18 percent-on the
basis of CPDF data as of March 1999.

When comparing the representation of specific EEO
groups, as shown in table 3, the representation of
black men, black women, and Hispanic men among the
Service's executives was higher than was their
representation in the career SES within the
federal workforce, excluding DOD. The
representation of white women, Hispanic women,
Asian men, and Native American men and women was
lower in the Service's executive ranks than it was
in the career SES, excluding DOD. Differences were
also apparent when comparing the representation of
specific EEO groups among the Service's executives
to those in the career SES within the civilian
component of DOD.

Table 3:  Comparison of Representation of Women
and Minorities in the PCES With the Career SES in
the Federal Government and in the Civilian DOD,
Fiscal Year 1999
Organization                        EEO group                        
             White White Blac Black Hispan Hispan Asia Asian Native Native  Total
              men women   k women ic men    ic    n women Americ Americ percent
                        men             women  men      an men     an    age
                                                               women     of
                                                                     women/
                                                                    minorit
                                                                        ies
Service
PCES         64.8% 13.8% 9.0%  5.3%  4.8%  0.5% 1.0% 0.5%  0.1%   0.1% 35.1%a
executives
Federal government (excluding civilian DOD)
Career SES   67.5   18.0 6.0   3.0   2.0   0.7  1.1  0.5   0.8    0.3  32.4b
Civilian DOD
Career SES   81.8   12.3 1.7   1.0   0.5   0.5  1.0  0.5   0.5    0.1  18.1c
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
aTotal does not include one male (0.1%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin.
bTotal does not include five individuals  (0.1%)
of unknown gender and race/ethnic origin. The
total of 32.4 percent would be decreased to 29.8
percent if the civilian DOD were included.
 cTotal does not include one person (0.1%) of
unknown gender and race/ethnic origin.
Source: GAO analysis of (1) Service workforce
data, as of the end of fiscal year 1999, and (2)
OPM's CPDF data, as of March 30, 1999.

Representation of Women and Minorities in EAS and
PCES Positions
To fill a vacant executive position, the Service
generally selects an individual who has been
identified by Service officials as a potential
successor for the position through the Service's
Corporate Succession Planning Program, or it fills
the position by outside recruitment. Our analysis
showed that women and minorities represented about
35 percent of the PCES executives at the end of
fiscal year 1999, although representation varied
among individual EEO groups. However, women and
minority representation as a group was lower at
each successively higher EAS level up to the PCES.

Service Uses Succession Planning to Fill Executive
Positions
The Service defines its Corporate Succession
Planning Program as a deliberate and systematic
effort to build talent from within the Service to
ensure that leadership meets corporate goals. Each
PCES executive position has a corresponding
potential successor pool.11 According to the
Service, potential successors are individuals who
may be considered along with others for an
executive position as vacancies occur. However,
being a potential successor, according to the
Service, carries no guarantee of selection for an
executive position. A review of all potential
successors' performance, leadership effectiveness,
interest, willingness, availability, and
flexibility is to be conducted annually, when each
potential successor may be redesignated as such.

Generally the process for selecting a candidate
for a PCES executive position involves the
selecting officer's, usually the area vice
president, reviewing and then narrowing down those
potential successors for the position who are
considered qualified to succeed in the vacant
position. Otherwise, the official may seek
approval for outside recruitment. The officer has
the option of interviewing any and/or all of the
individuals being considered for the position. The
selection of an individual to an executive
position is not made final until the selecting
officer submits the rationale for the selection to
Corporate Personnel Management, which reviews the
information for accuracy, ensures the selectee is
a potential successor and has been assessed, and
then forwards the package to the appropriate
higher level officer for final approval.

Service officers are to identify and develop
potential successors for executive positions
within their functional or geographic area
throughout the organization. When identifying
potential successors, the Service is to seek
individuals who have effective leadership skills,
technical or functional expertise, and a
demonstrated track record and who are interested
in promotions/lateral reassignments and are
willing, available, and flexible, according to the
Service. Potential successors for executive
positions may be executives or nonexecutives (such
as EAS employees), and they are usually drawn from
EAS management levels 22 through 26, according to
a Service Human Resources Manager.

According to the Service, developmental
opportunities planned for potential successors
should be based on the results of an executive
assessment,12 personal knowledge of the individual,
and the targeted executive position. In addition,
to develop potential successors for executive
positions, the Service uses individual development
plans (IDP) that, according to the Service, target
specific strengths or needs of the individual and
outline specific activities-such as training-to
optimize the individual's current or future
performance within the organization.13

Representation at EAS Management and PCES
Executive Levels Varies
Our analysis showed that women and minorities
represented about 35 percent of the 812 PCES
executives, although their representation varied
among individual EEO groups. For example, as shown
in figure 4, among the 285 women and minority
executives, 39.3 percent were white women; black
men, black women, and Hispanic men comprised 25.6,
15.1, and 13.7 percent, respectively.  The
remainder-Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanic
Women-collectively comprised 6.3 percent of
executives.

