Equal Employment Opportunity: Women and Minority Representation at
Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State (Chapter Report, 09/29/95,
GAO/GGD-95-211).

The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State have made
progress in improving women and minority representation in their
workforces. However, some groups are still underrepresented on an
overall basis and often underrepresented to a greater degree in key
jobs. Also, although the numbers of women and minorities in key jobs
increased across all white-collar grade and management levels, as of
1992 these groups continued to be less well represented in the higher
grades at agencies. Furthermore, the four agencies' milder affirmative
employment planning program analyses did not completely address each of
the eight required program elements set forth by The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Management Directive 714. For example,
none of the four completely analyzed its recruitment and hiring,
promotions, or separations program elements, all of which are needed to
identify the basic causes of underrepresentation. Finally, neither the
Office of Personnel Management nor EEOC provided the oversight needed to
ensure that agencies' affirmative employment program could effectively
correct imbalances in their workforces.

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

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-95-211
     TITLE:  Equal Employment Opportunity: Women and Minority 
             Representation at Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State
      DATE:  09/29/95
   SUBJECT:  Fair employment programs
             Federal employees
             Employment of minorities
             Women
             Data collection operations
             Hiring policies
             Personnel recruiting
             Federal personnel administrative law
             Personnel management
             Compliance
IDENTIFIER:  Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program
             Senior Executive Service
             SES
             
**************************************************************************
* 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.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental
Affairs, U.S.  Senate

September 1995

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY -
WOMEN AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION
AT INTERIOR, AGRICULTURE, NAVY,
AND STATE

GAO/GGD-95-211

Equal Employment Opportunity

(966497)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ACE - Office of Agency Compliance and Evaluation
  CLF - civilian labor force
  CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
  COM - Chief of Mission
  CPDF - Central Personnel Data File
  CSRA - Civil Service Reform Act
  DOD - Department of Defense
  EEO - equal employment opportunity
  EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  FEORP - Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program
  FPM - Federal Personnel Manual
  FS - Foreign service
  FY - fiscal year
  GSA - General Services Administration
  GS - General Schedule
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
  MD - Management Directive
  NPR - National Performance Review
  OPM - Office of Personnel Management
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  PATCOB - professional, administrative, technical, other, and blue
     collar
  SBA - Small Business Administration
  SES - Senior Executive Service
  SFS - Senior Foreign Service
  VA - Department of Veterans Affairs

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-249123

September 29, 1995

The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Glenn: 

This report responds to your request that we examine the
representation of women and minorities at the Departments of the
Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State and major factors affecting
their representation.  It is one in a series of reports that we have
prepared on the federal affirmative employment program in response to
your request. 

We are sending copies of this report to other appropriate
congressional committees and executive branch agencies, including the
Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State; the
Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and the Director,
Office of Personnel Management.  We will also make copies available
to others on request. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-3511 if you have any questions
concerning this report.  The major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours,

Timothy P.  Bowling
Associate Director
Federal Management and Workforce
 Issues


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
concerned that underrepresentation of equal employment opportunity
(EEO) groups in the federal workforce continued more than 10 years
after legislation to eliminate it was passed, asked GAO to determine: 
(1) the representation of women and minorities at the Departments of
the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State; (2) these agencies'
compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC)
affirmative employment planning instructions, particularly those that
address factors affecting women and minority underrepresentation; and
(3) the extent of EEOC and Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
oversight of agencies' affirmative employment and recruitment
programs. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Federal agencies are required by law to (1) implement affirmative
employment program plans to eliminate underrepresentation of women
and minorities where it exists and (2) conduct affirmative
recruitment for underrepresented occupations and pay grades. 
Affirmative employment program plans are defined by EEOC to include
comprehensive workforce analysis by occupational categories, grade
groupings, and key jobs that can lead to middle and senior-level
positions; identification of barriers to the employment of women and
minorities; and development of action plans for eliminating the
barriers.  Affirmative recruitment, according to regulation, means
the total process by which agencies locate, identify, and assist in
the employment of qualified applicants from underrepresented groups
in categories of employment where underrepresentation has been
determined.  The law defines underrepresentation to mean a situation
in which the percentage of an EEO group within a category of civil
service employment is less than its equivalent percentage within the
nation's civilian labor force (CLF). 

EEOC and OPM have significant roles in the government's efforts to
eliminate underrepresentation.  EEOC's role is broader in scope than
OPM's.  EEOC has statutory authority for providing federal agencies
instructions on developing their affirmative employment plans,
reviewing and approving those plans, and evaluating program
implementation.  EEOC's Management Directive (MD) 714 sets forth the
instructions which agencies must follow in order to have their
affirmative employment plans approved by EEOC.  One element of those
plans has been affirmative recruitment.  OPM is required by law to
assist agencies with their affirmative recruitment programs and
evaluate the effectiveness of those programs. 

GAO made various analyses of the four agencies' workforces, compared
the four agencies' affirmative employment and recruitment efforts and
plans for the second and current multiyear affirmative employment
planning cycle with relevant instructions, and interviewed OPM and
EEOC officials to discuss their approach to monitoring and evaluating
agency programs.  In addition to comparisons to the CLF, GAO compared
the numbers of women and minorities to the numbers of white men in
each of the four agencies.  White men were used because they were the
predominant group at the four agencies.  The term "relative number"
refers to the number of women and minorities for every 100 white men. 
For comparisons over time, GAO used data for fiscal years 1984 and
1992, the most recent for which it had complete data available.  GAO
analyzed EEO representation in 49 key jobs--nonclerical occupations
that are or can lead to middle and senior-level positions.  These key
jobs were among those that the agencies had identified in their
affirmative employment plans, as EEOC instructions provide. 

In February 1995, both Congress and the administration announced that
federal affirmative action programs should be reexamined because some
may no longer be serving their original purpose.  This report is
based on the programs in place up until that time. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State have
made progress in improving women and minority representation in their
workforces.  In general, the relative numbers of women and minorities
in each agency increased between 1984 and 1992.\1

As of September 1992, however, certain EEO groups were still
underrepresented on an overall basis and often underrepresented to a
greater degree in key jobs when compared to the CLF.  In addition,
while the relative numbers of women and minorities in key jobs
increased across all white-collar grades and management levels, as of
1992 these groups continued to be less well represented in the higher
grades of the agencies' organizations. 

Furthermore, the four agencies' multiyear affirmative employment
planning program analyses did not completely address each of the
eight required program elements set forth by EEOC in MD-714.  For
example, none of the four completely analyzed its recruitment and
hiring, promotions, or separations program elements, all of which are
needed to identify the fundamental causes of underrepresentation. 

Finally, neither OPM nor EEOC provided the oversight necessary to
ensure that agencies' affirmative employment programs can effectively
correct imbalances in their workforces.  For example, OPM did not
apply all the elements set forth in its regulations (5 CFR 720.205)
when reviewing agency affirmative recruitment plans, and until
recently, the number of EEOC's on-site reviews was limited. 


--------------------
\1 Workforce numbers for each EEO group are included in appendixes I
and II.  The term EEO group as used in this report refers to women
and minority EEO groups unless otherwise indicated. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


   PROGRESS IN IMPROVING THE
   REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND
   MINORITIES HAS BEEN MADE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

Women and minorities at the four agencies GAO reviewed have made
progress in their relative levels of representation.  Relative to
white men, all of the groups of minority men and women GAO looked at,
except for black men at Navy and Hispanic men at State, were better
represented among the agencies' total workforces in 1992 than they
were in 1984.  The number of white women, relative to white men,
increased by percentages ranging from 13 percent to 41 percent across
the four agencies.  Minority men and women showed similar increases
in number relative to white men, with percentage increases ranging
from 6 percent to 78 percent across the four agencies. 

Despite the gains in relative numbers, women and minorities were
represented in lower relative numbers in the agencies' key job
workforces and in the State Department's Foreign Service workforce
than in the agencies' total workforces.  This condition was more
pronounced for white and minority women than for minority men.  In
addition, women and minorities were underrepresented in fiscal year
1992 at the four agencies when compared to the CLF, in both the total
and white-collar workforces.  Minority men were underrepresented in
the total workforces at Agriculture and State, minority women in the
total workforces at Agriculture and Navy.  White women were
underrepresented in the total and white-collar workforces of all four
agencies; minority women were underrepresented in the total
workforces at Agriculture and Navy and also in Agriculture's
white-collar workforce.  Women and minorities were underrepresented
in many of the key jobs that GAO reviewed at each of the four
agencies.  The specific EEO groups that were underrepresented when
compared to the CLF varied by agency.  For example, Hispanics were
underrepresented in key jobs across all agencies; Asians in key jobs
in all agencies except the Navy. 

The relative numbers of women and minorities in key jobs or in
State's Foreign Service jobs increased across all grade levels (i.e.,
1 through 15) between 1984 and 1992.  Women and minorities also made
strides in the Senior Executive Service (SES) ranks and in State's
Foreign Service top positions over this period.  Their percentage of
these top positions grew from almost 9 percent in 1984 to nearly 16
percent in 1992.  Nonetheless, as of 1992, the presence of women and
minorities in General Schedule grades 13 through 15 was still
relatively low.  (There were 14 or fewer white women, minority men,
and minority women at grades 13 through 15 per 100 white men at the
same grade levels at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy; 22 or fewer at
State).  Further, white men still dominated the higher ranks of the
agencies, accounting for 75 percent or more of the agencies' senior
positions (i.e., SES as well as State Department's Senior Foreign
Service and Chiefs of Mission). 

Generally, women and minorities were hired and promoted into agency
key jobs (or, at State, the Foreign Service jobs) in relative numbers
that exceeded the relative numbers in which they were employed in
both 1984 and 1992.  However, in all four agencies, various EEO
groups separated from the agencies at rates that exceeded their
employment rates in 1992.  This higher rate of separations limited
the agencies' overall progress in achieving a representative
workforce. 


      AGENCIES' EEO/AFFIRMATIVE
      EMPLOYMENT PLANNING PROGRAM
      ANALYSES DID NOT COMPLETELY
      ADDRESS ALL ELEMENTS OF EEOC
      DIRECTIVE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1

GAO used EEOC's MD-714 as criteria for evaluation of agency multiyear
affirmative employment planning analyses and plans because it was the
governmentwide instruction in effect at the time of GAO's review. 
MD-714 states that agencies should use each of eight stated program
elements in conducting their analyses, but need not use all of the
program elements in developing their plans.  Each of the four
agencies GAO reviewed lacked a complete affirmative employment
planning analysis for four of the eight program elements (recruitment
and hiring, promotions, separations, and program evaluation).  The
only program element that all four agencies fully analyzed was
handling of discrimination complaints. 

According to EEO and/or personnel officials at the agencies reviewed,
EEOC's directive was not completely followed due to a number of
factors:  (1) the agencies considered EEOC's affirmative employment
program planning instructions as guidelines rather than requirements;
(2) agencies lacked data on personnel events--recruitment, hires,
training, promotions, and separations--needed to analyze problems and
barriers; (3) senior managers had little involvement in preparing the
plans; (4) the agencies treated the affirmative employment plans as a
"paperwork requirement" rather than as action plans to be taken
seriously; and (5) EEOC approved multiyear plans when agencies did
not follow all instructions. 

In addition, agencies face practical difficulties in collecting
certain data.  For example, agencies have not had a governmentwide
means for gathering agencywide applicant flow data since OPM's
authorization to use a specific form expired in December 1983. 
Applicant flow data--which identify the gender, race, and ethnic
origin of job applicants--are needed to determine whether recruiting
efforts are generating sufficient numbers of women and minority
applicants. 

In 1991, GAO recommended that OPM, in coordination with EEOC, examine
options for collecting and analyzing applicant flow data and take
prompt action.  As of June 1995, OPM said it was opposed to
collecting these data.  The agency stated that collecting applicant
flow data is costly, ineffective, and a reporting burden.  OPM
believed that agencies should be held accountable for the
compositions of their selections.  In contrast, in July 1995, EEOC
said that knowledge about the applicant pool is necessary to hold
agency officials accountable.  EEOC also said that collection of
applicant flow data is required by regulation that is binding on both
public and private sector employers. 

Although not required by EEOC, three of the four agencies reviewed
established numerical goals in their multiyear affirmative employment
plans as a means of achieving full representation.  However, they did
not link the goals to specific underrepresentation problems as EEOC
instructions provide when goals are established. 

While agency heads are ultimately responsible for implementing
programs to correct the underrepresentation of women and minorities
in the federal workforce, no formal mechanisms are in place to hold
them accountable for the success of their agencies' EEO/affirmative
employment programs.  The National Performance Review recommended
that the President mandate through Executive Order that each agency
head build EEO/affirmative employment elements into "the agency's
strategic business plan and include effective measurements for impact
and change." However, agencies may or may not have formal strategic
plans.  As of April 1995, a draft of the Executive Order was still
under review.  Moreover, while the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 requires agencies to develop strategic plans containing
organizational goals and objectives and measurable outputs, these
requirements do not go into effect until 1997.  It is unknown how the
current reexamination of federal affirmative action programs will
affect the administration's plans for holding agency heads
accountable for results in EEO/affirmative employment programs. 


      OPM AND EEOC OVERSIGHT OF
      AGENCIES' AFFIRMATIVE
      RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
      PROGRAMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.2

While OPM reviews agencies' recruitment program plans, its reviews of
the four agencies' plans did not include all of the elements covered
in its own regulations.  Officials in OPM's former Office of
Affirmative Recruiting (now the Office of Diversity) acknowledged
that OPM does not follow all of the requirements set forth in
applicable regulations (5 CFR 720.205) when reviewing recruitment
program plans.  While OPM increased the number of its on-site program
evaluations from 5 per year over fiscal years 1989-1992 to 27 in
1993, these evaluations did not provide agencies with information on
the effectiveness of their affirmative recruitment efforts.  OPM
officials stressed that EEOC bears the primary responsibility for
oversight of federal agencies' affirmative recruitment and employment
activities. 

As of June 1995, EEOC had completed 50 on-site reviews of agencies'
affirmative employment programs for the multiyear planning cycle that
began in 1988.  Thirty-six of these reviews have been completed since
June 1993, when EEOC officials told us they were revising their
evaluation approach to enable them to do more reviews in a given
year.  EEOC's on-site reviews have addressed significant program
issues.  For example, EEOC's report on Navy's program offered
specific recommendations regarding Navy's need to address
underrepresentation of women and minorities in SES positions and
upper grade levels and evaluate its Merit Promotion Program for
adverse impact on EEO groups.  Navy agreed to implement all of EEOC's
recommendations (see Ch.  4). 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

GAO is making no recommendations in this report. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7

GAO requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Interior, Navy, and State; the Director, OPM; and the
Chairman, EEOC.  Written comments were received from the Department
of Defense, Interior, OPM, and EEOC.  GAO met with State's EEO
Director and with a personnel management specialist from
Agriculture's Office of Personnel, in July 1995, to obtain their oral
comments.  Overall, with the exception noted below, the agencies
concurred with GAO's observations and analyses, and provided some
suggestions for improving the clarity and accuracy of GAO's analyses,
which GAO incorporated where appropriate. 

In its comments, EEOC articulated an interpretation of MD-714's
reporting requirements that was different from the one EEOC officials
had provided GAO during the course of past reviews.  EEOC said that
its current interpretation of MD-714 provides agencies leeway in
determining which program elements to report in their plans and that,
given this interpretation, the plans that GAO had characterized in
its draft report as incomplete could instead be viewed as complete. 
GAO agreed and has revised the report to reflect EEOC's most current
interpretation.  In doing so, however, GAO also further clarified its
point that MD-714 requires agencies to perform analyses to identify
underrepresentation and barriers to achieving full representation and
that these analyses had not been done or were incomplete at all four
of the agencies reviewed. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

The federal government has been grappling with equal employment
opportunity issues for over 3 decades.  A number of laws and
executive orders have been promulgated to end discrimination and
promote affirmative employment within the federal government.  The
initial focus of the legislation was on ensuring fair employment
practices and nondiscrimination.  The attention to affirmative action
as a means of addressing the historical underrepresentation of women
and minorities in the federal workforce began in the 1960s. 

Two major pieces of legislation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act
of 1972 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, provide the
statutory basis for the establishment of affirmative employment and
recruitment programs in the federal government.  The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has primary responsibility for
providing federal agencies with guidance on their affirmative action
programs and for monitoring and evaluating program implementation. 
Although affirmative action programs are currently the subject of
some review and debate, these laws and programs remain in effect and
guided the actions of the agencies we reviewed. 


      THE 1972 AND 1978 ACTS
      PROVIDE A STATUTORY BASIS
      FOR TAKING AFFIRMATIVE
      ACTION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:0.1

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 amended title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 to cover federal employees.  The 1972 Act
requires that all personnel actions affecting federal employees or
applicants for employment be free from discrimination.  It also
requires federal agencies to develop and implement affirmative
employment program plans to eliminate the historic
underrepresentation of women and minorities in the federal workforce. 
The 1972 Act made the then Civil Service Commission responsible for
enforcing those requirements and for approving agencies' plans. 
These responsibilities were later shifted to EEOC. 