Figure 4:  Women and Minorities Represent About 35
Percent of PCES Executives, Fiscal Year 1999

Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data,
end of fiscal year 1999.

As shown in table 4, we compared the
representation of women and minorities at the PCES
executive level to their representation in EAS
levels 17 through 21 and EAS levels 22 through 26.
We also included information on the PCES officers.
Generally, women and minority representation as a
group is lower at each successively higher EAS
management level up to the PCES executive level.
Women and minorities' representation as a group
was about 46 percent at the EAS 17 through 21
level; about 40 percent at the EAS 22 through 26
level (the group from which PCES executives are
usually selected); and about 35 percent at the
PCES executive level.

Table 4:  Representation by PCES Officer,
Executive, and EAS Management Levels, End of
Fiscal Year 1999
Level                              EEO group                        
           White White Blac Black Hispan Hispan Asian Asian Native Native   Total
            men women    k women ic men    ic  men women Americ Americ percenta
                      men             women           an men     an     ge/
                                                              women  number
                                                                         of
                                                                     women/
                                                                   minoriti
                                                                         es
PCES officer
Percentage 69.0  19.0% 7.1% 0.0%   4.8%  0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   31.0%
Number       %     8    3    0      2     0    0    0      0      0      13
(N=42)      29
PCES executive
Percentage 64.8  13.8% 9.0% 5.3%   4.8%  0.5% 1.0% 0.5%   0.1%   0.1%  35.1%a
Number       %   112   73   43     39     4    8    4      1      1   285 a
(N=812)    526
EAS 22-26
Percentage 60.3  14.2% 9.7% 6.4%   4.2%  1.0% 2.4% 1.0%   0.5%   0.2%  39.5%b
Number       %  1,270  866  576    375    86  215   86     49     16  3,541b
(N=8,955)  5,39
             8
EAS 17-21
Percentage 53.9  21.3% 7.6% 8.6%   4.0%  1.6% 1.2% 0.7%   0.5%   0.2%  45.9%c
Number       %  4,358 1,56 1,75    823   336  242  143    100     41  9,380c
(N=20,447) 11,0          4    5
            12
Note 1: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Note 2: An earlier GAO report (GAO/GGD-99-26)
focused on EAS management levels 17 to 26. The
balance of this group is separated from the EAS 22-
26 for comparative purposes.
aTotal does not include one male (0.1%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin.
bTotal does not include 16 males (0.2%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin, but does include 2 females
(0.0%) of unknown race/ethnic origin.
cTotal does not include 55 males (0.3%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin, but does include 18 females
(0.1%) of unknown race/ethnic origin.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data,
end of fiscal year 1999.

Our analysis of specific EEO groups, as shown in
table 4, shows that white, black, and Hispanic
women all had lower representation at both the
PCES executive and EAS 22 through 26 levels when
compared to the EAS 17 through 21 level. Among all
groups of women and minorities, only Hispanic men
showed an increase in representation at the PCES
executive level when compared to their
representation at both EAS 17 through 21 and EAS
22 through 26 levels. Other groups varied in their
representation, depending upon the level. For
example, Asian men and women had greater
representation in the EAS 22 through 26 levels
when compared to their representation in the EAS
17 through 21 and PCES executive levels. With
respect to white men, their representation
increased progressively from the lower EAS
management levels up to the PCES executive ranks.
When comparing the representation of women and
minorities at the officer level with that in the
executive level, white women's representation was
higher, black men's was lower, and Hispanic men's
was the same. Also, some EEO groups were not
represented among officers.

Selections of Women and Minorities Into the PCES,
Fiscal Year 1999
We compared the representation of women and
minorities among PCES executives at the beginning
of fiscal year 1999 to their representation among
those selected for executive positions during
fiscal year 1999. 14 We also compared their
representation among those selected for the 5-year
period we reviewed. Further, we compared their
representation among components associated with
succession planning (e.g., potential successor
pools). In addition, of the 59 selections to PCES
positions during fiscal year 1999, we selected for
further analysis 7 individuals who were selected
for PCES executive positions to better understand
movement from management levels in the EAS through
selection to the PCES, via the Service's
succession planning program.15 We judgmentally
chose these seven executives for variety on the
basis of gender and race/ethnic origin, previous
position, and the position for which they were
selected and type of selection, that is, selected
from within or outside the Service.

Our analysis shows that women and minorities
comprised about 42 percent (25 positions) of the
59 selections for PCES executive positions during
fiscal year 1999 (see table 5), whereas at the
beginning of fiscal year 1999, they represented
about 33 percent of the PCES executive workforce.
Of the 25 women and minorities selected for PCES
positions in fiscal year 1999, 8 were white women,
8 were black women, 3 were black men, 4 were
Hispanic men, and the remaining 2 selections were
an Asian man and woman. Ten outside hires
accounted for 17 percent of the 59 selections in
fiscal year 1999, and 6 of the 10 outside hires,
or 60 percent, were women and minorities.

As shown in figure 5, for individual EEO groups,
when compared to their level of representation in
the PCES before the selections, white and black
women and Hispanic men had higher representation
among those selected, whereas black men had a
lower representation. Other EEO groups varied in
their level of representation. For example, at the
beginning of fiscal year 1999, black women
comprised 4.2 percent of the executives in PCES
and received about 13.6 percent of the executive
selections, while white women comprised 12.5
percent of the executives and received 13.6
percent of the executive selections; black men
comprised 9.6 percent of the executives and
received 5.1 percent of the executive selections.

Figure 5:  Comparison of Women and Minority
Representation in Fiscal Year 1999 PCES Executive
Positions (Before the Selections) and Among
Executive Selections, Fiscal Year 1999

Note 1: PCES executive workforce "before
selections" is based on the last pay period of
fiscal year 1998.
Note 2: PCES executive workforce includes one male
(0.1%) of unknown race/ethnic origin.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data,
fiscal year 1998, and PCES executive selection
data, fiscal year 1999.

Over the 5-year period, as shown in table 5, we
found that generally the representation of women
and minorities among those selected for PCES
executive positions has been increasing. For
example, in fiscal year 1995, women and minorities
accounted for 18.2 percent of the 33 selections;
whereas in fiscal year 1999, they accounted for
42.4 percent of the 59 selections.

Table 5:  Selections for PCES Executive Positions,
Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Fiscal                             EEO group                                
year
           White White Black Black Hispan Hispan Asia Asian Native Native   Total
            men women  men women ic men    ic   n women Americ Americ percenta
                                       women men       an men     an     ge/
                                                               women  number
                                                                          of
                                                                      women/
                                                                    minoriti
                                                                          es
1999       57.6  13.6% 5.1% 13.6%   6.8%  0.0% 1.7%  1.7%   0.0%   0.0%   42.4%
Percentage   %
Number      34      8    3    8      4     0   1     1      0      0      25
(N=59)
1998       54.2  20.3% 11.9% 5.1%   5.1%  0.0% 0.0%  1.7%   0.0%   1.7%   45.8%
Percentage   %
Number      32     12    7    3      3     0   0     1      0      1      27
(N=59)
1997       65.5  16.4% 5.5% 1.8%  10.9%  0.0% 0.0%  0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   34.5%
Percentage   %
Number      36      9    3    1      6     0   0     0      0      0      19
(N=55)
1996       64.3  16.7% 11.9% 4.8%   2.4%  0.0% 0.0%  0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   35.7%
Percentage   %
Number      27      7    5    2      1     0   0     0      0      0      15
(N=42)
1995       81.8   3.0% 9.1% 0.0%   3.0%  3.0% 0.0%  0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   18.2%
Percentage   %
Number      27      1    3    0      1     1   0     0      0      0       6
(N=33)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data,
end of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.

Women and Minority Representation in Components
Associated With Succession Planning
We also analyzed the representation of women and
minorities in several components associated with
succession planning for PCES executive and officer
positions. For example, as shown in table 6, we
looked at women and minority representation among
(1) PCES executives, at the end of fiscal year
1999; (2) selections for executive positions in
fiscal year 1999; and (3) the fiscal year 1999
pool of potential successors for PCES positions.

An important component for career progression by
women and minorities into the executive ranks is
the composition of the pool of potential
successors. As shown in table 6, as of fiscal year
1999, women and minorities comprised about 42
percent of the potential successor pool for all
PCES positions, and during the same fiscal year,
about 42 percent of the selections for PCES
executive positions.16 As of the end of fiscal year
1999, after taking these executive selections into
account, women and minorities comprised 35 percent
of the PCES executive ranks in the Service, while
they comprised about 58 percent of the Service's
overall workforce. (Also see fig. 3 and table 2.)