The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 stated for the first time
in law that a basic federal personnel policy is to create a
competent, honest, and productive federal workforce that is
reflective of the nation's diverse population.  The act also required
OPM to implement a minority recruitment program.  Accordingly, OPM
set up the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP),
which requires agencies to conduct affirmative recruitment for
occupations and grades in which equal employment opportunity (EEO)
groups are underrepresented.  Under the act, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is responsible for assisting agencies in their
affirmative recruitment efforts, overseeing FEORP, and reporting
annually to Congress on FEORP implementation activities. 

CSRA defines underrepresentation as a situation in which the
percentage of an EEO group within a category of civil service
employment is less than its equivalent percentage within the CLF, as
determined under the most recent decennial or mid-decade census or
current population survey taken under title 13 of the United States
Code.\1 The CLF represents all persons who are employed or seeking
employment. 

OPM and EEOC are responsible for providing oversight to executive
agencies' affirmative recruitment and employment programs,
respectively.  OPM and EEOC manage their oversight responsibilities
primarily through reviews of workforce data, agency affirmative
recruitment and employment plans, and accomplishment reports.  They
also do periodic on-site program reviews.  OPM and EEOC are required
to report annually to the President and Congress on the agencies'
affirmative recruitment and employment activities. 


--------------------
\1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes current population data,
which are based on monthly household surveys.  However, these surveys
do not include enough households to provide a statistically sound
representation of all minority groups.  Consequently, the population
survey may not report on minority groups that have small numbers. 
Taking into account this limitation, we used 1990 census data in
analyzing the agencies' workforces. 


      EEOC'S AFFIRMATIVE
      EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM PLANNING
      PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:0.2

Executive Order 12067 implemented the President's Reorganization Plan
No.  1 of 1978, which transferred the equal employment opportunity
functions in the federal government from the Civil Service Commission
to EEOC.  The executive order assigned EEOC lead coordinating and
oversight responsibilities for federal equal opportunity programs and
activities.  These responsibilities include establishing rules,
regulations, orders, and instructions for developing and implementing
affirmative employment program plans required by law.  In addition,
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEOC is
required to report to the President and Congress on the federal
affirmative employment program for women and minorities. 
Responsibilities for overseeing federal affirmative recruitment
programs remained with OPM. 

EEOC established a multiyear planning process, which requires
agencies to prepare 5-year affirmative employment plans and annual
updates for EEOC's approval.  EEOC also requires agencies to report
annually on their accomplishments. 

EEOC is responsible for the review and approval of agencies' plans. 
As part of this authority, EEOC issues a Management Directive to
provide federal agencies guidance on the development and submission
of their EEO/affirmative employment plans.  Although the Directive
does not have the force of official regulation, it sets forth the
procedures which it says agencies must follow in order to have their
plans approved by EEOC. 

In 1981, EEOC issued Management Directive (MD) 707, the first set of
instructions for preparing multiyear and annual affirmative
employment plans for minorities and women.  These instructions
originally covered fiscal years 1982 through 1986, but were extended
to fiscal year 1987.  MD-707 provided that agencies should set
numerical goals where underrepresentation of women and minorities was
found.  This directive established the term "severe
underrepresentation" to describe situations in which an EEO group's
representation in an agency is less than 50 percent of the CLF
rate.\2

In 1987, EEOC issued MD-714, which provides instructions for the
second and current multiyear affirmative action planning cycle. 
EEOC's policy intent in issuing MD-714 was to create stronger and
more effective affirmative employment programs through a process that
provided for

  a systematic analysis of program elements, including workforce
     analysis by occupational categories, grade grouping, and key
     jobs that can lead to middle and senior-level positions;

  identification and removal of barriers;

  identification of objectives and actions that lead to positive
     meaningful results;

  strong agency head commitment;

  management accountability systems for holding senior managers
     responsible for achieving agency EEO objectives; and

  reporting mechanisms to monitor changes in the agencies' workforces
     and progress in resolving problems. 

As shown in figure 1, MD-714 provided that agencies should (1)
analyze eight program elements, (2) identify barriers to the
employment of women and minorities, and (3) develop action plans for
eliminating the barriers.  As in previous EEOC instructions, MD-714
indicated that each agency should compare the EEO composition of its
workforce with that of the CLF and to include this analysis in its
affirmative employment plan.  The establishment of numerical goals is
discretionary under this directive.  According to EEOC guidance, the
major thrust of MD-714 was to get the agencies to identify and remove
barriers to the employment and advancement of women and minorities. 

Under MD-714, agency heads are responsible for ensuring compliance
with affirmative employment program instructions issued by EEOC,
establishing agencywide goals and objectives, and ensuring that all
Senior Executive Service (SES) members are held accountable for
achieving affirmative employment objectives as required under CSRA. 

MD-714 was intended to cover fiscal years 1988 through 1992.  It too
was extended until a new directive is issued.  In 1994, EEOC drafted
a new directive to replace MD-714.  EEOC officials have told us that
the draft is being reviewed by the Commission. 

   Figure 1:  Management Directive
   714 Affirmative Employment
   Planning Process and
   Instructions

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  EEOC's Management Directive 714. 


--------------------
\2 As previously said, CSRA defined the term underrepresentation. 
EEOC is no longer using the terms "underrepresentation" and "severe
underrepresentation." We use them in this report because we find them
better defined than EEOC's substitutes.  Beginning in 1988, EEOC used
"manifest imbalance" to refer to situations where an EEO group was
substantially below its representation in the CLF.  It also used the
term "conspicuous absence" for situations where an EEO group was
nearly or totally nonexistent in the workforce.  However, currently
EEOC uses no numerical criteria for these terms or for measuring the
extent of underrepresentation. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

This report is one in a series that we have prepared on the federal
affirmative employment program for the former Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs.  In May and October 1991, we
reported on the federal affirmative employment planning guidance and
the representation of women and minorities in the federal
workforce.\3 In March 1993 and July 1994, respectively, we reported
on the progress of EEO groups in the key job workforces of large and
small federal agencies.\4

As agreed with the Committee, the objectives of this study were to

  determine the representation of women and minorities at the
     Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State and
     changes in the representation levels of these groups,
     particularly at the upper grade levels and in occupations that
     lead to those grades;

  evaluate whether the agencies' affirmative employment program plans
     complied with EEOC's instructions, particularly those that
     address factors affecting women and minority
     underrepresentation; and

  assess the adequacy of EEOC's and OPM's oversight of the
     affirmative employment and recruitment programs. 

As table 1 shows, the four agencies we were asked to review differed
in size, and showed different changes in the numbers of permanent
employees in their workforces between 1984, 1992, and 1994.\5



                                Table 1
                
                  Number of Permanent Employees at the
                      Departments of the Interior,
                 Agriculture, Navy, and State in Fiscal
                       Years 1984, 1992, and 1994


Agency                              1984           1992           1994
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Interior                          58,635         62,007         60,240
Agriculture                       96,175         96,932         91,189
Navy                             289,705        282,157        244,872
State                             12,395         12,152         12,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Numbers do not include employees whose race or gender
information was missing from OPM's CPDF. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 

The four agencies also differed in terms of the percentages of their
total workforces that were in white-collar and in key white-collar
jobs.  EEOC defines key jobs as nonclerical occupations with 100
employees or more that are or can lead to middle and senior-level
positions.  In fiscal year 1992,

  88.8 percent of Interior's permanent employees were in white-collar
     jobs, and 33.7 percent in key white-collar jobs. 

  98 percent of Agriculture's permanent employees were in
     white-collar jobs, and 52.8 percent in key white-collar jobs. 

  68.7 percent of Navy's permanent employees were in white-collar
     jobs, and 14.8 percent in key white-collar jobs. 

  42.4 percent of State's permanent employees were in white- collar
     jobs.  (State's Foreign Service workforce accounted for 56.7
     percent of the agency's total permanent employees). 

The analyses presented in chapter 2 address the total, white- collar,
and key job workforces at each agency except at the State Department. 
At State, we examined the Foreign Service workforce in addition to
the total and white-collar civil service workforces.\6

To determine the representation status of women and minorities, we
compared each agency's workforce profile with the CLF profile to
determine whether the agencies' workforces were representative of the
race, ethnic, and gender groups in the CLF.  MD-714 and its
predecessors instruct that agencies make this comparison for
affirmative employment planning purposes.  There are different
approaches to determining the appropriate CLF for use in this
analysis.  The directives encourage agencies to use broad
occupational categories--professional, administrative, technical,
clerical, other, and blue collar (PATCOB).  However, its instructions
for the last affirmative planning cycle provided as an alternative
the use of occupation specific data.  Each approach, as we discussed
in a previous report, has advantages and disadvantages.\7 For
example, PATCOB categories can be too general if an occupation being
compared requires particular qualifications and educational levels. 
A disadvantage of the occupation specific data is that it may be
difficult to find occupations in the CLF that precisely match the
agencies' occupations. 

For this report, we made two different comparisons against the CLF. 
First, we analyzed the agencies' EEO profiles on an overall basis
(i.e., all occupations combined) against the national CLF profile. 
This provided a broad overview of the standing of the different EEO
groups in the agencies' total and white-collar workforces.  However,
this comparison does not take into account the differences in the
agencies' occupational mixes and the occupational mix in the CLF. 
Second, we compared key white-collar occupations that agencies had
identified in their affirmative employment plans against specific
occupations in the national CLF.\8 Our analyses covered 10 different
EEO groups--white men and women, black men and women, Hispanic men
and women, Asian men and women, and Native American men and women. 

To assess the degree of representation, we computed representation
indexes for overall employment and for key jobs.  These indexes were
computed by dividing the percentage of each EEO group in each of the
four agencies by the corresponding percentage of each EEO group in
the CLF and multiplying the result by 100.  The indexes can range
from 0 to more than 100, with 100 indicating full representation and
numbers less than 100 indicating underrepresentation.  To the extent
an index is much smaller than 100, the underrepresentation is
correspondingly more severe. 

The federal workforce data we used came from OPM's Central Personnel
Data File (CPDF).  Our analyses included full-time and part-time
permanent employees.  CPDF data comes from federal departments and
agencies that report to it.  We did not verify the accuracy of the
CPDF data. 

Following EEOC's guidelines, we used the 1990 decennial census CLF
data compiled by the U.S.  Census Bureau as the benchmark for
calculating 1992 representation levels.  The use of decennial census
data for CLF comparisons is a common approach to measuring the
representation of EEO groups in the federal government.  However, we
recognize that census data, like all other existing benchmarks, have
strengths and weaknesses.  Census-based CLF data are readily
available by EEO group to do analyses of total employment and key
jobs (e.g., civil engineers, computer specialists).  However, the
data become outdated with time\9 and may require adjustments to
compensate for undercounting of minorities.  We did not make
adjustments to the census data. 

EEOC, working with OPM, created a "crosswalk" that matches federal
occupations with similar occupations in the decennial census CLF. 
The crosswalk does not always provide a perfect match between the
federal and census occupations, but it is the closest readily
available source for making comparisons.  We used the crosswalked
census occupations for our analysis of agency key jobs. 

We analyzed changes in representation levels of different EEO groups
at two points in time--the end of fiscal years 1984 and 1992.  Fiscal
year 1984 was the most distant year for which we had complete data
and 1992 the most recent data available.  To analyze changes in
representation over this period, we used a ratio-based approach. 

The ratio-based technique involves comparing ratios of numbers in
differing EEO groups.  To determine the change in representation
levels between 1984 and 1992 for particular EEO groups, we divided
the number of employees in the EEO group by the number of white men
in each year and then took ratios of those numbers across the
years.\10 The term "relative number" used in this report refers to
the number of women and minorities for every 100 white men.  White
men were selected as the benchmark because they dominated the
agencies' workforces in 1984 and 1992, especially at General Schedule
(GS) grades 14, 15, and senior management levels.  It seemed
reasonable to consider how the numbers of women and minorities had
changed over time relative to them.  The ratio-based technique is
especially useful in comparing relative changes in workforce
representation across EEO groups of very different sizes and when the
size and growth rates of the total employee population vary during
the period studied. 

We also used this technique to analyze data on hires, separations,
and promotions.\11 These personnel events have an effect on the
composition of the workforce, and the distribution of EEO groups
across grade levels and analyses of these events may provide
information to further explain representation trends.  For our grade
level analysis, we grouped the GS grades as follows:  GS grades 1
through 10, 11 through 12, and 13 through 15.  We converted the State
Department Foreign Service grades to GS-equivalent grades using OPM's
guidelines.\12 Our definition of senior management included employees
in the SES, State Department's Senior Foreign Service, and State
Department's Chief of Mission positions. 

To address our second objective--agency compliance with EEOC's
instructions--we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and EEOC
directives.  We examined MD-714 and supplemental memorandums issued
by EEOC which contain the affirmative employment planning
instructions applicable to the period covered in our review. 

We discussed the affirmative employment planning instructions with
former and current officials from EEOC's Office of Federal Operations
in Washington, D.C., and EEOC's Atlanta and Philadelphia District
Offices who are responsible for reviewing and approving agencies'
affirmative employment plans.  (The Atlanta and Philadelphia offices
had oversight responsibilities over components of the Navy that we
reviewed.) These officials described the factors they considered in
reviewing and approving plans and provided us with compliance
information for the four agencies we examined.  We obtained examples
of approval letters and other relevant documentation on the approval
process.  In addition, we independently reviewed the multiyear
affirmative employment plans that the Departments of the Interior,
Agriculture, Navy, and State prepared for fiscal years 1988 through
1992 and matched their contents against EEOC's instructions. 

To determine whether agencies had analyzed each of the eight program
elements as required by MD-714, we talked to agency officials about
the affirmative employment planning process.  We discussed the
agencies' multiyear plans with EEO and personnel specialists who
described the analysis process and how the documents were prepared. 
We also asked for and reviewed documentation on the program analyses,
comparing the analysis done to the guidance in MD-714.  In addition,
we interviewed agency supervisors, managers, SES members, and unit
heads to document their roles and extent of involvement in
affirmative employment planning and confirm whether certain required
tasks were completed in the analyses. 

To assess the adequacy of EEOC's and OPM's oversight efforts, we
reviewed 13 on-site evaluation reports of federal agencies or
components that EEOC prepared between 1988 and 1992 to determine
program coverage at each site.  (EEOC reports included evaluations of
the Departments of the Interior and the Navy.) We met with officials
in EEOC's Office of Federal Operations to discuss the methodology
they used for on-site reviews and their monitoring of agency program
implementation.  We reviewed EEOC's standard operating procedures for
conducting on-site reviews and staff and budget information on the
resources that EEOC has allocated to affirmative action planning
since fiscal year 1988.  In addition, we reviewed EEOC's fiscal year
1990 Annual Report on the Employment of Women, Minorities, and People
with Disabilities in the Federal Government. 

Likewise, we met with officials from OPM's former Office of
Affirmative Recruitment and Employment (now the Office of Diversity)
and OPM's Office of Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) (recently
merged into the Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness)
to discuss (1) OPM's responsibilities in monitoring agencies'
affirmative recruitment programs; (2) the approach OPM uses to carry
out its responsibilities, including the criteria used to evaluate
agency FEORP plans; and (3) past and current activities to monitor
and evaluate agency affirmative recruitment programs.  In addition,
we reviewed OPM FEORP reports to Congress for fiscal years 1990 to
1993. 

Our audit work was done from February 1992 to March 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
requested comments on a draft of this report from the heads of
Agriculture, EEOC, Interior, OPM, Navy, and State.  The Chairman,
EEOC; the Director, OPM; the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior; and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense (Equal
Opportunity) provided written comments that are discussed in chapters
3 and 4 and reprinted in appendixes III through VI.  State's Director
of EEO and a program specialist from Agriculture's Office of
Personnel provided oral comments. 


--------------------
\3 Federal Affirmative Action:  Better Guidance and Agency Analysis
of Underrepresentation Needed (GAO/GGD-91-86, May 10, 1991); Federal
Affirmative Action:  Better EEOC Guidance and Agency Analysis of
Underrepresentation Needed (GAO/T-GGD-91-32, May 16, 1991); and
Federal Affirmative Employment:  Status of Women and Minority
Representation in the Federal Workforce (GAO/T-GGD-92-2, Oct.  23,
1991). 

\4 Affirmative Employment:  Assessing Progress of EEO Groups in Key
Federal Jobs Can Be Improved (GAO/GGD-93-65, Mar.  8, 1993); Federal
Affirmative Employment:  Better Guidance Needed for Small Agencies
(GAO/GGD-94-71, July 21, 1994). 

\5 These were the years for which both employment and CLF data were
readily available when we did our analysis.  The number of permanent
employees included all full-time and part-time permanent employees. 
As a result of congressional and administration initiatives, all of
these agencies had smaller workforces at the end of fiscal year 1994. 

\6 We did not do analyses by key job for the State Department's
Foreign Service workforce--the focus of our review-- because State
did not identify key jobs for this segment of its workforce in its
affirmative employment plans.  These plans provide analyses of
State's Foreign Service workforce in terms of "generalists" and
"specialists" without reference to key jobs. 