Table 6:  Comparison of Representation by PCES
Executives, Selections for Executive Positions,
and Potential Successors to PCES Positions, Fiscal
Year 1999
Group                                 EEO group
          White White Blac Black Hispan Hispan Asia Asian Native Native   Total
            men women   k women ic men    ic    n women Americ Americ percenta
                      men             women  men      an men     an     ge/
                                                              women  number
                                                                         of
                                                                     women/
                                                                   minoriti
                                                                         es
PCES executive workforce
Percenta  64.8% 13.8% 9.0%  5.3%  4.8%  0.5% 1.0% 0.5%   0.1%   0.1%  35.1%a
ge
Number      526   112  73    43    39     4    8    4      1      1   285 a
(N=812)
Selections for PCES executive positions
Percenta  56.7% 13.6% 5.1% 13.6%  6.8%  0.0% 1.7% 1.7%   0.0%   0.0%   42.4%
ge
Number       34     8   3     8     4     0    1    1      0      0      25
(N=59)
FY 1999 potential successors (to PCES executive/officer positions)b
Percenta  57.7% 19.4% 8.3%  6.0%  4.5%  1.0% 1.8% 0.6%   0.3%   0.3%  42.2%a
ge
Number      775   260 112    81    61    13   24    8      4      4     567
(N=1,343
)
Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to
rounding.
aTotal does not include one male (0.1%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin.
b The potential successor pool includes every
individual who has been placed in at least one of
the pools associated with a specific officer or
executive position. Potential successors include
25 officers (1.9%), of which 7 are women and
minorities.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce and
potential successor data, fiscal year 1999.

Seven Fiscal Year 1999 PCES Executive Selections
To better understand the Service's succession
planning program, we obtained information on seven
individuals we judgmentally selected who were
chosen for PCES executive positions during fiscal
year 1999, including two outside hires. These
included one white male, one white female, one
black male, two black females, one Hispanic male,
and one Asian male. For the seven individuals, we
asked the Service to provide information on (1)
whether they were in an associated potential
successor pool for the position and the total
number of potential successors in the pool; (2)
whether they were an outside hire; (3) the process
followed by the Service in selecting them for the
positions; (4) the rationale for the selection of
these individuals; and (5) their previous
positions (e.g., their EAS level in the case of
Service employees) before they were selected for
the PCES executive positions and (if Service
employees) their length of service.

According to information provided by the Service,
four of the five individuals who were selected
from within the Service for the PCES executive
positions had been in an associated Service
potential successor pool for the positions for
about 2 years, on average. Some of these
individuals were in more than one pool, that is,
they had been nominated as potential successors
for other executive positions as well. The fifth
individual had been selected for a new position
within the PCES, for which there was no potential
successor pool. These five individuals had
advanced from positions in the Service during
fiscal year 1999 that ranged from EAS levels 22
through 25 and had been employed with the Service
ranging from 25 to 40 years. The remaining two
individuals had been hired from outside of the
Service. The rationale for the selections,
according to the Service, including those hired
from the outside, was generally that the selected
individuals had the required experience and skill
levels necessary for the vacant positions.

Service Efforts to Improve PCES Diversity
The Service has various efforts under way or
planned related to improving diversity among its
PCES executives, many of which were developed in
response to the 1997 Aguirre report on diversity
at the Postal Service. These efforts included
holding executives accountable for diversity-
related activities in individual executive merit
performance evaluations; providing training and
career development programs that target employees
at various EAS levels to help prepare them for
potential advancement to higher level management
and executive positions; and requiring the use of
review committees in the selection of candidates
for EAS positions when there were five or more
applicants. The Service also established a
diversity oversight group and diversity
development liaisons to promote diversity.

The Aguirre report recommended that the Service
establish accountability for diversity and
diversity-related activities in the merit
performance evaluations of postal career
executives in fiscal year 1999. In response, the
Service introduced individual performance
evaluation for PCES executives in November 1998
that requires all executives to set indicators for
the activities they undertake to promote
diversity. According to Service guidance,
executives, in consultation with their
supervisors, are to set measurable goals that
reflect their individual challenges, including
those related to diversity. In addition, the
official said, monitoring of the executive's
progress in meeting the goals is to be carried out
via quarterly business reviews held by the area
and headquarters' vice presidents, and the goals
could be modified.

According to Service guidance, goals must be
developed in light of the particular diversity
challenges that the assessed executive's
organization faces. Executives' responsibilities
include, among other things, (1) developing and
implementing recruiting and hiring strategies for
increasing the employability of certain groups,
including women, minorities, and people with
disabilities; (2) ensuring that developmental
assignments (such as details, officer-in-charge
assignments, and task force members) and training
opportunities are provided to diverse groups of
employees to enhance their career development; and
(3) ensuring that the succession plans for PCES
and EAS 19 and above positions include candidates
that represent the Service's diverse workforce.