\7 Federal Affirmative Employment:  Status of Women and Minority
Representation in the Federal Workforce (GAO/T-GGD-92-2, Oct.  23,
1991). 

\8 The State Department was excluded from the analyses of key
occupations for the reason discussed earlier. 

\9 As stated earlier, we did not use current population data because
it does not always provide statistically sound numbers for all
minority groups when the numbers are small. 

\10 We introduced this methodology in our March 1993 report. 

\11 Appendix II explains what is included in the definitions of
hires, separations, and promotions for the purposes of this report. 

\12 The Foreign Service uses pay plans that identify Foreign Service
Officers and Foreign Service Personnel.  We consolidated the data and
used OPM guidelines to convert the Foreign Service grades to
GS-equivalent grades as follows:  the Foreign Service grade 9 equals
GS-5, grade 8 equals GS-6, grade 7 equals GS-7, grade 6 equals GS-8,
grade 5 equals GS-9, grade 4 equals GS-11, grade 3 equals GS-12,
grade 2 equals GS-14, and grade 1 equals GS-15. 


AGENCIES HAVE MADE PROGRESS IN
REDUCING THE UNDERREPRESENTATION
OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES
============================================================ Chapter 2

Federal agencies have been required, as a result of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of
1972, to develop and implement affirmative employment programs to
eliminate the historical underrepresentation of women and minorities
in the workforce.  To determine where underrepresentation exists,
MD-714 (and its predecessor) provide that federal agencies compare
the percentage of a particular minority/gender group in an occupation
or job category with the percentage of that same group in the CLF. 
MD-714 (and its predecessor) further provide that when the federal
employment percentage is less than the CLF percentage,
underrepresentation exists and should be addressed in the agency's
affirmative employment plan.  Our analysis of agency compliance with
requirements for affirmative employment planning is discussed in
chapter 3. 

We used two approaches to analyze agency workforce data to determine
the representation of women and minorities in the workforce.  The
first approach involved the use of a ratio-based technique to
estimate the relative numbers of women and minorities in the agencies
and also the numbers involved in certain personnel events in each
year.  The technique, which involves comparing ratios of numbers in
differing occupational categories, grade levels, or EEO groups,
enabled us to perform analyses that are useful for depicting the
direction and magnitude of changes over time, and they are especially
well suited to comparing the relative changes in workforce
representation across groups of very different sizes. 

The second approach required comparisons to CLF data, a benchmark
external to the agencies.  To determine representation levels, we
computed representation indexes using agency workforce data and
national CLF data from the 1990 census.  The indexes indicate the
extent to which an EEO group is represented in a workforce as
compared to that group's representation in the CLF.  The index can
range from 0 to 100 plus, with 100 indicating full representation and
lower numbers indicating underrepresentation. 

Generally, we found that the Departments of the Interior,
Agriculture, Navy, and State made progress towards improving the EEO
composition of their workforces.  The relative numbers of white women
and minorities in the agencies' workforces increased between 1984 and
1992.\1 Moreover, the relative number of women and minorities in the
agencies' key white-collar jobs increased across all grade levels
between 1984 and 1992.  Also, the agencies hired and promoted women
and minorities into key white-collar jobs in relative numbers that
generally equalled or exceeded their relative numbers employed over
the period reviewed.  However, white and minority women in all
agencies and minority men at Interior in 1992 separated at higher
rates than white men.  Underrepresentation of women and
minorities--especially in key jobs--remained in these agencies. 
White women in all the agencies and minority women at Agriculture
were underrepresented on an overall basis in the total and white-
collar workforces in fiscal year 1992 when compared to the national
CLF.  Most EEO groups continued to be underrepresented in key
white-collar jobs in relation to their representation in similar
occupations in the CLF. 

Appendix I provides more data on the results of our analyses.  The
following sections focus on the relative changes in women and
minority representation overall and in the agencies' key jobs by
grade level. 


--------------------
\1 Relative means in relation to white men, the benchmark we used for
comparison purposes.  White men were the predominant group in the
agencies' workforces in the years reviewed. 


   CHANGES IN THE RELATIVE
   REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND
   MINORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

In this section, we analyze overall changes in the numbers of women
and minorities relative to the numbers of white men.  This approach
involves comparing ratios of employment numbers for differing EEO
groups between 1984 and 1992. 

Figures 2.1 through 2.3 show that, in virtually all workforces at
each agency, the numbers of white women and minorities employed
increased relative to the number of white men.\2 The increases were
generally larger for white and minority women than for minority men. 
The relative numbers in these figures indicate, in each year, the
number of white women, minority men, and minority women there were
for every 100 white men.  These relative numbers were calculated by
dividing the number of employees in each protected EEO group by the
number of white men, and multiplying by 100. 

Notwithstanding the increases in relative numbers, in both fiscal
year 1984 and fiscal year 1992 white women and minorities were
represented in lower relative numbers in the agencies' key
white-collar occupations and in the Department of State's Foreign
Service workforce than in the agencies' total workforces.  As seen in
figures 2.1 through 2.3, this condition appears somewhat more
pronounced for white and minority women than for minority men. 

We divided the relative number for the latest fiscal year (1992) by
the relative number for the beginning fiscal year (1984) to express
the amount of change that had occurred.  A resulting ratio of 1.0
indicates no change in percentage or relative number; ratios greater
than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages or relative numbers,
while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease.  Tables 2.1, 2.2,
and 2.3 display these results. 

   Figure 2.1:  Relative Numbers
   of White Women at the Four
   Agencies in Fiscal Years 1984
   and 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                               Table 2.1
                
                 Ratio of Change for White Women at the
                 Four Agencies in Fiscal Years 1984 and
                                  1992


Agency                             Total workforce   Key job workforce
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Interior                                      1.26                1.74
Agriculture                                   1.41                1.92
Navy                                          1.17                1.52
State                                         1.13                1.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  A ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative
number.  Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages
or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 

   Figure 2.2:  Relative Numbers
   of Minority Men at the Four
   Agencies in Fiscal Years 1984
   and 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                               Table 2.2
                
                Ratio of Change for Minority Men at the
                 Four Agencies in Fiscal Years 1984 and
                                  1992


Agency                             Total workforce   Key job workforce
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Interior                                      1.08                1.14
Agriculture                                   1.28                1.36
Navy                                          1.06                1.36
State                                         1.14                1.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  A ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative
number.  Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages
or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 

   Figure 2.3:  Relative Numbers
   of Minority Women at the Four
   Agencies in Fiscal Years 1984
   and 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                               Table 2.3
                
                 Ratio of Change for Minority Women at
                 the Four Agencies in Fiscal Years 1984
                                and 1992


Agency                             Total workforce   Key job workforce
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Interior                                      1.32                1.45
Agriculture                                   1.75                2.50
Navy                                          1.56                2.13
State                                         1.78                1.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  A ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative
number.  Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages
or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 


--------------------
\2 As shown in appendix tables I.1 through I.4 there were some
exceptions.  For example, black men in the total workforce at Navy,
white women in the white-collar workforce at Navy, and Hispanic men
in the total and white-collar workforces at State showed slight
declines in their relative numbers. 


   CHANGES IN THE RELATIVE
   STANDING OF WOMEN AND
   MINORITIES IN THE AGENCIES' KEY
   JOBS, BY GRADE LEVEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

How much progress have the agencies made in improving the standing of
women and minorities in their key job grade structure between fiscal
years 1984 and 1992?  The relative number of women and minorities in
key white-collar jobs at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy, and in the
State Department Foreign Service increased across all GS grades
(i.e., GS grades 1 through 10, 11 through 12, and 13 through 15) over
the period we reviewed.\3 Women and minorities also made strides in
the agencies' SES ranks and in State's Foreign Service top
positions--Senior Foreign Service Officers and Chiefs of
Mission--between fiscal years 1984 and 1992.  However, as figures 2.4
through 2.7 and tables 2.4 through 2.7 show as of fiscal year 1992,
women and minorities were still less well represented in the
agencies' middle and senior management levels (grades 13 and above)
than in the lower levels of the agencies' hierarchies. 


--------------------
\3 For the State Department Foreign Service we used GS-equivalent
grades. 


      RELATIVE REPRESENTATION AT
      GRADES 15 AND BELOW
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

The relative numbers of white women and minorities at Interior,
Agriculture, and Navy increased at every grade level.\4 Increases in
relative numbers were, at grade 15 and below in these three agencies,
generally larger for white and minority women than for minority men. 
The only exception was for grades 1 through 10 at Navy, where the
increase in the relative number of minority men was greater than that
for white women. 

Among State's Foreign Service employees, only white women increased
in representation at all three grade levels.\5 The percentage of
minority men increased at grades 13 through 15 but decreased at
grades 11 and 12, while the percentage of minority women increased at
grades 1 through 10 and 13 through 15 but decreased at grades 11 and
12.  The percentage of white men in the Foreign Service workforce
decreased at all three grade levels.  The relative numbers of white
women and minority men either increased or, in the case of minority
men and women at grades 11 to 12, remained virtually the same.\6

   Figure 2.4:  Relative Numbers
   of White Women and Minority Men
   and Women in Key Jobs at
   Interior in Fiscal Years 1984
   and 1992, by Grade Level

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                               Table 2.4
                
                  Ratio of Change for White Women and
                  Minority Men and Women at Different
                  Grade Levels in Key Jobs at Interior
                  From Fiscal Year 1984 to Fiscal Year
                                  1992


EEO group                    Grades 1-10   Grades 11-12   Grades 13-15
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
White women                         1.41           2.22           2.36
Minority men                        1.11           1.16           1.22
Minority women                      1.20           1.77           2.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  A ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative
number.  Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages
or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 

   Figure 2.5:  Relative Numbers
   of White Women and Minority Men
   and Women in Key Jobs at
   Agriculture in Fiscal Years
   1984 and 1992, by Grade Level

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                               Table 2.5
                
                  Ratio of Change for White Women and
                  Minority Men and Women at Different
                Grade Levels in Key Jobs at Agriculture
                  From Fiscal Year 1984 to Fiscal Year
                                  1992


EEO group                    Grades 1-10   Grades 11-12   Grades 13-15
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
White women                         1.85           3.66           4.65
Minority men                        1.34           1.48           1.61
Minority women                      2.40           4.45           5.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  A ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative
number.  Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages
or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 

   Figure 2.6:  Relative Numbers
   of White Women and Minority Men
   and Women in Key Jobs at Navy
   in Fiscal Years 1984 and 1992,
   by Grade Level

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                               Table 2.6
                
                  Ratio of Change for White Women and
                  Minority Men and Women at Different
                 Grade Levels in Key Jobs at Navy From
                  Fiscal Year 1984 to Fiscal Year 1992


EEO group                    Grades 1-10   Grades 11-12   Grades 13-15
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
White women                         1.10           2.72           4.55
Minority men                        1.31           1.47           1.43
Minority women                      1.83           3.64           8.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  A ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative
number.  Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages
or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 

   Figure 2.7:  Relative Numbers
   of White Women and Minority Men
   and Women in Foreign Service
   Jobs at State in Fiscal Years
   1984 and 1992, by Grade Level

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                               Table 2.7
                
                  Ratio of Change for White Women and
                  Minority Men and Women at Different
                 Grade Levels in Key Jobs at State From
                  Fiscal Year 1984 to Fiscal Year 1992


EEO group                     Grade 1-10   Grades 11-12   Grades 13-15
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
White women                         2.08           1.26           1.86
Minority men                        1.35           0.99           1.90
Minority women                      3.16           0.98           3.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  A ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative
number.  Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages
or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 


--------------------
\4 Appendix tables I.5 through I.7 show a decrease in the percentage
of specific groups of minority men in key jobs at some grade levels
at these three agencies.  Namely, at Interior, there was a decrease
in the percentage of Asian men at grades 1 through 10, and in both
their percentage and relative numbers at grades 13 through 15.  There
was a decline in the percentage of Native American men at grades 11
to 12 at Interior, and in both their percentage and relative numbers
at grades 13 through 15 at Navy.  The percentage of black men at
grades 1 through 10 decreased at Interior and Agriculture, though
their relative numbers increased at those lower grades. 

\5 Following OPM's definitions, we converted the Foreign Service
grades to equivalent GS grades.  We used pay plan codes for Foreign
Service Officers and personnel. 

\6 Although the percentage of minority men decreased in State's
Foreign Service workforce at GS-equivalent grades 1 through 10, table
I.8 shows that only Asian men decreased in their number relative to
white men.  Black men and women and Native American men all
decreased, both in their percentage and relative numbers, at
GS-equivalent grades 11 to 12.  None of the specific categories of
minorities, men or women, decreased in their representation at
GS-equivalent grades 13 through 15, and most in fact increased in
representation at those upper levels quite substantially. 


      RELATIVE REPRESENTATION IN
      AGENCIES' SES AND TOP
      FOREIGN SERVICE POSITIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

In general, the relative numbers of white women and minorities in the
SES and in the Department of State's top Foreign Service
positions--Senior Foreign Service Officers and Chiefs of Mission--
increased between 1984 and 1992.  The exception was minority men in
State's SES and Chiefs of Mission.  (See table 2.8.) The size of the
increases varied by agency and group.  White women experienced the
greatest gains in the SES level at all agencies except at Interior,
where minority women showed the highest rate.  However, as table 2.8
shows, white men continued to dominate the higher ranks of the
agencies reviewed, accounting for 75 percent or more of the agencies'
top positions in 1992. 



                                    Table 2.8
                     
                     Distribution of Women and Minorities In
                         SES and Top Foreign Service (FS)
                     Positions at the Four Agencies Reviewed


Agency      1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Interior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White        219     214      -5   84.23   74.83    0.89
 men
White         13      25      12    5.00    8.74    1.75    5.94   11.68    1.97
 women
Minority      26      39      13   10.00   13.64    1.36   11.87   18.22    1.54
 men
Minority       2       8       6    0.77    2.80    3.64    0.91    3.74    4.11
 women
================================================================================
Total        260     286      26  100.00  100.01

Agriculture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White        287     299      12   91.99   79.52    0.86
 men
White         10      47      37    3.21   12.50    3.89    3.48   15.72    4.52
 women
Minority      12      25      13    3.85    6.65    1.73    4.18    8.36    2.00
 men
Minority       3       5       2    0.96    1.33    1.39    1.05    1.67    1.59
 women
================================================================================
Total        312     376      64  100.01  100.00

Navy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White        368     392      24   94.12   91.80    0.98
 men
White          7      16       9    1.79    3.75    2.10    1.90    4.08    2.15
 women
Minority      16      18       2    4.09    4.22    1.03    4.35    4.59    1.06
 men
Minority       0       1       1    0.00    0.23      \a    0.00    0.26      \a
 women
================================================================================
Total        391     427      36  100.00  100.00

State (SES)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White         82     104      22   82.83   78.79    0.95
 men
White         10      18       8   10.10   13.64    1.35   12.20   17.31    1.42
 women
Minority       7       7       0    7.07    5.30    0.75    8.54    6.73    0.79
 men
Minority       0       3       3    0.00    2.27      \a    0.00    2.88      \a
 women
================================================================================
Total         99     132      33  100.00  100.00

State (SFS)\b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White        651     585     -66   93.53   87.18    0.93
 men
White         24      57      33    3.45    8.49    2.46    3.69    9.74    2.64
 women
Minority      21      24       3    3.02    3.58    1.19    3.23    4.10    1.27
 men
Minority       0       5       5    0.00    0.75      \a    0.00    0.85      \a
 women
================================================================================
Total        696     671     -25  100.00  100.00

State (COM)\c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White         91      95       4   90.10   84.82    0.94
 men
White          4       9       5    3.96    8.04    2.03    4.40    9.47    2.15
 women
Minority       6       5      -1    5.94    4.46    0.75    6.59    5.26    0.80
 men
Minority       0       3       3    0.00    2.68      \a    0.00    3.16      \a
 women
================================================================================
Total        101     112      11  100.00  100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  There were 136 FS-SESs in 1992, but 4 were missing EEO
information.  There were 672 FS-SFSs in 1992, but 1 was missing EEO
information.  There were 115 FS-COMs in 1992, but 3 were missing EEO
information. 

\a The amount of change (increase or decrease) cannot be computed
because there was no one (0.00) in that EEO group at that grade level
in the base year (1984). 

\b SFS is an abbreviation for Senior Foreign Service. 

\c COM is an abbreviation for Chief of Mission. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 


   COMPARISONS OF THE AGENCIES'
   AND THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

We compared the EEO profiles of the four agencies' workforces as of
September 1992 with the EEO profile of the nation's CLF in 1990 to
determine if the agencies' workforces were representative of the CLF. 
Using an index where less than 100 indicates underrepresentation, we
found that certain EEO groups were often underrepresented on an
overall basis (all occupations combined) and in key jobs in 1992 when
compared to the CLF.  The extent of underrepresentation, as discussed
below, varied by agency and EEO group. 


      OVERALL REPRESENTATION OF
      WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN
      COMPARISON TO THE CLF
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.1

White women in all four agencies, minority men at Agriculture and
State, and minority women at Agriculture and Navy, were
underrepresented in the total workforces of these agencies in 1992
when compared to 1990 CLF data.  In the white-collar workforce, white
women were underrepresented in the four agencies reviewed, while
minority women were underrepresented only at Agriculture.  The other
groups were fully represented in both the total and white-collar
workforces.\7 See table 2.9 and figure 2.7. 



                                    Table 2.9
                     
                      Representation of Women and Minorities
                     in Four Agencies Compared to the CLF (As
                                of September 1992)



EEO     Civili  Interi  Agricultu                Interi  Agricultu
group       an      or         re   Navy  State      or         re   Navy  State
------  ------  ------  ---------  -----  -----  ------  ---------  -----  -----
White     42.6    51.1       50.5   52.2   47.6     120        119    123    112
 men
White     35.3    25.8       31.9   20.8   26.6    73\a       90\a   59\a   75\a
 women
Minori    11.6    12.3        8.6   17.1    9.2     106       74\a    147   79\a
 ty
 men
Minori    10.4    10.7        8.9    9.9   16.6     103       86\a   95\a    160
 ty
 women

White-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEO     Civili  Interi  Agricultu   Navy  State  Interi  Agricultu   Navy  State
 group      an      or         re                    or         re
White     37.8    49.4       50.2   47.2   47.7     131        133    125    126
 men
White     44.0    28.8       32.5   28.7   26.9    65\a       74\a   65\a   61\a
 women
Minori     7.6     9.9        8.3   11.0    8.8     130        109    145    116
 ty
 men
Minori    10.6    11.9        9.1   13.1   16.7     112       86\a    124    158
 ty
 women
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Numbers under 100 indicate underrepresentation. 

Source:  Percentages for each of the four agencies are from OPM's
CPDF for fiscal year 1992.  CLF data are from the 1990 census. 

   Figure 2.8:  Representation of
   Women and Minorities in Four
   Agencies Compared to the CLF as
   of September 30, 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  OPM's CPDF data and CLF data. 


--------------------
\7 The percentages in the different EEO groups at State in fiscal
year 1992 were arrived at by combining white-collar Civil Service
employees and white-collar Foreign Service employees.  The EEO
composition of those two groups of employees was, however, quite
different.  White men constituted 63.7 percent of the white- collar
Foreign Service workforce, but only 26.5 percent of the white-collar
Civil Service workforce.  White women, minority men, and minority
women constituted 24.4 percent, 7.5 percent, and 4.4 percent of the
white-collar Foreign Service workforce, respectively, but 30.1
percent, 10.4 percent, and 33 percent of the white-collar Civil
Service workforce. 


      REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND
      MINORITIES IN THE AGENCIES'
      KEY JOBS IN COMPARISON TO
      SPECIFIC JOBS IN THE CLF
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.2

Our analysis of 49 key white-collar jobs (18 at Agriculture, 17 at
Interior, and 14 at Navy) showed that women and minorities were
underrepresented in many of the key jobs that we reviewed at these
three agencies in relation to their representation in the CLF for
those same occupations.\8 Table 2.9 shows that white women, blacks,
Hispanics, and Asian women were the groups most often severely
underrepresented at the agencies reviewed. 



                                    Table 2.10
                     
                     Numbers of Key Jobs at Three Agencies in
                         Which Different EEO Groups Were
                          Underrepresented and Severely
                                 Underrepresented



                        Number   Percent    Number   Percent    Number   Percent
--------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Number of key jobs          18                  17                  14
Number and percent          18       100        17       100        14       100
 of key jobs
 with any
 underrepresentation

Number and percent of key jobs
with underrepresentation of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White women                 13        72        13        76         8        57
Black men                    9        50        12        71         8        57
Black women                 14        78        14        82         7        50
Hispanic men                13        72         8        47         9        64
Hispanic women              12        67        14        82         9        64
Asian men                   13        72        14        82         2        14
Asian women                 13        72        13        76         6        43
Native American men          4        22         2        12         6        43
Native American              6        33         2        12         7        50
 women
Number and percent          16        89        16        94        11        79
 of key jobs
 with any severe
 underrepresentation

Number and percent of key jobs
with severe underrepresentation of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White women                  8        44         9        53         4        29
Black men                    6        33        10        59         2        14
Black women                  7        39        12        71         3        21
Hispanic men                 6        33         3        18         1         7
Hispanic women              11        61        10        59         5        36
Asian men                    9        50        10        59         0         0
Asian women                  7        39        10        59         2        14
Native American men          3        17         1         6         3        21
Native American              3        17         1         6         6        43
 women
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  For this table, we considered a key job to be severely
underrepresented if the representation index was less than 50. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 


--------------------
\8 The Department of State was not included in this key job analysis
because State's affirmative action plan does not provide information
on key jobs.  State's workforce analysis only distinguishes among the
foreign service specialists and generalists and civilian employees. 


   HIRES, SEPARATIONS, AND
   PROMOTIONS IN FISCAL YEARS 1984
   AND 1992
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

Thus far, we have analyzed changes in the percentages and relative
numbers of women and minorities employed in the agencies, as of the
end of fiscal years 1984 and 1992.  Also for 1992, we compared agency
workforces with the 1990 CLF.  To better understand the agencies'
efforts to diversify their workforces, it is important to examine the
personnel actions that bring employees into and out of the agencies'
workforces, and identify their advancement in the workforces at any
point during those 2 years.  This section focuses on some of these
actions:  hires, separations, and promotions.  (These terms, as used
in this report, are defined and more data on the results of our
analyses are included in app.  II.) Overall, agencies hired and
promoted women and minorities at rates that would increase their
share of the agencies' workforces, but separation rates for certain
EEO groups were high.  This higher rate of separations limited the
agencies' overall progress in achieving a representative workforce. 


      HIRES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.1

In general, all four agencies hired women and minorities into their
key white-collar occupations or, at State, the Foreign Service
workforce, in percentages and relative numbers that exceeded the
percentages and relative numbers at which they were employed in
fiscal years 1984 and 1992.  (See tables II.1 through II.4.) For
example, as table II.1 shows, Interior hired 43 white women for every
100 white men hired in fiscal year 1992 into the key white-collar
workforce, when it had 26 white women employed per 100 white men.  It
hired 16 minority men for every 100 white men hired in fiscal year
1992 when there were 14 minority men per 100 white men in the
workforce.  In other words, white women and minority men at Interior
were hired at rates that would (disregarding separations) have
increased their relative numbers in the workforce. 

As tables II.1 through II.4 show, the exceptions in fiscal year 1984
were minority women at Interior and minority men and women at
Agriculture, who were hired in key white-collar jobs in lower
relative numbers than those at which they were employed.  Similarly,
in fiscal year 1992, the relative numbers of women and minorities who
were hired in State's Foreign Service did not exceed the relative
numbers employed.\9


--------------------
\9 These comments pertain to the general categories of minority men
and women.  However, appendix tables II.1 through II.4 show quite a
number of specific groups with low entry rates, or low relative
numbers entering, in one or both of the fiscal years for which we
have data.  In fiscal year 1992, for example, black, Hispanic, and
Asian men all entered key jobs at Interior in lower relative numbers
than those at which they were employed, though these differences were
not very large.  At State in fiscal year 1992, black and Hispanic men
and women entered in lower relative numbers than those at which they
were employed.  At Navy in that same fiscal year, black men and
Native American women entered in lower relative numbers than those at
which they were employed. 


      SEPARATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.2

As tables II.1 through II.4 also show, the relative numbers at which
the agencies hired women and minorities were generally greater than
the relative numbers at which members of these groups were separated
from the agencies.  This was true in fiscal year 1992 for women and
minorities at all four agencies, except for white women at State.  In
1984 the exceptions were minority women at Interior and minority men
at Agriculture.  However, tables II.1 through II.4 show that there
were many instances in which the separation rates exceeded the rates
at which women and minorities were employed. 

High separation rates for white women were apparent in all agencies
except at State in fiscal year 1984, and in all four agencies in
1992.  For example, 49 white women per 100 white men separated from
Agriculture in fiscal year 1992, when there were 41 white women
employed per 100 white men.  The separation rates for minority women
were high in fiscal year 1992 at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy.\10
Interior was the only agency in which the relative number of minority
men separating from key white-collar jobs exceeded the relative
number employed in fiscal year 1992.  These situations signal a
pattern that if continued would be detrimental to continued progress
to achieve a representative workforce. 


--------------------
\10 At Interior in fiscal year 1992, Asian men and women and Native
American women were the only minority groups not separating in higher
relative numbers than those at which they were employed.  At
Agriculture in that year black women and Native American men and
women were separating in higher relative numbers than those at which
they were employed, while at Navy in fiscal year 1992 black and Asian
women, Hispanic men, and Native American men were separating in
higher relative numbers.  At State, only black and Native American
men were separating in higher relative numbers than those at which
they were employed in 1992. 


      PROMOTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4.3

Promotions do not add or subtract from the workforce population, but
can affect the distribution of different groups across the agencies'
grade structure.  In fact, because considerably larger segments of
the workforces were promoted in a given year than were hired or
separated, promotions have the potential to make a considerably
greater impact on the distribution of women and minorities than do
either hires or separations. 

Our analysis showed that, in all four agencies, the relative numbers
of white women and minority men and women promoted were greater than
the relative numbers employed in key white-collar or Foreign Service
jobs both in fiscal years 1984 and 1992.  The only specific EEO
groups with lower promotion rates than employment rates in fiscal
year 1992 were Asian men at Interior and State and Native American
men at Navy and State. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5

In general, the four agencies we reviewed increased their employment
of women and minorities between fiscal years 1984 and 1992.  Even in
those workforces in which the percentages of white women and minority
men declined, the decreases were usually less than those of white
men.  Consequently, in almost all cases, the number of women and
minorities increased relative to the numbers of white men. 

In fiscal year 1992, women and minorities (1) were represented in
lower relative numbers in the agencies' key jobs and in State's
Foreign Service jobs than in the agencies' total workforces, (2) were
often underrepresented when compared to the CLF, and (3) remained
less well represented in higher grades than in lower grades. 

For the most part, women and minorities in the agencies reviewed
experienced favorable hiring and promotion rates in fiscal years 1984
and 1992, which contributed to the increases in their employment
numbers.  That is, agencies hired and promoted women and minorities
at rates that often exceeded their relative numbers employed. 
However, in three agencies (all except State), white and minority
women were separated in relative numbers that exceeded the relative
numbers at which they were employed in 1992.  This was true also of
minority men at Interior.  These conditions limited agencies'
progress in diversifying their workforces.  EEOC instructions provide
that agencies should analyze their workforces to identify
representation problems, causes, and actions needed to address them. 
The next chapter discusses how well agencies' affirmative employment
planning efforts followed EEOC instructions. 


AGENCIES' AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT
PLANNING
============================================================ Chapter 3

The affirmative employment planning program analyses that the
Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State undertook
for fiscal years 1988 through 1992 reporting cycle did not completely
address all eight program elements included in EEOC's MD-714 planning
and reporting instructions.  Several factors contributed to this
condition.  The agencies often lacked the data necessary to identify
problems.  According to agency EEO officials, senior managers were
rarely involved in affirmative employment planning and saw the
preparation of plans as something someone else (e.g., the EEO
Director) was supposed to accomplish. 


   AGENCIES' PLANNING PROGRAM
   ANALYSES EFFORTS DID NOT FULLY
   COMPLY WITH EEOC DIRECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

Agencies' affirmative employment planning program analyses efforts
did not adhere to EEOC's MD-714 directive in several ways.  The
agencies did not include the complete program analyses MD-714
instructs them to do to identify the fundamental causes of
underrepresentation.  In addition, those agencies that established
numerical goals for improving EEO representation failed to relate
them to specific underrepresentation problems as EEOC instructions
provide. 


      COMPLIANCE WITH PROGRAM
      ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.1

Under MD-714, the first step an agency should take to develop an
affirmative employment multiyear plan is to do a comprehensive
program analysis of eight program elements:  workforce composition,
recruitment and hiring, employee development, promotions,
separations, discrimination complaints, organization and resources,
and program evaluation.  According to the MD-714, after conducting a
program analysis of the affirmative employment program within the
agency, problems and barriers shall then be identified.  According to
an EEOC memorandum on affirmative employment planning, agencies
should maintain documentation to support their identification of
barriers and development of objectives. 

None of the agency program analyses we reviewed fully addressed the
eight program elements.\1 Interior fully analyzed only one of the
eight program elements; Agriculture, three; State, three; and Navy,
two.  None of the four agencies fully addressed four of eight program
elements (recruitment and hiring, promotions, separations, and
program evaluation).  Handling discrimination complaints was the only
program element that all four agencies fully analyzed. 

For example, the workforce composition component of Interior's
analyses did not address EEO representation levels by key jobs as
required by MD-714.  In addition, Interior combined all the women and
minority groups in its grade level analysis.  A breakdown of grade
level data by EEO group is called for by MD-714.  A breakdown by EEO
group is particularly important at Interior because of its high
concentration of Native Americans and underrepresentation of other
EEO groups.  An official from Interior's Office of Equal Opportunity
said that analyzing workforce data by key jobs and grade requires
significant manual effort.  He added that the department lacks the
computer capability and staff resources to conduct detailed analyses. 

Only one of the four agencies' analysis addressed all the relevant
information on employee development programs.  For example, two key
training questions listed in MD-714 and not addressed in the
agencies' analyses were: 

  "Has a survey of current skills and training of the agency's
     workforce been conducted to determine the availability of
     employees from the EEO Groups, having skills required to meet
     agency staffing needs?"

  "Have studies been conducted on time-in-grade to determine the
     reasons for any differentials which may exist by minority status
     and sex?"

EEOC stated that the program analysis questions in MD-714 are
considered as guidance and not specific requirements.  However,
EEOC's memorandum on federal affirmative employment planning dated
January 21, 1988, suggests otherwise.  The memorandum states that
"The program analysis is the foundation upon which the agency's
entire plan will be based.  Therefore, each agency should ensure that
it performs a comprehensive assessment of how the agency's efforts
are directed toward the eight major program elements.  The analysis
must provide complete rationale for responses to the questions that
follow each element.  It is not necessary that the analysis be
limited to just those questions." The memorandum also states that
agencies should maintain documentation which supports the agency's
identification of barriers and development of objectives. 

However, agency officials from two of the agencies we reviewed also
said that they considered the questions in MD-714 as guidance rather
than requirements that must be met.  Agency officials also said that
EEOC did not always ask agencies to provide comprehensive answers to
the program analysis questions when it reviewed their plans. 

Another reason for the incomplete analysis of the program elements is
that agencies did not fully analyze personnel event data (e.g., data
on recruitment, hires, training, promotions, and separations).  We
discuss this issue later within this chapter.  In prior reports we
have recommended that EEOC expand the agency workforce analysis
requirements to include (1) major occupation workforce data by grade
level or grade groupings, and (2) analysis of hiring, training and
development, promotion, and separation data.\2 We believe that these
additional analyses are critical to fully understanding the causes
for trends in underrepresentation and overcoming barriers to
achieving a representative workforce.  We also have recommended that
EEOC provide agencies with better guidance on what constitutes a
major occupation and additional guidance on what to analyze.  EEOC
agreed with these recommendations and has addressed them in its
proposed new management directive. 


--------------------
\1 We determined that an agency's program analysis was in partial
compliance with EEOC's instructions if (1) the analysis did not
contain information addressing the majority of MD-714 program
analysis questions and requirements and (2) the agency officials
responsible for the affirmative employment program plans had no
documentation or answers to the questions and requirements listed in
MD-714. 

\2 Federal Affirmative Action:  Better EEOC Guidance and Agency
Analysis of Underrepresentation Needed (GAO/GGD-91-86, May 1991);
Federal Affirmative Employment:  Status of Women and Minority
Representation in the Federal Workforce (GAO/T-GGD-92-2, Oct.  23,
1991). 


      INCOMPLETE BARRIER
      IDENTIFICATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.2

MD-714 provides that agencies should examine their personnel and
management policies, practices, and procedures to determine whether
they limit or act as barriers to the representative employment of
women and minorities.  MD-714 instructs agencies to identify barriers
in their multiyear affirmative employment plans and to provide
narrative describing the barriers.  While the agency plans we
reviewed often acknowledged that agencies had made some progress in
the areas of recruitment, hiring, and promotion of EEO groups, none
included any explanation of the fundamental causes of
underrepresentation where it existed. 

The State Department initiated studies to validate its procedures for
examining and hiring Foreign Service employees partly in response to
our 1989 report.\3 Our report recommended, among other things, that
the Secretary of State analyze personnel processes to determine (1)
whether the Foreign Service written examination was a valid predictor
of success, (2) why minorities and women were eliminated at a higher
rate than white men by the final review panel process, and (3) why
women and minorities were disparately assigned to certain functional
work areas. 