At the close of the evaluation period, according
to a Service official, the accountable
executive-the individual reviewing the assessed
executive's performance-is to discuss with the
executive his or her performance, including the
achievement of the goals and reasons for any
shortfalls in such achievement. The official
explained that the assessed executive's
achievement of diversity goals, along with other
goals, such as training; safety; financial; and
service goals (e.g., on-time delivery), are
factors to be considered collectively by the
accountable executive in determining the
executive's overall performance during the period.
The accountable executive then determines whether,
on the basis of the overall performance, the
assessed executive is to receive a salary
increase. Although no weighting (e.g., percentage)
is assigned to the individually set goals,
according to a Service official, because diversity-
related goals are one of the factors considered in
the evaluation process, failure in this area could
have an effect on the executives' overall
performance and, thus, on whether or not they are
awarded salary increases. The accountable
executive, on the basis of the review of the
assessed executive's overall performance, would
make such a determination. According to the
Service, because this initiative was only recently
introduced, it is too early to determine the
results.

To assist employees with reaching their individual
goals for PCES positions, several training and
career development programs have been implemented,
according to a Service official. In this area, the
Aguirre report recommended that the Service create
a development program for employees at EAS levels
19 and above that was similar to the succession
planning process for postal career executives. It
also recommended that the Service design a career
management program to provide advancement
opportunities from initial-level to mid-level
management positions. The Service determined that
there was a gap in management training between the
Associate Supervisor Program and the Advanced
Leadership Program (ALP). Therefore, it developed
the Career Management Program (CMP) in 1999, which
links with ALP. CMP targets EAS 15 through 22
employees, while ALP targets EAS 22 and above
employees, thus filling the training gap that had
previously existed. According to Postal officials,
the pool for potential successors to PCES
executives is drawn from EAS levels 22 through 26.
CMP course curricula include training in
competencies identified as critical for successful
supervisor and manager performance, such as
supervisory and managerial skills training.

ALP, established in June 1998, seeks to develop a
highly competent managerial base from which future
organizational leaders will emerge, according to
the Service. Executive sponsors nominate
participants into the program who have exceeded
performance expectations, seek self-development,
and demonstrate leadership capabilities. Using an
IDP, participants work with their sponsor to
complete ALP, which involves training in business
performance and the changing competitive
environment. According to a Service official, the
Service's Hispanic Program also implemented an
executive/managerial development program in
January 1998. It developed individual learning
plans for high potential Hispanics to increase the
number of Hispanics being developed for higher
level assignments, including PCES ranks. The
program also developed academic, skills-based
programs for high-potential EAS 22 and above
managers to increase the number of Hispanics being
developed for higher level positions.17

Finally, to create a greater diversity focus in
the selection process for promotions to EAS
positions, the Service now requires the mandatory
use of review committees in the selection of
candidates for EAS positions when there are five
or more applicants as well as training in
personnel selection methods for committee members.18
Review committees assist the selecting officer to
determine which applicant is best qualified for
the position. They review applications, interview
applicants, and develop a recommended list of
candidates who best meet the job requirements.

According to Service officials, other efforts
under way that are related to increasing diversity
in the PCES include the establishment of the
diversity oversight group and diversity
development liaisons, as well a self-development
training program for EAS 18 and above employees,
which is to be piloted in early 2000. According to
a Service official, these efforts enable
individuals to get the experience, education, and
training needed to qualify for advancement to
executive positions. In early 2000, according to
the Service, it plans to introduce "Career
Development Tracks (CDT)," a program aimed at
developing EAS 18 and above employees for
management jobs, which began as a pilot in June
1999. The program is to be all-inclusive (with
individuals being assessed and a multiyear IDP
created) and established districtwide. According
to the Service, CDT seeks to build a cadre of well-
prepared individuals with leadership and
functional skills to successfully compete for
management vacancies under the EAS selection
process, and expand the applicant pool into PCES
positions. A Service Human Resource manager
explained to us that the program was needed
because 50 percent of Service executives were
eligible to retire in 3 to 5 years, and that this
type of program would reach a greater proportion
of minorities and females and thus increase
diversity.

The diversity oversight group is to oversee
corporate initiatives related to diversity, such
as CMP and CDT, and track them for effectiveness.
For example, according to the Service, as of
December 6, 1999, 81 percent of the sponsored
participants in CMP were women and minorities. In
addition, diversity development
liaisons-executives appointed by each headquarters
officer-serve as a link to the Diversity
Department. Currently, there are 32 diversity
development liaisons. The liaisons are to help
their vice presidents develop strategies that are
in line with the affirmative employment plan to
address the underrepresentation of certain
employee groups.

In addition, in its Annual Performance Plan for
fiscal year 2000, published under the mandate of
the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, the Service included the following employee
performance goal:

"Foster an inclusive and welcoming workplace
consistent with Postal Service values of fairness,
opportunity, safety and security: where everyone
is given the knowledge, tools, training and
encouragement to be successful; and where everyone
is recognized for and takes pride in their
participation in customers' and the Postal
Service's success."

Two associated subgoals include (1) ensure that
each and every employee is given the knowledge,
tools, training, and encouragement to successfully
meet the expectations for their positions and (2)
ensure an inclusive and fair environment with
opportunities for all employees.19 The Service has
developed indicators for the first subgoal and is
in the process of developing indicators for the
second.

Agency Comments
     On March 21, 2000, the Postal Service
provided us with oral comments on a draft of this
report. The Service's Vice President of Diversity
Development commented that the report reflected
the commitment of the Service to foster diversity
at all levels of the organization, and that the
Service was aware that it could make continuing
progress in the representation of women and
minorities among its officers and executives.

     He also pointed out a number of actions that
the Service had taken to promote and improve
diversity within the Service over the last few
years. In addition, he stated that the Service was
able to measure the success of its diversity
initiatives by its having recently been awarded
the National Partnership for Reinventing
Government's Hammer Award. However, he said that
the Service recognized that diversity was an area
requiring continuous progress and that it still
had much to accomplish.

     Program officials also provided us with some
technical comments separately, which we considered
and incorporated in our report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to
Representative John McHugh, Chairman, Subcommittee
on the Postal Service, House Committee on
Government Reform; Mr. William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General; and other interested parties.
Copies will also be made available to others on
request.

If you have any questions about this report,
please contact me on
(202) 512-8387. Key contributors to this
assignment were Sherrill Johnson, Hazel Bailey,
William Chatlos, and Douglas Sloan.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar
Director, Government Business
  Operations Issues
 
_______________________________
1 See U.S. Postal Service: Information About
Selected Promotions of Women and Minorities to EAS
Management-Level Positions (GAO/GGD-98-200R, Sept.
21, 1998) and U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in
High-Level EAS Positions (GAO/GGD-99-26, Feb. 26,
1999).
2 39 C.F.R  4.5.
3 As of November 1999, there were 47 approved
officer positions, of which 3 were vacant,
resulting in 42 occupied officer positions (plus
the Postmaster General and the Deputy Postmaster
General).
4 The dates that Service fiscal years end vary by
year and conform to the Service's 13-period
accounting year. Its fiscal year 1999 ended on
September 10, 1999. Our use of the term "fiscal
year" in this report refers to the appropriate
Service fiscal year.
5 For the purposes of this report, selection is
defined as advancement from an EAS position to a
PCES executive position or as entry into either a
PCES executive or officer position from another
organization outside of the Service, that is, an
outside hire.
6 The pool includes potential successors for
executive and officer positions.
7 Statistics cited in this report include the
4,470 employees in the Postal Inspection Service
but not the approximately 375 employees in the
Service's Office of the Inspector General because
these employees' selection to executive positions
in the Inspector General's office are based on
different policies and procedures from those of
the Service and the Inspection Service.
8 5 U.S.C. 3393.
9 OPM Guide to SES Qualifications, OPM, January
1998.
10 It's Good Business-A Study of Diversity in the
United States Postal Service, Aguirre
International, October 27, 1997.
11 The Service develops potential successors for
both executive and officer positions. The number
of potential successors in the pool varies by
position. For example, the potential successor
pool for a nationwide plant manager position may
consist of 150 individuals whereas the pool for a
Manager of a Bulk Mail Center may consist of 39
individuals.
12 According to a Service official, an executive
assessment is a 1-day exercise that involves such
things as team exercises, simulated situations,
and a presentation, and that focuses on
determining an individual's strengths and areas
needing development. It is based on a management
competency model. The assessment is one component
to be considered against other deciding factors,
such as experience, when considering the selection
of a potential successor for a position.
13 See section in this report entitled "Service
Efforts to Improve PCES Diversity" for a
discussion of developmental opportunities for
potential successors and other Service employees.
14 PCES executive workforce (before the selections)
is based on the last pay period of fiscal year
1998.
15 The seven individuals included two outside
hires.
16 The potential successor pool includes potential
successors for executive positions and for officer
positions.
17 According to the Service, 11 qualified managers
were placed on succession planning lists by an
area vice president or headquarters officer; which
means that, along with others, they will be
considered for future PCES appointments. Also,
using an IDP, 43 Hispanic managers are being
developed over the next 2 to 5 years for PCES
succession planning.
18 After the Service's reorganization in 1992, the
use of review committees when there were five or
more applicants was made optional.
19 Annual Performance Plan 2000, Postal Service,
pp. 12 and 13.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 29
This report, which follows our previous work on
diversity in the Postal Service's high-level
Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS)
management positions,1 provides information on the
overall extent that women and minorities are
represented in and have been promoted to the
Postal Career Executive Service (PCES),
particularly to PCES executive positions, as well
as efforts under way by the Service to promote
diversity within the PCES.  The PCES, which was
established in 1979, is made up of two levels-the
executives (PCES 01) and officers (PCES 02).
However, because officers are appointed and serve
at the pleasure of the Postmaster General, for the
purposes of this review, we prepared separate
analyses for the PCES officer and executive
workforces.