The State Department has taken steps to address these first two
recommendations.  State's multiyear plan acknowledged that the
Foreign Service written exam had adversely affected EEO groups. 
According to the Director, Office of Recruitment, Examination, and
Employment, the State Department is validating the requirements of
Foreign Service positions and correlating them with the test used to
determine whether revisions are needed.  The Director said that the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures do not require
that the agency automatically discard or change the exam; they only
require that State determine whether the exam is a valid indicator of
job performance.\4 According to State officials, they have
implemented, in 1994, a new system for assigning functional work
areas which addresses the allegations of disproportionate assignment
of women and minorities to certain areas. 

The affirmative employment plans we reviewed generally acknowledged
that the agencies lacked information on employee skills and training. 
With the exception of the State Department, the plans did not say
whether or not procedures were in place to ensure appropriate
training opportunities were available to all employees.  For example,
the State Department's multiyear affirmative employment plan stated
that the agency lacked sufficient managerial and supervisory emphasis
on the use of career training and employee development counseling
opportunities.  State's plan also said that some supervisors do not
have enough time to provide adequate career counseling due to
performance of regular duties and many supervisors and employees were
unaware of career ladders and the training needed to encourage upward
movement.  State's plan listed specific actions to address these
barriers, such as establishing mandatory EEO/supervisory training for
supervisory personnel and a mentor program to provide additional
career development information. 

Navy's multiyear affirmative employment plan acknowledged the
underrepresentation of women and minorities in engineering positions
and cited that insufficient numbers are applying, but offered no
explanation on the root causes of this problem.  The agencies' plans
that we reviewed acknowledged the lack of data and analyses to
identify barriers to promotion or entry into senior management
positions.  Finally, the agencies' plans contained little if any
discussion of the reasons employees separated from the agencies and
whether institutional policies affected the retention of women and
minorities. 

The section labelled "barriers" in the agencies' plans dealt
primarily with administrative program management issues, such as the
need to provide managers with EEO awareness training and the need for
EEO data collection and evaluation systems.  While these are
important aspects of the affirmative employment program, none of the
multiyear plans focused on the root causes of underrepresentation or
the specific remedies required to correct the problem.  Agency
personnel and EEO specialists at three of the four agencies we
reviewed told us that the affirmative employment plans were deficient
because they were treated as a paperwork requirement instead of as
plans of action to be taken seriously by the agencies' managers. 
Officials at the other agency we reviewed attributed the multiyear
plan's limitations mainly to data limitations. 

While the multiyear plans offered little information on the
underlying causes of underrepresentation, our interviews with senior
managers and EEO and personnel staff at the four agencies disclosed a
number of barriers they said limited representative employment.  At
the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Navy, these
included: 

  senior managers' apathy to their units' affirmative employment
     goals and objectives;

  selecting officials' stereotyped thinking (e.g., the beliefs that
     women do not want to travel on their jobs or cannot meet the
     physical work requirements of traditionally "men only" jobs);
     and

  absence of penalties for managers and supervisors who fail to
     maintain an environment free of discrimination. 

EEOC identified similar barriers and negative attitudes towards women
and minorities in its 1990 on-site reviews of Interior's and Navy's
affirmative employment programs.  For example, EEOC's report cited an
interview with one senior manager who said that "minorities are not
willing to reinvest their time and money into their careers." This
manager also said that "whites have the credentials and are more
qualified than the minority applicants."

Regarding barriers to the entry of women and minorities into the
Foreign Service, the former Director of the Office of Recruitment,
Examination, and Employment at the State Department told us that
women and minorities generally had not considered the Foreign Service
as a career option early in their school training and thus frequently
had not pursued the academic curriculum necessary to successfully
complete the Foreign Service examination.  This official said that
the State Department was trying to address this barrier by providing
more information to applicants on how to prepare for the Foreign
Service exam.  The State Department--which until recently had not
extensively recruited women and minorities at the college level--also
recognizes the need to increase recruiting efforts. 


--------------------
\3 State Department:  Minorities and Women Are Underrepresented in
the Foreign Service (GAO/NSIAD-89-146, Jun.  1989). 

\4 The Uniform Guidelines were adopted by the Civil Service
Commission (now OPM), the Department of Justice, the Department of
Labor, the Department of the Treasury, and EEOC in 1978.  The Uniform
Guidelines require federal agencies to analyze whether personnel
testing and selection procedures for hiring, job assignments,
promotions, training, and separations adversely affect EEO groups. 


      NUMERICAL GOALS NOT LINKED
      TO SPECIFIC
      UNDERREPRESENTATION PROBLEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.3

While the establishment of numerical goals as an aid for achieving
full representation is discretionary under MD-714, EEOC officials
have said that such goal setting is one of a number of valuable
management tools and a reflection of management's commitment to
overcoming underrepresentation.  Goal setting also provides
measurable objectives for managers when recruiting, hiring, and
promoting staff.  MD-714 states that numerical goals, when used,
should have a reasonable relation to the extent of
underrepresentation in the agencies' workforces, the number of
vacancies, and the availability of candidates. 

Three of the four agencies we reviewed established numerical goals in
their multiyear affirmative employment plans as a means of improving
the representation of women and minorities in their workforces.  The
Department of the Interior did not do so, although some of its
agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, did establish
numerical goals. 

The numerical goals that Agriculture and Navy established may have
been misdirected because they were not based on the degree of
underrepresentation of EEO groups in job categories and major
occupations as MD-714 provides.  For example, EEOC noted that
Agriculture had set overall goals for women or minorities rather than
for the specific EEO groups that were underrepresented.  EEOC also
found that Agriculture set numerical goals in occupational series
that had no representation problems.  In contrast, Agriculture
established no numerical goals for certain EEO groups (e.g.,
Hispanics) that its affirmative employment plan identified as being
severely underrepresented. 

Navy identified severe underrepresentation of women and minorities in
science and engineering positions in its 1988 multiyear plan, but did
not establish specific goals for increasing the number of women and
minorities in these occupations until fiscal year 1993.  Furthermore,
while Navy's 1988 multiyear plan established a departmentwide goal of
increasing the employment of Hispanics by 5 percent, it did not
outline specific actions needed to achieve this goal also until
fiscal year 1993. 

In its 1990 report of Navy's program, EEOC stated that it found no
evidence that Navy was aggressively recruiting Hispanics.  EEOC also
said that Navy's goal for increasing Hispanic representation was
below the Hispanic representation in the CLF.  Navy's fiscal year
1992 accomplishment report and 1993 affirmative employment update
indicate that Navy is beginning to plan activities to recruit and
employ Hispanics (e.g., increased participation of Hispanics in
cooperative programs and Junior Fellowship programs). 

The State Department has established numerical hiring goals for EEO
groups in its Foreign Service and Civil Service.  However, its
multiyear plan did not include goals for the advancement of women and
minorities into senior-level positions. 


   DATA DEFICIENCIES HAMPERED
   AGENCIES' PROGRAM AND BARRIER
   ANALYSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

Adequate, reliable data with which to identify EEO problems and their
causes are clearly essential to building affirmative employment
plans.  The agencies we reviewed were unable to adequately analyze
the barriers to the representative employment of women and minorities
because for the most part they lacked the requisite data on
recruitment, hiring, training, job assignments, promotions, and
separations. 

Recruitment data, or applicant flow data as they are commonly known,
refer to the gender, race, and ethnic origin of job applicants.\5
None of the agencies we reviewed gathered applicant flow data on an
agencywide basis.  Applicant flow data are needed to determine
whether an agency's recruiting efforts are generating sufficient
numbers of women and minority applicants.  Hiring data accounts for
the number of persons selected for the positions available. 

Agency officials said they lacked the data partly because they are
unclear about EEOC's requirements for collecting and analyzing
personnel event data.  We found that while the Uniform Guidelines
require that agencies maintain data on recruitment, hiring, training
and development, job assignments, promotions, and separations, MD-714
does not require that these data be collected, analyzed, and reported
in the affirmative employment plans. 

Recognizing the importance of recruitment, hiring, promotion, and
separations data, EEOC is revising its affirmative employment
planning instructions to require agencies to collect, analyze, and
report this information in the next affirmative employment planning
cycle. 

Agencies also face practical difficulties in obtaining personnel
event data.  For example, EEO and personnel specialists we
interviewed generally said that they lacked the computer capability
to gather and analyze agencywide data on applicant flow, training,
employee development, and separations.  Developing the computer
capability is an issue of priority that each agency has to examine
itself since it takes time and money. 

Collecting applicant flow data has been a problem because agencies
must get approval from appropriate sources for the use of a form
designed to collect such data.  As discussed in our October 1991
testimony,\6 agencies no longer have a governmentwide form for
gathering applicant flow data because OPM's authorization for the use
of a form specifically designed for that purpose expired in December
1983.  In 1989, EEOC proposed a directive that would have required
agencies to collect the data, but, at OPM's request, did not issue
the proposed directive.  OPM made the request because at that time it
was considering collecting these data governmentwide as part of its
new effort to automate its hiring process.  We recommended in October
1991 that OPM act in cooperation with EEOC to examine options for
collecting and analyzing applicant flow data and take prompt
appropriate action. 

In August 1994, an OPM official from the Office of the Director told
us that OPM was still discussing with EEOC the alternatives for
collecting the data.  OPM also told us that it has discussed with
EEOC the costs of developing an applicant flow system and that OPM
will not proceed without EEOC's support.  However, in June 1995, the
Director, OPM, stated that the agency was opposed to collecting
applicant flow data because collecting this data is burdensome,
ineffective, and costly.  OPM also stated that agencies should be
held accountable for their selections and not be allowed to use the
composition of applicant pools as an excuse to deflect accountability
from deciding officials. 

In July 1995, the Chairman, EEOC, disagreed with the Director of
OPM's views about the need for and collection of applicant flow data. 
The Chairman said that collection of applicant flow data is necessary
to hold agency officials accountable.  He also said collection of
applicant flow data is required by regulation that is binding on both
public and private sector employees. 

While EEOC's draft revised management directive requires agencies to
collect applicant flow data, EEOC still has not developed procedural
guidance for collecting the data.  If agencies continue to face
difficulties in getting approval for the use of a form to collect
applicant flow data, they may not be able to comply with EEOC's
proposed directive. 


--------------------
\5 Agencies can request that applicants provide this information on a
voluntary basis. 

\6 Federal Affirmative Employment:  Status of Women and Minority
Representation in the Federal Workforce (GAO/T-92-2, Oct.  23, 1991). 


   LIMITED SENIOR MANAGEMENT
   INVOLVEMENT IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

MD-714 provides that a management team consisting of line management
officials, EEO staff, personnel staff, and heads of other pertinent
offices should meet to review and identify the agency policies,
practices, and procedures that cause underrepresentation problems. 
However, the personnel and EEO officials and line managers we talked
to said that their agencies' affirmative employment multiyear plans
and annual updates were prepared by personnel and/or EEO office staff
at the departmental level with little or no input from line managers
and senior officials.\7 According to the officials we interviewed,
line managers and senior officials with authority to make personnel
decisions regarding employment, job assignments, training,
promotions, and terminations were rarely involved in the process of
identifying barriers and actions to improve the representation of
women and minorities in their agencies.  The agency officials we
talked to also said that line managers and senior officials'
involvement, when it occurred, was limited to providing data or
cursory review of draft plans prepared by the EEO or personnel staff
offices. 

Our review of the agencies' affirmative employment multiyear plans
showed that senior officials and managers were not made responsible
for implementing planned affirmative employment actions.  For
example, Interior's multiyear affirmative employment plan assigned
the responsibility for implementing the action items identified in
the plan to the Offices of Equal Opportunity and/or Personnel. 
Senior officials, line managers, and supervisors were given no
affirmative action tasks to carry out. 

EEO staff we talked to at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy
characterized the affirmative employment plans as "administrative
tasks" or "paper exercises" done to fulfill EEOC's requirement that
agencies submit a plan.  They said that senior officials and line
managers did not actively participate in preparing the plans.  Navy
and Interior EEO officials told us that senior officials and line
managers in their agencies did not see affirmative employment as one
of their key responsibilities because they were not held accountable
for planning and carrying out affirmative action. 


--------------------
\7 EEO and/or personnel staff at the departmental level usually
consolidated plans submitted to them by component agencies.  In
general, the component plans were also prepared by EEO and/or
personnel staff. 


   AGENCY HEADS' ACCOUNTABILITY
   FOR ACHIEVING A REPRESENTATIVE
   WORKFORCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

Agency heads have been required for many years, by law and
regulation, to establish programs to end discrimination and to
promote affirmative employment.  Accountability suggests that goals
will be established, performance will be measured and reported, and
that this information in turn will be used to monitor progress
towards achieving the agencies' EEO objectives.  However, at present
no formal mechanisms are in place to evaluate agency heads on the
results of their agencies' EEO/affirmative employment programs. 

The National Performance Review (NPR) recognized a need to hold
federal top managers accountable for EEO/affirmative employment
program outcomes and identified ways to address these needs. 
Specifically, the NPR called for charging "all federal agency heads
with the responsibility for ensuring equal opportunity and increasing
representation of qualified women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities into all levels and job categories, including middle and
senior management positions."\8 The NPR recommended, among other
things, that the President mandate through an Executive Order that
each agency head build EEO and affirmative employment elements "into
the agency's strategic business plan and include effective
measurements for impact and change."\9 A draft of the Executive Order
aimed at addressing this recommendation was under review in August
1995. 

Federal agencies may or may not have formal organizational strategic
plans.  However, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of
1993 requires that by September 30, 1997, the head of each agency
submit to the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to
Congress a strategic plan containing a statement of goals and
objectives, including outcome-related goals for the agency's major
functions and operations.  The plan should also contain a description
of the program evaluations used in establishing or revising general
goals and objectives.\10 This long-term strategic plan provides a
framework for integrating human resources management issues--of which
EEO and affirmative employment are a part--into the agencies'
organizational plans and strategies.  It provides the basis for
holding agency heads accountable for human resource management
effectiveness. 

It is unknown how the current reexamination of federal affirmative
action programs will affect the administration's plans for holding
agency heads accountable for results in EEO/affirmative employment
programs. 


--------------------
\8 From Red Tape to Results:  Creating a Government that Works Better
and Costs Less.  Report of the National Performance Review, Sept.  7,
1993. 

\9 Accompanying Reports of the National Performance Review, September
1993. 

\10 GPRA also requires agencies to prepare annual performance plans
beginning with fiscal year 1999 and performance reports on the
previous year's performance beginning March 2000.  To this end, the
act requires agencies to establish performance indicators for
measuring relevant outputs, services, and outcomes of each program
and to compare the actual program results with the established
performance goals.  GPRA requires that at least 10 agencies
participate in pilot projects during fiscal years 1994, 1995, and
1996.  As of January 31, 1994, 52 pilot projects for performance
plans and performance reports had been designated in 21 departments
and agencies.  One of these departments (Agriculture) submitted a
pilot performance plan covering the representation of EEO groups. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

The multiyear affirmative employment planning program analyses we
reviewed did not adhere to all of EEOC's instructions.  The planning
analysis did not fully analyze program elements such as recruitment
and hiring, promotions, employee development, and separations. 

Agency officials told us they did not collect personnel event data
and analyze it as part of the process of identifying barriers to EEO,
in part because they did not consider this to be a planning
requirement.  EEOC has not clearly stated what data and analyses the
multiyear plans should contain and focused agencies' attention on
identifying the causes of underrepresentation problems.  We have made
a number of recommendations to EEOC in past reports for improving the
guidance it provides to agencies.  EEOC's proposed management
directive incorporates many of our past recommendations and, if
implemented, would clarify agency affirmative employment
responsibilities. 

Finally, the agency EEO officials we talked to said that senior
officials and senior managers had little involvement in formulating
their agencies' multiyear affirmative employment plans and annual
updates.  Our review of these plans showed that the plans assigned
them no specific affirmative employment responsibilities.  Management
participation in multiyear plan development and execution is a part
of the affirmative employment planning process outlined in MD-714. 

While agency heads are responsible by law for implementing programs
to eliminate the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the
workforce, no formal mechanism is currently in place to hold them
directly accountable for the success of those programs.  The
strategic plans required by GPRA provide a framework for integrating
human resources management with agency business plans and strategies. 
These plans provide a vehicle for including affirmative goals and
objectives in organizational plans and ultimately holding top
managers accountable for EEO results.  However, the strategic plans
are not required until 1997.  One way being considered to expedite
this process is through the NPR recommendation that the President
mandate through an Executive Order that each agency head build EEO
and affirmative employment elements into his or her agency's
strategic business plans. 

It is unknown how the current reexamination of federal affirmative
action programs will affect the administration's plans for holding
agency heads accountable for results in EEO/affirmative employment
programs. 


OPM AND EEOC OVERSIGHT OF
AGENCIES' AFFIRMATIVE RECRUITMENT
AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
============================================================ Chapter 4

OPM and EEOC did not provide sufficient oversight to ensure that
agencies' affirmative recruitment and employment programs were
effectively correcting imbalances in their workforces.  We found, for
example, that OPM did not apply all the requirements set forth in
regulations when reviewing FEORP plans.  Moreover, while OPM
increased the number of its on-site reviews in fiscal year 1993,
these reviews provided only limited information on the success of
agencies' recruitment efforts.  While EEOC's on-site reviews
addressed substantive issues, these reviews, prior to June 1993, were
limited in number.  According to EEOC officials, they revised their
evaluation approach as of June 1993 to increase their frequency and
number. 


   OPM REVIEW OF AGENCIES' FEORP
   PLANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

5 CFR 720.205 requires that an agency's FEORP plan include:  (1)
annual determinations of underrepresented EEO groups and indexes for
measuring progress in eliminating underrepresentation; (2) listings
of occupational categories suitable for external and internal
recruitment; (3) descriptions of recruitment programs established to
increase women and minority candidates from internal and external
sources; (4) descriptions of methods the agency intends to use to
identify and develop women and minority candidates from each
underrepresented group; (5) an indication of how these methods differ
from and expand upon prior agency efforts; (6) the expected number of
job vacancies to be filled in the current year and future years by
grade or job category; (7) identification of knowledge, skills, and
abilities that can be obtained at lower grade levels in the same or
similar occupational series to prepare candidates from
underrepresented EEO groups for higher job progression; (8)
descriptions of planned efforts to identify jobs that can be
redesigned to improve opportunities for women and minorities; and (9)
priority listings for special recruitment activities. 

OPM did not use all of these requirements when reviewing agency
affirmative recruitment plans.  Officials from OPM's former Office of
Recruitment and Employment told us OPM considered a plan to be
adequate if it (1) identified recruitment priorities by targeted
groups, grade levels, and occupations; (2) described recruitment
methods and sources; and (3) provided target dates for accomplishing
recruitment activities.  According to these officials, this
information, along with the agencies' accomplishment reports and OPM
trend data on agencies' employment profile, is sufficient for them to
evaluate agencies' FEORP activities. 

We reviewed the yearly FEORP plans prepared by Interior, Agriculture,
Navy, and State for fiscal years 1991 through 1993.  These plans
generally lacked information required in CFR 720.205.  Specifically,
the plans did not address items 5 through 8 listed above.  These
requirements were developed because they would contribute to a strong
affirmative recruitment program. 


   OPM HAS INCREASED ITS ON-SITE
   REVIEW ACTIVITY BUT ITS REVIEWS
   HAVE NOT ADDRESSED PROGRAM
   EFFECTIVENESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

OPM increased its on-site FEORP program evaluations from an average
of 5 on-site reviews per year over fiscal years 1989-1992 to 27
on-site reviews in fiscal year 1993, reaching its goal of reviewing
at least one-third of the agencies covered by FEORP.  According to
OPM officials, the on-site reviews were not designed to set
expectations or evaluate an agency's progress in terms of recruiting
numbers.  Rather, their purpose was to provide agencies with
information about OPM activities, answer questions, and suggest ways
of improving the agencies' affirmative recruitment programs.  OPM
officials said that OPM has used a "non-threatening" approach to
administering the FEORP program.  OPM officials stressed that EEOC
bears the primary oversight responsibility for affirmative
recruitment and employment and that OPM's primary role is to provide
technical assistance to help agencies develop innovative programs
that will correct imbalances in their workforces. 

In 1990, at the request of the Office of Affirmative Recruiting and
Employment, OPM's Office of Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE)
reviewed the FEORP program.  ACE's review covered agency FEORP
activities at 185 major installations employing about 316,000
civilian employees.\1 ACE's review findings were similar to those
included in the on-site reviews performed by the Office of
Affirmative Recruiting and Employment--namely, that agencies were
involved in a variety of efforts to increase the identification and
outreach of women and minorities.  However, ACE's review also
revealed that half of the installations-level personnel at these
agencies were not familiar with their agencies' FEORP plans and that
installation personnel did not see connections between FEORP plans
and affirmative employment program plans.\2

One of OPM's functions under FEORP is to help increase the number of
women and minorities in applicant pools, at all grade levels.  In
principle, increased representation of women and minorities in
applicant pools should eventually result in more hiring from these
groups.  However, OPM evaluations have not specifically examined the
extent to which agency recruitment efforts have indeed increased the
number of women and minorities in their applicant pools.  OPM is
responsible (under 5 CFR 720.203) for assisting agencies in
determining whether applicant pools used in filling jobs in a
category of employment where underrepresentation exists include
sufficient candidates from any underrepresented groups.  As discussed
in chapter 3, neither the agencies nor OPM collect applicant pool
data.  Without these data, agencies and OPM cannot measure the
effectiveness of affirmative recruitment efforts. 


--------------------
\1 ACE was responsible for assessing the federal government's
effectiveness in personnel management and ensuring that agencies were
in compliance with personnel laws and regulations.  In January 1995,
it was reduced and merged with other oversight activities into the
Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness. 

\2 FEORP was one of seven issues that ACE examined in its fiscal year
1990 governmentwide personnel management reviews.  According to ACE
officials, prior to fiscal year 1989, ACE conducted very limited
process reviews of agency/installation FEORP programs.  Reports for
those years would only mention FEORP if problems were found. 


   EEOC ON-SITE REVIEWS OF AGENCY
   AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

According to officials in EEOC's Office of Federal Operations, EEOC
is responsible for overseeing about 121 federal agencies and more
than 900 field installations.  EEOC's standard operating procedures
for conducting on-site reviews, issued in 1990, stated that EEOC
would target 23 agencies for review during the multiyear planning
cycle, and the remaining agencies on a case-by-case basis.\3 EEOC had
completed 14 of the scheduled 23 on-site reviews between 1988 and
June 1993. 

EEOC officials from the Office of Federal Sector Programs said EEOC
had revised the scoping approach and, if its budget allowed, would be
able to do more reviews each year.  Subsequently, EEOC officials
informed us that as of June 1995, the agency had completed 36 more
on-site reviews.  The officials explained that, while considerable
staff resources and time were used in the past to examine a
relatively small number of large complex departments such as Navy and
Interior, EEOC's revised approach focuses on components of large
departments and small agencies.  EEOC expects to reach a 60-day goal
for completing an on-site review which, if achieved, would allow for
more reviews in a given year.  EEOC officials also said that with
additional experience in conducting on-site reviews, EEOC will more
likely schedule large and complex agencies for review. 

The Director of Affirmative Employment, Federal Programs, also said
that his staff spends most of its time reviewing annual updates and
accomplishment reports and providing written responses to the
agencies, and less time on evaluating the effectiveness of the
programs. 

EEOC, like other agencies, has faced the challenge of meeting
expanded oversight responsibilities with limited staff resources.  At
the end of fiscal year 1993, EEOC had 36 employees monitoring the
affirmative employment programs of 121 agencies and 900 field
offices.  EEOC officials from the Office of Federal Sector Programs
said that their staffing levels have remained virtually unchanged
since 1988. 

EEOC's on-site reviews have addressed significant program issues.  In
addition to analyzing the changes in the employment and advancement
of women and minorities, EEOC examined agency management support and
accountability; program guidance, coordination, and monitoring; and
agency practices.  As a result, EEOC's on-site reports contained
numerous and significant recommendations.  For example, EEOC's report
on the Department of the Interior's affirmative employment program
contained 43 specific recommendations for improvements in almost all
aspects of Interior's program.  EEOC recommended, among other things,
that Interior set specific objectives to address the
underrepresentation of EEO groups, establish time frames for
accomplishing objectives, and hold responsible officials accountable
for their implementation. 

EEOC's report on Navy's program recommended that Navy address the
underrepresentation of women and minorities in its SES and upper
grade levels; evaluate its Merit Promotion Program for adverse impact
on women, minorities, and people with disabilities; establish uniform
EEO performance standards for managers and supervisors, including
civilian affirmative employment and EEO responsibilities in military
evaluation reports; and accelerate the separations analysis needed to
address the high rate at which minorities and women are separated
from Navy.  Navy agreed to implement all of EEOC's recommendations. 

EEOC generally followed the criteria it developed for evaluating the
agencies' programs.  The criteria, as stated in MD-714, consists of
evaluating an agency affirmative employment program on the basis of
positive changes in the participation of EEO groups in the work
force; successful hiring and internal movement activity; successful
completion of the affirmative employment action plan; completeness
and accuracy of required information; and effectiveness of the
agency's internal monitoring and evaluation system. 


--------------------
\3 According to the procedures, EEOC would select agencies for review
based on factors such as workforce changes, underrepresentation of
women and minorities, discrimination complaint activity, status of
affirmative employment plans, historical record of noncompliance with
EEOC regulations, agency requests, and/or EEOC's field personnel
suggestions. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

Oversight of affirmative recruitment and employment programs helps to
(1) ensure that agencies are taking the necessary steps to eliminate
the underrepresentation of women and minorities as required by law,
and (2) provide these agencies with meaningful feedback and
assistance on how to improve their programs. 

We found that in reviewing agencies' FEORP plans, OPM does not
require agencies to follow all the requirements set forth in
regulations.  And, while OPM increased the number of its on-site
reviews in fiscal year 1993, its reviews have not fully addressed the
success of agencies' recruitment efforts.  Determining the effect of
the recruitment program will require that OPM assist agencies in
collecting and analyzing recruitment data.  In October 1991, we
recommended that OPM act in coordination with EEOC to examine options
for collecting and analyzing applicant flow data and take prompt
appropriate action. 

EEOC's on-site reviews have addressed significant program issues but
have been limited in number.  As a result, many agencies were not
getting critical information on how to improve their programs.  EEOC
has since increased the number of reviews, adding 36 reviews since
June 1993. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5

In a letter dated June 14, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Equal Opportunity) concurred with our findings and
conclusions and provided updated information on the Navy's
affirmative employment efforts (see app.  III).  In a letter dated
June 5, 1995, the Director of Interior's Office of Equal Opportunity
said that our analysis was useful and provided additional updated
information (see app.  IV).  The Director of OPM, in a letter dated
June 20, 1995, said that our report underscores the findings of the
National Performance Review that there is duplication between the
requirements and oversight roles of OPM and EEOC and that current
requirements place too much emphasis on process rather than results
(see app V). 

The Department of State's Director of EEO and a personnel specialist
from the Department of Agriculture's Office of Personnel provided
oral comments on a draft of this report in July 1995 meetings.  Both
provided technical suggestions that we have incorporated, where
appropriate. 

In a letter dated July 7, 1995, the Chairman, EEOC, disagreed with
our assertions that (1) federal agencies had not followed EEOC's
instructions in their analyses of affirmative employment programs and
had submitted incomplete plans, and (2) EEOC had approved the
incomplete plans, thereby indicating that EEOC was not providing the
oversight necessary to ensure that the proper affirmative action
program analyses were being done (see app.  VI). 

In support of its position, EEOC articulated an interpretation of
MD-714's reporting requirements that was different from the one we
had been provided by EEOC officials during the course of past
reviews.  According to the interpretation EEOC articulated in its
comments, MD-714 provides agencies leeway in determining which
program elements to report in their plans.  Under this
interpretation, we agree that the plans that our draft report had
characterized as incomplete could instead be viewed as complete.  We
have revised the report to reflect this interpretation and to
incorporate additional technical suggestions, as appropriate. 

A more important issue than the completeness of the plans is the
underlying analyses upon which the plans are based.  In its comments,
EEOC said that the program analysis questions in MD-714 are also
considered as guidance and not specific requirements.  However,
EEOC's January 21, 1988, memorandum to federal agencies on
affirmative employment planning says otherwise.  The memorandum
states that "The program analysis is the foundation upon which the
agency's entire plan will be based.  Therefore, each agency should
ensure that it performs a comprehensive assessment of how the
agencies' efforts are directed toward the eight major program
elements.  The analysis must provide complete rationale for responses
to the questions that follow each element.  It is not necessary that
the analysis be limited to just those questions." The memorandum also
states that agencies should maintain documentation which supports the
agency's identification of barriers and development of objectives. 

Thus, while agencies need not report on all eight program elements in
their plans, current MD-714 guidance requires that agencies use those
elements in their analyses and maintain supporting documentation. 
Because reports may not include all of the relevant information, it
is important for EEOC to perform on-site reviews which include
evaluations of agencies' program analyses.  We believe that, as
discussed in Chapter 4, EEOC's increased rate of completed on-site
reviews, if continued and done effectively, should help provide the
necessary oversight for agency affirmative employment programs. 

On the issue of collecting data on job applicants, OPM's and EEOC's
comments reflect different points of view.  OPM said that it is
opposed to collecting data from job applicants concerning their race
and national origin because it believes that the collection of such
data would be costly, ineffective, and a reporting burden.  OPM also
said that agencies should be held accountable for the compositions of
their selections.  In contrast, EEOC said that it believes the
collection of applicant flow data is necessary to hold agency
officials accountable and is also required by regulation.  We have
previously found that agencies frequently believed applicant flow
data was useful and recommended reestablishing collection of that
data. 


TABLES SHOWING REPRESENTATION
LEVELS AND PROGRESS MADE BY
SPECIFIC EEO GROUPS AT FOUR
AGENCIES
=========================================================== Appendix I

The tables in this appendix parallel those provided in chapter 2 and
supplement the information provided in that chapter by disaggregating
the minority men and women into specific minority groups (i.e., black
men and women, Hispanic men and women, Asian men and women, and
Native American men and women).  The following notes are provided to
assist readers in understanding the tables in this appendix. 

In tables I.1 through I.8, percentages were calculated, in both
fiscal years 1984 and 1992, by dividing the number of workers in each
EEO group by the total workforce, or in the segment of that workforce
being considered, and multiplying the result by 100.  Relative
numbers were calculated in both years by dividing the number of
workers in each protected EEO group by the number of white men, and
multiplying the result by 100.  The relative numbers indicate, in
each year, how many white women, black men, black women, etc., there
were for every 100 white men.  Changes in percentages and relative
numbers were obtained by dividing the percentages and relative
numbers in 1992 by the percentages or relative numbers in 1984.  A
ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative number;
ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages or
relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. 

In table I.9, representation indexes were computed by dividing the
percentage in each EEO group in each of the four agencies by the
corresponding percentage in each EEO group in the CLF.  Index values
that equal or exceed 100 indicate that the EEO group is fully
represented, while index values less than 100 indicate that the EEO
group is underrepresented in the agency relative to the CLF. 

Tables II.1 through II.4 compare percentages and relative numbers in
the different EEO groups who were hired in the different agencies in
fiscal years 1984 and 1992, who separated from those agencies, and
who were promoted in both years, to the percentages who were employed
in those agencies.\1 Percentages and relative numbers were calculated
as in previous tables.  Percentages and relative numbers of hires in
an agency that are lower than the corresponding percentages and
relative numbers employed in a given year indicate potentially
troublesome entry levels, from an affirmative employment perspective. 
The same is true of lower percentages and relative numbers promoted,
and higher percentages and relative numbers separating from a given
agency in a given year. 