     With respect to the first objective, to
determine women and minority representation in and
selection to PCES positions, we obtained from the
Service personnel and accounting data from the
Diversity Reporting System and the Personnel
Master Files from the Diversity Development
Department and the Minneapolis data center. We
obtained selected employee data for all Service
employees from the Master File database for the
last pay period of each fiscal year between 1995
and 1999 to have stability and comparability
between fiscal years 1995 and 1999 data. Before
fiscal year 1995, the Service was undergoing a
reorganization at the area level that involved the
creation of new PCES positions.  We did not verify
these data. However, in 1996, Aguirre
International, as part of a contracted study of
diversity at the Service, estimated a 97-percent
accuracy rate on minority codes in the Diversity
Reporting System.

     As of the end of fiscal year 1999,2 the
Service had 854 employees in PCES positions.
However, an additional 169 employees held EAS
positions under the PCES pay scale. Because these
employees were working in nonexecutive positions,
we included them in the EAS statistics cited in
this report rather than in the PCES statistics,
which is the manner in which the Service tracks
these employees. We did include data on the 4,470
employees in the Postal Inspection Service, but
not on the approximately 375 employees in the
Service's Office of Inspector General.

     We analyzed the data on employees' PCES
positions and 10 equal employment opportunity
(EEO) groups identified on the basis of gender and
race/ethnic origin to show representation of women
and minorities and trends in representation over
the 5-year period. We also compared the
representation among officers, executives, and the
total Service workforce. The EEO groups include,
for men and women, white, black, Hispanic, Asian,
and Native American.

     To provide context as well as to help us
better understand representation within the
Service's PCES, and because the Service is an
independent agency in the executive branch, we
gathered information from the Office of Personnel
Management's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) on
the representation of women and minorities in
comparable executive positions in the federal
government's Senior Executive Service (SES),
excluding the Department of Defense (DOD). The
career SES includes the highest-ranking government
executives within the federal service who are not
in appointed positions. We also selected the
career SES in the civilian workforce of DOD
because it is somewhat closer in size (688,608
total employees) to the Postal Service workforce
(796,535 employees). Furthermore, the number of
executives in the career SES in DOD is also
somewhat closer in size (1,102 SES) to the PCES in
the Postal Service (854 PCES). We recently
reviewed selected CPDF data elements and reported
that most of these were 99 percent or more
accurate in the aggregate.3 Also, we did not
compare the different EEO groups' representation
in PCES positions with the overall civilian labor
force. Since CLF data are not broken down into an
appropriate pool for comparison (i.e., similar
positions or levels of individuals with relevant
qualifications), we do not believe such a
comparison would be appropriate.

     With regard to selections to PCES positions,
we obtained data on the movement of EAS and PCES
executives and officers as well as outside hires
into and within the PCES using the Nature of
Action code as found in the employee Master File
provided by the Diversity Development Department.
We did not verify the accuracy of PCES selection
data provided by the Service, but we did have the
Service confirm PCES selection data for fiscal
years 1995 through 1999 that we extracted from the
Service's workforce data. We spoke with Postal
Inspection Service officials to confirm the coding
and figures being provided on the Inspection
Service workforce and its executives and officers.

     We also gathered information about the
Service's Corporate Succession Planning Program
process for executives and officers. To better
understand this process, we also interviewed
Service officials in Headquarters in Washington,
D.C. Each fiscal year a new list of potential
successors is developed for each executive and
officer position. A single employee may be
nominated for more than one position and therefore
may appear on more than one potential successor
list. To avoid duplicate counting of individuals
on more than one list for analysis, the Corporate
Succession Planning Office provided us with a
nationwide list of fiscal year 1999 potential
successors who appeared at least once on any
potential successor list. Therefore, any reference
in this report to the potential successors, or the
successor pool, for fiscal year 1999 includes
1,324 employees from the Service and 19 Inspection
Service employees, for a total of 1,343 potential
successors nationwide. For the purposes of our
analysis, we consider this to be the "applicant or
feeder pool" from which selections to executive
and officer positions are made.

     We also looked at information on seven
individuals who were selected for PCES executive
positions in fiscal year 1999, including two that
were hired from organizations from outside the
Service, to gain a better understanding of the
process. We judgmentally chose these seven
executives for variety  on the basis of gender,
race/ethnic origin, previous positions and the
position for which they were selected, length of
service, and type of selection (i.e., selected
from within or outside the Service).

With respect to the second objective, to obtain
information on the Service's efforts to promote
diversity within the PCES, we interviewed human
resource and diversity development officers at
Service headquarters. We also obtained and
reviewed related documents from the Service,
including Service documents prepared in response
to the Results Act, and researched information on
the Service's Web site.

We performed our work from August 1999 through
February 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

_______________________________
1 U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in High-Level EAS
Positions (GAO/GGD-99-26, Feb. 26, 1999) and U.S.
Postal Service: Information About Selected
Promotions of Women and Minorities to EAS
Management-Level Positions (GAO/GGD-98-200R, Sept.
21, 1998).
2 The Postal Service fiscal year 1999 ended on
September 10, 1999, and conforms to the Service's
13-period accounting year.  Our use of the term
"fiscal year" in this report refers to the
appropriate Service fiscal year.
3 OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear
Sufficiently Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs
(GAO/GGD-98-199, Sept. 30, 1998).

Appendix II
Additional Information on Women and Minority
Representation in the PCES
Page 32
     The following tables show (1) comparisons of
the PCES executive/officer workforce with the
overall Service workforce at the end of fiscal
year 1999 by EEO group and (2) officer
representation over the 5-year period reviewed.

Table II.1: Comparison of PCES Executive/Officer
Workforce Representation With Overall Service
Workforce, Fiscal Year 1999
Workforc                              EEO group
e
          White White Black Black Hispan Hispan Asia Asian Native Native   Total
            men women  men women ic men    ic    n women Americ Americ percenta
                                       women  men      an men    an     ge/
                                                              women  number
                                                                         of
                                                                     women/
                                                                   minoriti
                                                                         es
PCES executives                                                           
Percenta  64.8% 13.8% 9.0%  5.3%  4.8%  0.5% 1.0% 0.5%   0.1%  0.1% 
ge          526   112   73    43    39     4    8    4      1     1 35.1%a
Number                                                              
(N= 812)                                                            285 a
PCES officers
Percenta  69.0% 19.0% 7.1%  0.0%  4.8%  0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   0.0%  0.0% 
ge           29     8    3     0     2     0    0    0      0     0 31.0%
Number                                                              
(N=42)                                                              13
Total PCES (officers/executives)
Percenta  65.0% 14.1% 8.9%  5.0%  4.8%  0.5% 0.9% 0.5%   0.1%  0.1% 
ge          555   120   76    43    41     4    8    4      1     1 34.9%a
Number                                                              
(N=854)                                                             298 a
Total Service workforce
Percenta  42.2% 22.2% 11.4% 10.2%  5.0%  2.2% 3.9% 2.3%   0.3%  0.2% 
ge       335,94 176,69 90,74 80,87 39,443 17,587 30,9 17,93  2,302 1,952 57.6%b
Number        3     8    7     3               36    3              
(N=796,5                                                            459,191b
35)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
aTotal does not include one male (0.1%) of unknown
race/ethnic origin.
bTotal does not include 1,401 males (0.2%) of
unknown race/ethnic origin, but does include 719
females (0.1%) of unknown race/ethnic origin and 1
black (0.0%) of unknown gender.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data, as
of the end of fiscal year 1999.

Table II.2: Women and Minority PCES Officer
Representation, Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Fiscal                                EEO group
year/
Number
          White White Blac Black Hispan Hispan Asian Asian Native Native   Total
            men women    k women ic men    ic  men women Americ Americ percenta
                      men             women           an men     an     ge/
                                                              women  number
                                                                         of
                                                                     women/
                                                                   minoriti
                                                                         es
1999                                                                       
Percenta  69.0% 19.0%      0.0%   4.8%  0.0%  0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   31.0%
ge           29    8 7.1%    0      2     0    0    0      0      0      13
Number                  3
(N=42)
1998                                                                       
Percenta  75.6% 14.6% 4.9% 0.0%   4.9%  0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   24.4%
ge           31    6    2    0      2     0    0    0      0      0      10
Number
(N=41)
1997                                                                       
Percenta  76.3% 10.5% 10.5 0.0%   2.6%  0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   23.7%
ge           29    4    %    0      1     0    0    0      0      0       9
Number                  4
(N=38)
1996                                                                       
Percenta  78.4% 10.8% 8.1% 0.0%   2.7%  0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   21.6%
ge           29    4    3    0      1     0    0    0      0      0       8
Number
(N=37)
1995                                                                       
Percenta  75.0% 13.9% 8.3% 0.0%    2.8  0.0%  0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   25.0%
ge           27    5    3    0      1     0    0    0      0      0       9
Number
(N=36)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of Service workforce data at
the end of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.

*** End of Document ***