                                    Table I.1
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                      Numbers of Specific EEO Groups at the
                       Department of the Interior in Fiscal
                               Years 1984 and 1992


Workforc
e           1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Total workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     32,935  31,693       -   56.17   51.11    0.91
 men                       1,242
White     13,187  16,005   2,818   22.49   25.81    1.15   40.04   50.50    1.26
 women
Black      1,879   1,825     -54    3.20    2.94    0.92    5.71    5.76    1.01
 men
Black      1,618   1,970     352    2.76    3.18    1.15    4.91    6.22    1.27
 women
Hispanic   1,255   1,540     285    2.14    2.48    1.16    3.81    4.86    1.28
 men
Hispanic     811   1,191     380    1.38    1.92    1.39    2.46    3.76    1.53
 women
Asian        465     496      31    0.79    0.80    1.01    1.41    1.57    1.11
 men
Asian        280     384     104    0.48    0.62    1.29    0.85    1.21    1.42
 women
Native     3,740   3,788      48    6.38    6.11    0.96   11.36   11.95    1.05
 American
 men
Native     2,465   3,115     650    4.20    5.02    1.20    7.48    9.83    1.31
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   58,635  62,007           99.99   99.99

White-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     26,782  27,182     400   54.76   49.38    0.90
 men
White     12,474  15,830   3,356   25.50   28.76    1.13   46.58   58.24    1.25
 women
Black      1,053   1,175     122    2.15    2.13    0.99    3.93    4.32    1.10
 men
Black      1,489   1,936     447    3.04    3.52    1.16    5.56    7.12    1.28
 women
Hispanic     935   1,132     197    1.91    2.06    1.08    3.49    4.16    1.19
 men
Hispanic     781   1,179     398    1.60    2.14    1.34    2.92    4.34    1.49
 women
Asian        391     455      64    0.80    0.83    1.04    1.46    1.67    1.14
 men
Asian        263     383     120    0.54    0.70    1.30    0.98    1.41    1.44
 women
Native     2,356   2,706     350    4.82    4.92    1.02    8.80    9.96    1.13
 American
 men
Native     2,388   3,071     683    4.88    5.58    1.14    8.92   11.30    1.27
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   48,912  55,049          100.00  100.02

Blue-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      5,003   4,507    -496   64.76   64.82    1.00
 men
White        110     175      65    1.42    2.52    1.77    2.20    3.88    1.76
 women
Black        776     650    -126   10.04    9.35    0.93   15.51   14.42    0.93
 men
Black         55      34     -21    0.71    0.49    0.69    1.10    0.75    0.68
 women
Hispanic     290     407     117    3.75    5.85    1.56    5.80    9.03    1.56
 men
Hispanic       3      12       9    0.04    0.17    4.25    0.06    0.27    4.50
 women
Asian         50      41      -9    0.65    0.59    0.91    1.00    0.91    0.91
 men
Asian          0       1       1    0.00    0.01      \b    0.00    0.02      \b
 women
Native     1,373   1,082    -291   17.77   15.56    0.88   27.44   24.01    0.88
 American
 men
Native        66      44     -22    0.85    0.63    0.74    1.32    0.98    0.74
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total      7,726   6,953           99.99   99.99

Key job workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     13,296  14,285     989   76.09   68.46    0.90
 men
White      1,965   3,676   1,711   11.25   17.62    1.57   14.78   25.73    1.74
 women
Black        271     356      85    1.55    1.71    1.10    2.04    2.49    1.22
 men
Black        129     223      94    0.74    1.07    1.45    0.97    1.56    1.61
 women
Hispanic     433     556     123    2.48    2.66    1.07    3.26    3.89    1.19
 men
Hispanic      57     163     106    0.33    0.78    2.36    0.43    1.14    2.65
 women
Asian        180     204      24    1.03    0.98    0.95    1.35    1.43    1.06
 men
Asian         50      99      49    0.29    0.47    1.62    0.38    0.69    1.82
 women
Native       745     882     137    4.26    4.23    0.99    5.60    6.17    1.10
 American
 men
Native       347     422      75    1.99    2.02    1.02    2.61    2.95    1.13
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   17,473  20,866          100.01  100.00

Nonkey job workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     13,486  12,897    -589   42.90   37.73    0.88
 men
White     10,509  12,154   1,645   33.43   35.56    1.06   77.93   94.24    1.21
 women
Black        782     819      37    2.49    2.40    0.96    5.80    6.35    1.09
 men
Black      1,360   1,713     353    4.33    5.01    1.16   10.08   13.28    1.32
 women
Hispanic     502     576      74    1.60    1.69    1.06    3.72    4.47    1.20
 men
Hispanic     724   1,016     292    2.30    2.97    1.29    5.37    7.88    1.47
 women
Asian        211     251      40    0.67    0.73    1.09    1.56    1.95    1.25
 men
Asian        213     284      71    0.68    0.83    1.22    1.58    2.20    1.39
 women
Native     1,611   1,824     213    5.12    5.34    1.04   11.95   14.14    1.18
 American
 men
Native     2,041   2,649     608    6.49    7.75    1.19   15.13   20.54    1.36
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   31,439  34,183          100.01  100.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b The amount of change (increase or decrease) cannot be computed
because there was no one (0.00) in that EEO group at that grade level
in the base year (1984). 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.2
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                      Numbers of Specific EEO Groups at the
                       Department of Agriculture in Fiscal
                               Years 1984 and 1992


Workforc
e           1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Total workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     57,209  48,992       -   59.48   50.54    0.85
 men                       8,217
White     25,595  30,958   5,363   26.61   31.94    1.20   44.74   63.19    1.41
 women
Black      3,641   3,427    -214    3.79    3.54    0.93    6.36    7.00    1.10
 men
Black      3,948   5,370   1,422    4.11    5.54    1.35    6.90   10.96    1.59
 women
Hispanic   2,329   2,683     354    2.42    2.77    1.14    4.07    5.48    1.35
 men
Hispanic     991   1,662     671    1.03    1.71    1.66    1.73    3.39    1.96
 women
Asian        811   1,066     255    0.84    1.10    1.31    1.42    2.18    1.54
 men
Asian        404     736     332    0.42    0.76    1.81    0.71    1.50    2.11
 women
Native       810   1,148     338    0.84    1.18    1.40    1.42    2.34    1.65
 American
 men
Native       437     890     453    0.45    0.92    2.04    0.76    1.82    2.39
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   96,175  96,932           99.99  100.00

White-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     55,017  47,643       -   59.08   50.16    0.85
 men                       7,374
White     25,473  30,885   5,412   27.35   32.51    1.19   46.30   64.83    1.40
 women
Black      3,209   3,168     -41    3.45    3.34    0.97    5.83    6.65    1.14
 men
Black      3,895   5,340   1,445    4.18    5.62    1.34    7.08   11.21    1.58
 women
Hispanic   2,171   2,549     378    2.33    2.68    1.15    3.95    5.35    1.35
 men
Hispanic     988   1,657     669    1.06    1.74    1.64    1.80    3.48    1.93
 women
Asian        795   1,048     253    0.85    1.10    1.29    1.45    2.20    1.52
 men
Asian        403     736     333    0.43    0.77    1.79    0.73    1.54    2.11
 women
Native       748   1,081     333    0.80    1.14    1.43    1.36    2.27    1.67
 American
 men
Native       430     883     453    0.46    0.93    2.02    0.78    1.85    2.37
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   93,129  94,990           99.99   99.99

Blue-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      2,143   1,348    -795   71.89   69.45    0.97
 men
White        110      73     -37    3.69    3.76    1.02    5.13    5.42    1.06
 women
Black        431     259    -172   14.46   13.34    0.92   20.11   19.21    0.96
 men
Black         50      30     -20    1.68    1.55    0.92    2.33    2.23    0.96
 women
Hispanic     158     134     -24    5.30    6.90    1.30    7.37    9.94    1.35
 men
Hispanic       3       5       2    0.10    0.26    2.60    0.14    0.37    2.64
 women
Asian         16      18       2    0.54    0.93    1.72    0.75    1.34    1.79
 men
Asian          1       0      -1    0.03    0.00    0.00    0.05    0.00    0.00
 women
Native        62      67       5    2.08    3.45    1.66    2.89    4.97    1.72
 American
 men
Native         7       7       0    0.23    0.36    1.57    0.33    0.52    1.58
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    2,981   1,941          100.00  100.00

Key job workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     37,444  31,020       -   73.43   60.62    0.83
 men                       6,424
White      7,968  12,700   4,732   15.62   24.82    1.59   21.28   40.94    1.92
 women
Black      1,848   1,803     -45    3.62    3.52    0.97    4.94    5.81    1.18
 men
Black        724   1,347     623    1.42    2.63    1.85    1.93    4.34    2.25
 women
Hispanic   1,427   1,644     217    2.80    3.21    1.15    3.81    5.30    1.39
 men
Hispanic     271     613     342    0.53    1.20    2.26    0.72    1.98    2.75
 women
Asian        529     684     155    1.04    1.34    1.29    1.41    2.21    1.57
 men
Asian        122     276     154    0.24    0.54    2.25    0.33    0.89    2.70
 women
Native       547     771     224    1.07    1.51    1.41    1.46    2.49    1.71
 American
 men
Native       116     315     199    0.23    0.62    2.70    0.31    1.02    3.29
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   50,996  51,173          100.00  100.01

Nonkey job workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     17,573  16,623    -950   41.71   37.94    0.91
 men
White     17,505  18,185     680   41.55   41.50    1.00   99.61  109.40    1.10
 women
Black      1,361   1,365       4    3.23    3.12    0.97    7.74    8.21    1.06
 men
Black      3,171   3,993     822    7.53    9.11    1.21   18.04   24.02    1.33
 women
Hispanic     744     905     161    1.77    2.07    1.17    4.23    5.44    1.29
 men
Hispanic     717   1,044     327    1.70    2.38    1.40    4.08    6.28    1.54
 women
Asian        266     364      98    0.63    0.83    1.32    1.51    2.19    1.45
 men
Asian        281     460     179    0.67    1.05    1.57    1.60    2.77    1.73
 women
Native       201     310     109    0.48    0.71    1.48    1.14    1.86    1.63
 American
 men
Native       314     568     254    0.75    1.30    1.73    1.79    3.42    1.91
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   42,133  43,817          100.02  100.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.3
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                      Numbers of Specific EEO Groups at the
                      Department of the Navy in Fiscal Years
                                  1984 and 1992


Workforc
e           1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Total workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     163,48  147,24       -   56.43   52.19    0.92
 men           8       4  16,244
White     55,903  58,732   2,829   19.30   20.82    1.08   34.19   39.89    1.17
 women
Black     27,010  22,004       -    9.32    7.80    0.84   16.52   14.94    0.90
 men                       5,006
Black     13,678  17,599   3,921    4.72    6.24    1.32    8.37   11.95    1.43
 women
Hispanic   7,380   7,252    -128    2.55    2.57    1.01    4.51    4.93    1.09
 men
Hispanic   2,047   3,466   1,419    0.71    1.23    1.73    1.25    2.35    1.88
 women
Asian     15,153  17,739   2,586    5.23    6.29    1.20    9.27   12.05    1.30
 men
Asian      3,704   6,111   2,407    1.28    2.17    1.70    2.27    4.15    1.83
 women
Native       983   1,375     392    0.34    0.49    1.44    0.60    0.93    1.55
 American
 men
Native       359     635     276    0.12    0.23    1.92    0.22    0.43    1.95
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   289,70  282,15       -  100.00  100.03
               5       7   7,548

White-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     84,367  91,522   7,155   49.82   47.21    0.95
 men
White     52,219  55,553   3,334   30.83   28.66    0.93   61.90   60.70    0.98
 women
Black      7,261   8,506   1,245    4.29    4.39    1.02    8.61    9.29    1.08
 men
Black     11,582  15,875   4,293    6.84    8.19    1.20   13.73   17.35    1.26
 women
Hispanic   2,467   3,565   1,098    1.46    1.84    1.26    2.92    3.90    1.34
 men
Hispanic   1,833   3,249   1,416    1.08    1.68    1.56    2.17    3.55    1.64
 women
Asian      5,606   8,616   3,010    3.31    4.44    1.34    6.64    9.41    1.42
 men
Asian      3,307   5,722   2,415    1.95    2.95    1.51    3.92    6.25    1.59
 women
Native       391     666     275    0.23    0.34    1.48    0.46    0.73    1.59
 American
 men
Native       320     574     254    0.19    0.30    1.58    0.38    0.63    1.66
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   169,35  193,84  24,495  100.00  100.00
               3       8

Blue-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     78,365  55,719       -   65.78   63.10    0.96
 men                      22,646
White      3,646   3,178    -468    3.06    3.60    1.18    4.65    5.70    1.23
 women
Black     19,496  13,497       -   16.37   15.28    0.93   24.88   24.22    0.97
 men                       5,999
Black      2,067   1,724    -343    1.74    1.95    1.12    2.64    3.09    1.17
 women
Hispanic   4,875   3,686       -    4.09    4.17    1.02    6.22    6.62    1.06
 men                       1,189
Hispanic     212     217       5    0.18    0.25    1.39    0.27    0.39    1.44
 women
Asian      9,453   9,123    -330    7.94   10.33    1.30   12.06   16.37    1.36
 men
Asian        393     389      -4    0.33    0.44    1.33    0.50    0.70    1.40
 women
Native       585     709     124    0.49    0.80    1.63    0.75    1.27    1.69
 American
 men
Native        39      61      22    0.03    0.07    2.33    0.05    0.11    2.20
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   119,13  88,303       -  100.01   99.99
               1          30,828

Key job workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     28,685  32,103   3,418   82.77   76.64    0.93
 men
White      1,695   2,894   1,200    4.89    6.91    1.41    5.91    9.02    1.53
 women
Black      1,026   1,359     333    2.96    3.24    1.09    3.58    4.23    1.18
 men
Black        236     416     180    0.68    0.99    1.46    0.82    1.30    1.59
 women
Hispanic     651   1,073     422    1.88    2.56    1.36    2.27    3.34    1.47
 men
Hispanic      59     145      86    0.17    0.35    2.06    0.21    0.45    2.14
 women
Asian      2,063   3,257   1,194    5.95    7.78    1.31    7.19   10.15    1.41
 men
Asian        138     468     330    0.40    1.12    2.80    0.48    1.46    3.04
 women
Native        93     151      58    0.27    0.36    1.33    0.32    0.47    1.47
 American
 men
Native        10      23      13    0.03    0.05    1.67    0.03    0.07    2.33
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   34,656  41,889   7,233  100.00  100.00

Nonkey job workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     55,682  59,419   3,737   41.34   39.10    0.95
 men
White     50,524  52,659   2,135   37.51   34.65    0.92   90.74   88.62    0.98
 women
Black      6,235   7,147     912    4.63    4.70    1.02   11.20   12.03    1.07
 men
Black     11,346  15,459   4,113    8.42   10.17    1.21   20.38   26.02    1.28
 women
Hispanic   1,816   2,492     676    1.35    1.64    1.21    3.26    4.19    1.29
 men
Hispanic   1,774   3,104   1,330    1.32    2.04    1.55    3.19    5.22    1.64
 women
Asian      3,543   5,359   1,816    2.63    3.53    1.34    6.36    9.02    1.42
 men
Asian      3,169   5,254   2,085    2.35    3.46    1.47    5.69    8.84    1.55
 women
Native       298     515     217    0.22    0.34    1.55    0.54    0.87    1.61
 American
 men
Native       310     551     241    0.23    0.36    1.57    0.56    0.93    1.66
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   134,69  151,95  17,262  100.00   99.99
               7       9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.4
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                      Numbers of Specific EEO Groups at the
                     Department of State in Fiscal Years 1984
                                     and 1992


Workforc
e           1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Total workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      6,673   5,786    -887   53.84   47.61    0.88
 men
White      3,285   3,233     -52   26.50   26.60    1.00   49.23   55.88    1.14
 women
Black        669     673       4    5.40    5.54    1.03   10.03   11.63    1.16
 men
Black      1,088   1,628     540    8.78   13.40    1.53   16.30   28.14    1.73
 women
Hispanic     324     269     -55    2.61    2.21    0.85    4.86    4.65    0.96
 men
Hispanic     112     195      83    0.90    1.60    1.78    1.68    3.37    2.01
 women
Asian        109     148      39    0.88    1.22    1.39    1.63    2.56    1.57
 men
Asian         99     173      74    0.80    1.42    1.78    1.48    2.99    2.02
 women
Native        23      25       2    0.19    0.21    1.11    0.34    0.43    1.26
 American
 men
Native        12      22      10    0.10    0.18    1.80    0.18    0.38    2.11
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   12,394  12,152    -242  100.00   99.99

White-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      1,056   1,366     310   26.80   26.50    0.99
 men
White      1,406   1,553     147   35.68   30.13    0.84  133.14  113.69    0.85
 women
Black        343     401      58    8.70    7.78    0.89   32.48   29.36    0.90
 men
Black        927   1,467     540   23.52   28.46    1.21   87.78  107.39    1.22
 women
Hispanic      76      71      -5    1.93    1.38    0.72    7.20    5.20    0.72
 men
Hispanic      51     113      62    1.29    2.19    1.70    4.83    8.27    1.71
 women
Asian         28      61      33    0.71    1.18    1.66    2.65    4.47    1.69
 men
Asian         46     109      63    1.17    2.11    1.80    4.36    7.98    1.83
 women
Native         4       4       0    0.10    0.08    0.80    0.38    0.29    0.76
 American
 men
Native         4       9       5    0.10    0.17    1.70    0.38    0.66    1.74
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    3,941   5,154   1,213  100.00   99.98

Foreign service workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      5,568   4,387       -   67.68   63.67    0.94
 men                       1,181
White      1,872   1,678    -194   22.75   24.35    1.07   33.62   38.25    1.14
 women
Black        253     218     -35    3.08    3.16    1.03    4.54    4.97    1.09
 men
Black        147     149       2    1.79    2.16    1.21    2.64    3.40    1.29
 women
Hispanic     168     194      26    2.04    2.82    1.38    3.02    4.42    1.46
 men
Hispanic      59      79      20    0.72    1.15    1.60    1.06    1.80    1.70
 women
Asian         80      87       7    0.97    1.26    1.30    1.44    1.98    1.38
 men
Asian         53      64      11    0.64    0.93    1.45    0.95    1.46    1.54
 women
Native        19      21       2    0.23    0.30    1.30    0.34    0.48    1.41
 American
 men
Native         8      13       5    0.10    0.19    1.90    0.14    0.30    2.14
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    8,227   6,890       -  100.00   99.99
                           1,337
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.5
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                      Numbers of Specific EEO Groups in Key
                     White-collar Jobs by Grade Levels at the
                       Department of the Interior in Fiscal
                               Years 1984 and 1992


Grade
level       1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Grades 1-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White       3958    4166     208   63.46   57.64    0.91
 men
White       1146    1704     558   18.37   23.58    1.28   28.95   40.90    1.41
 women
Black        145     166      21    2.32    2.30    0.99    3.66    3.98    1.09
 men
Black         80     112      32    1.28    1.55    1.21    2.02    2.69    1.33
 women
Hispanic     233     271      38    3.74    3.75    1.00    5.89    6.51    1.11
 men
Hispanic      49     106      57    0.79    1.47    1.86    1.24    2.54    2.05
 women
Asian         56      64       8    0.90    0.89    0.99    1.41    1.54    1.09
 men
Asian         29      40      11    0.47    0.55    1.17    0.73    0.96    1.32
 women
Native       328     388      60    5.26    5.37    1.02    8.29    9.31    1.12
 American
 men
Native       213     210      -3    3.42    2.91    0.85    5.38    5.04    0.94
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    6,237   7,227          100.01  100.01

Grades 11-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White       6016    6470     454   81.14   71.64    0.88
 men
White        616    1469     853    8.31   16.27    1.96   10.24   22.70    2.22
 women
Black         80     115      35    1.08    1.27    1.18    1.33    1.78    1.34
 men
Black         36      78      42    0.49    0.86    1.76    0.60    1.21    2.02
 women
Hispanic     160     223      63    2.16    2.47    1.14    2.66    3.45    1.30
 men
Hispanic       8      45      37    0.11    0.50    4.55    0.13    0.70    5.38
 women
Asian         72      93      21    0.97    1.03    1.06    1.20    1.44    1.20
 men
Asian         17      49      32    0.23    0.54    2.35    0.28    0.76    2.71
 women
Native       295     327      32    3.98    3.62    0.91    4.90    5.05    1.03
 American
 men
Native       114     162      48    1.54    1.79    1.16    1.89    2.50    1.32
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    7,414   9,031          100.01   99.99

Grades 13-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      3,199   3,554     355   87.21   79.26    0.91
 men
White        187     491     304    5.10   10.95    2.15    5.85   13.82    2.36
 women
Black         43      72      29    1.17    1.61    1.38    1.34    2.03    1.51
 men
Black         12      33      21    0.33    0.74    2.24    0.38    0.93    2.45
 women
Hispanic      37      59      22    1.01    1.32    1.31    1.16    1.66    1.43
 men
Hispanic       0      10      10    0.00    0.22      \b    0.00    0.28      \b
 women
Asian         51      46      -5    1.39    1.03    0.74    1.59    1.29    0.81
 men
Asian          3      10       7    0.08    0.22    2.75    0.09    0.28    3.11
 women
Native       117     160      43    3.19    3.57    1.12    3.66    4.50    1.23
 American
 men
Native        19      49      30    0.52    1.09    2.10    0.59    1.38    2.34
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    3,668   4,484          100.00  100.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b The amount of change (increase or decrease) cannot be computed
because there was no one (0.00) in that EEO group at that grade level
in the base year (1984). 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.6
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                      Numbers of Specific EEO Groups in Key
                     White-collar Jobs by Grade Levels at the
                       Department of Agriculture in Fiscal
                               Years 1984 and 1992


Grade
level       1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Grades 1-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     20,828  15,878       -   64.70   50.86    0.79
 men                       4,950
White      7,261  10,257   2,996   22.56   32.85    1.46   34.86   64.60    1.85
 women
Black      1,253   1,077    -176    3.89    3.45    0.89    6.02    6.78    1.13
 men
Black        644   1,057     413    2.00    3.39    1.70    3.09    6.66    2.16
 women
Hispanic   1,106   1,153      47    3.44    3.69    1.07    5.31    7.26    1.37
 men
Hispanic     255     507     252    0.79    1.62    2.05    1.22    3.19    2.61
 women
Asian        241     292      51    0.75    0.94    1.25    1.16    1.84    1.59
 men
Asian         93     180      87    0.29    0.58    2.00    0.45    1.13    2.51
 women
Native       397     536     139    1.23    1.72    1.40    1.91    3.38    1.77
 American
 men
Native       114     283     169    0.35    0.91    2.60    0.55    1.78    3.24
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   32,192  31,220          100.00  100.01

Grades 11-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     12,723  11,152       -   87.58   74.71    0.85
 men                       1,571
White        601   1,928   1,327    4.14   12.92    3.12    4.72   17.29    3.66
 women
Black        478     557      79    3.29    3.73    1.13    3.76    4.99    1.33
 men
Black         71     236     165    0.49    1.58    3.22    0.56    2.12    3.79
 women
Hispanic     271     393     122    1.87    2.63    1.41    2.13    3.52    1.65
 men
Hispanic      13      92      79    0.09    0.62    6.89    0.10    0.83    8.30
 women
Asian        227     290      63    1.56    1.94    1.24    1.78    2.60    1.46
 men
Asian         24      68      44    0.17    0.46    2.71    0.19    0.61    3.21
 women
Native       118     180      62    0.81    1.21    1.49    0.93    1.61    1.73
 American
 men
Native         2      31      29    0.01    0.21   21.00    0.02    0.28   14.00
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   14,528  14,927          100.01  100.01

Grades 13-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      3,784   3,855      71   90.96   79.26    0.87
 men
White        105     496     391    2.52   10.20    4.05    2.77   12.87    4.65
 women
Black        115     167      52    2.76    3.43    1.24    3.04    4.33    1.42
 men
Black          9      54      45    0.22    1.11    5.05    0.24    1.40    5.83
 women
Hispanic      46      94      48    1.11    1.93    1.74    1.22    2.44    2.00
 men
Hispanic       3      14      11    0.07    0.29    4.14    0.08    0.36    4.50
 women
Asian         61     101      40    1.47    2.08    1.42    1.61    2.62    1.63
 men
Asian          5      27      22    0.12    0.56    4.67    0.13    0.70    5.38
 women
Native        32      55      23    0.77    1.13    1.47    0.85    1.43    1.68
 American
 men
Native         0       1       1    0.00    0.02      \b    0.00    0.03      \b
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    4,160   4,864          100.00  100.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b The amount of change (increase or decrease) cannot be computed
because there was no one (0.00) in that EEO group at that grade level
in the base year (1984). 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.7
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                      Numbers of Specific EEO Groups in Key
                     White-collar Jobs by Grade Levels at the
                      Department of the Navy in Fiscal Years
                                  1984 and 1992


Grade
level       1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Grades 1-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      5,118   2,644       -   67.92   62.31    0.92
 men                       2,474
White      1,061     603    -458   14.08   14.21    1.01   20.73   22.81    1.10
 women
Black        378     237    -141    5.02    5.59    1.11    7.39    8.96    1.21
 men
Black        163     138     -25    2.16    3.25    1.50    3.18    5.22    1.64
 women
Hispanic     203     155     -48    2.69    3.65    1.36    3.97    5.86    1.48
 men
Hispanic      40      39      -1    0.53    0.92    1.74    0.78    1.48    1.90
 women
Asian        465     305    -160    6.17    7.19    1.17    9.09   11.54    1.27
 men
Asian         83      91       8    1.10    2.14    1.95    1.62    3.44    2.12
 women
Native        19      24       5    0.25    0.57    2.28    0.37    0.91    2.46
 American
 men
Native         5       7       2    0.07    0.17    2.43    0.10    0.26    2.60
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    7,535   4,243       -   99.99  100.00
                           3,292

Grades 11-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     13,524  17,203   3,679   83.69   73.94    0.88
 men
White        482   1,668   1,186    2.98    7.17    2.41    3.56    9.70    2.72
 women
Black        440     818     378    2.72    3.52    1.29    3.25    4.76    1.46
 men
Black         65     226     161    0.40    0.97    2.43    0.48    1.31    2.73
 women
Hispanic     338     677     339    2.09    2.91    1.39    2.50    3.94    1.58
 men
Hispanic      19      85      66    0.12    0.37    3.08    0.14    0.49    3.50
 women
Asian      1,209   2,186     977    7.48    9.40    1.26    8.94   12.71    1.42
 men
Asian         47     310     263    0.29    1.33    4.59    0.35    1.80    5.14
 women
Native        31      81      50    0.19    0.35    1.84    0.23    0.47    2.04
 American
 men
Native         5      12       7    0.03    0.05    1.67    0.04    0.07    1.75
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a   16,160  23,266   7,106   99.99  100.01

Grades 13-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      7,742   9,799   2,057   92.24   86.26    0.94
 men
White         76     437     361    0.91    3.85    4.23    0.98    4.46    4.55
 women
Black        175     254      79    2.09    2.24    1.07    2.26    2.59    1.15
 men
Black          7      49      42    0.08    0.43    5.38    0.09    0.50    5.56
 women
Hispanic      72     174     102    0.86    1.53    1.78    0.93    1.78    1.91
 men
Hispanic       0      16      16    0.00    0.14      \b    0.00    0.16      \b
 women
Asian        288     567     279    3.43    4.99    1.45    3.72    5.79    1.56
 men
Asian          3      35      32    0.04    0.31    7.75    0.04    0.36    9.00
 women
Native        30      26      -4    0.36    0.23    0.64    0.39    0.27    0.69
 American
 men
Native         0       3       3    0.00    0.03      \b    0.00    0.03      \b
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    8,393  11,360   2,967  100.01  100.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b The amount of change (increase or decrease) cannot be computed
because there was no one (0.00) in that EEO group at that grade level
in the base year (1984). 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.8
                     
                        Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                        Numbers of Specific EEO Groups in
                     Foreign Service Jobs by Grade Levels at
                     the Department of State in Fiscal Years
                                  1984 and 1992


Grade
level       1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change    1984    1992  Change
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Grades 1-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      1,046     291    -755   43.78   26.92    0.61
 men
White      1,103     638    -465   46.17   59.02    1.28  105.45  219.24    2.08
 women
Black         55      21     -34    2.30    1.94    0.84    5.26    7.22    1.37
 men
Black         60      45     -15    2.51    4.16    1.66    5.74   15.46    2.69
 women
Hispanic      39      17     -22    1.63    1.57    0.96    3.73    5.84    1.57
 men
Hispanic      26      33       7    1.09    3.05    2.80    2.49   11.34    4.55
 women
Asian         18       4     -14    0.75    0.37    0.49    1.72    1.37    0.80
 men
Asian         29      24      -5    1.21    2.22    1.83    2.77    8.25    2.98
 women
Native         5       2      -3    0.21    0.19    0.90    0.48    0.69    1.44
 American
 men
Native         8       6      -2    0.33    0.56    1.70    0.76    2.06    2.71
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    2,389   1,081       -   99.98  100.00
                           1,308

Grades 11-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      1,868   1,720    -148   68.30   65.20    0.95
 men
White        510     593      83   18.65   22.48    1.21   27.30   34.48    1.26
 women
Black        117      77     -40    4.28    2.92    0.68    6.26    4.48    0.72
 men
Black         70      51     -19    2.56    1.93    0.75    3.75    2.97    0.79
 women
Hispanic      70      85      15    2.56    3.22    1.26    3.75    4.94    1.32
 men
Hispanic      29      28      -1    1.06    1.06    1.00    1.55    1.63    1.05
 women
Asian         45      51       6    1.65    1.93    1.17    2.41    2.97    1.23
 men
Asian         16      20       4    0.59    0.76    1.29    0.86    1.16    1.35
 women
Native        10       8      -2    0.37    0.30    0.81    0.54    0.47    0.87
 American
 men
Native         0       5       5    0.00    0.19      \b    0.00    0.29      \b
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    2,735   2,638     -97  100.02   99.99

Grades 13-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White      1,912   1,696    -216   82.91   71.02    0.86
 men
White        231     381     150   10.02   15.95    1.59   12.08   22.46    1.86
 women
Black         70     102      32    3.04    4.27    1.40    3.66    6.01    1.64
 men
Black         17      46      29    0.74    1.93    2.61    0.89    2.71    3.04
 women
Hispanic      47      82      35    2.04    3.43    1.68    2.46    4.83    1.96
 men
Hispanic       4      18      14    0.17    0.75    4.41    0.21    1.06    5.05
 women
Asian         13      31      18    0.56    1.30    2.32    0.68    1.83    2.69
 men
Asian          8      19      11    0.35    0.80    2.29    0.42    1.12    2.67
 women
Native         4      11       7    0.17    0.46    2.71    0.21    0.65    3.10
 American
 men
Native         0       2       2    0.00    0.08      \b    0.00    0.12      \b
 American
 women
================================================================================
Total\a    2,306   2,388      82  100.00   99.99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b The amount of change (increase or decrease) cannot be computed
because there was no one (0.00) in that EEO group at that grade level
in the base year (1984). 

Source:  OPM's CPDF. 



                                    Table I.9
                     
                      Percentages of Different EEO Groups in
                      the CLF and the Total and White-collar
                         Workforces in Four Agencies and
                     Representation Indexes Derived From Them


Total
workfo  Civili  Interi  Agricultu                Interi  Agricultu
rce         an      or         re   Navy  State      or         re   Navy  State
------  ------  ------  ---------  -----  -----  ------  ---------  -----  -----
EEO group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White     42.6    51.1       50.5   52.2   47.6     120        119    123    112
 men
White     35.3    25.8       31.9   20.8   26.6      73         90     59     75
 women
Black      4.9     2.9        3.5    7.8    5.5      59         71    159    112
 men
Black      5.4     3.2        5.5    6.2   13.4      59        102    115    248
 women
Hispan     4.8     2.5        2.8    2.6    2.2      52         58     54     46
 ic
 men
Hispan     3.3     1.9        1.7    1.2    1.6      58         52     36     48
 ic
 women
Asian      1.5     0.8        1.1    6.3    1.2      53         73    420     80
 men
Asian      1.3     0.6        0.8    2.2    1.4      46         62    169    108
 women
Native     0.3     6.1        1.2    0.5    0.2   2,033        400    167     67
 Ameri
 can
 men
Native     0.3     5.0        0.9    0.2    0.2   1,667        300     67     67
 Ameri
 can
 women

White-collar workforce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEO     Civili  Interi  Agricultu   Navy  State  Interi  Agricultu   Navy  State
 group      an      or         re                    or         re
White     37.8    49.4       50.2   47.2   63.7     131        133    125    169
 men
White     44.0    28.8       32.5   28.7   24.4      65         74     65     55
 women
Black      3.1     2.1        3.3    4.4    3.2      68        106    142    103
 men
Black      5.7     3.5        5.6    8.2    2.2      61         98    144     39
 women
Hispan     2.7     2.1        2.7    1.8    2.8      78        100     67    104
 ic
 men
Hispan     3.1     2.1        1.7    1.7    1.2      68         55     55     39
 ic
 women
Asian      1.6     0.8        1.1    4.4    1.3      50         69    275     81
 men
Asian      1.6     0.7        0.8    3.0    0.9      44         50    188     56
 women
Native     0.2     4.9        1.1    0.3    0.3   2,450        550    150    150
 Ameri
 can
 men
Native     0.3     5.6        0.9    0.3    0.2   1,867        300    100     67
 Ameri
 can
 women
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Percentages for each of the four agencies are from OPM's
CPDF, for fiscal year 1992.  CLF data are from the 1990 census. 


--------------------
\1 The number of hires refers to the number of employees who entered
the agencies at any point during fiscal years 1984 and 1992.  As
discussed in app.  II, the data on hires presented in this report
included both appointments and conversions.  The numbers employed
refer to the number of employees on-board in the agencies at the end
of fiscal years 1984 and 1992. 


DEFINITIONS OF HIRES, SEPARATIONS,
AND PROMOTIONS AND TABLES SHOWING
THE RESULTS OF OUR ANALYSES
========================================================== Appendix II

OPM's CPDF uses different codes to identify the various types of
personnel actions that bring employees onto and off of agencies'
employment rolls and into different grade levels.  This appendix
contains the definitions of the personnel actions we used in
analyzing the number of hires, separations, and promotions, as well
as tables showing our analysis. 


      DEFINITIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1

In this report we combined data on appointments and conversions,
which we refer to as hires.  Appointments are personnel actions that
bring individuals onto an agency's payroll.  Our analysis included
the following types of appointments:  career, career- conditional,
excepted, reinstatement-career, and reinstatement-
career-conditional.  A conversion action changes an employee from one
type of appointment to another type of appointment.  We used data on
conversions to career and career-conditional appointments. 

Our analysis of separations from employment in the four agencies
included both voluntary and involuntary separations.  Voluntary
separations consisted of voluntary retirement, special option
retirement, resignation, termination due to sponsor relocation, and
termination due to military service.  Involuntary separations
comprised the following categories:  mandatory retirement, retirement
due to disability, retirement in lieu of involuntary action,
resignation in lieu of involuntary action, removal, termination due
to disability, expiration of appointment, involuntary termination,
termination, discharge during probation/trial period, and discharge. 
Our definition of separation excluded termination due to transfer
from one agency to another and separation due to death. 

The promotions data that we analyzed comprised both permanent and
temporary (term) promotions.  We included promotions obtained
competitively and noncompetitively. 


      RESULTS OF OUR ANALYSES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2

The following tables show that all four agencies generally hired and
promoted women and minorities in higher relative numbers than those
at which they were employed in 1984 and 1992.  However, the
separations rates for some of these groups exceeded the rates at
which these groups were employed in 1992. 



                               Table II.1
                
                   Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                Numbers of Specific EEO Groups Employed,
                 Hired, Separated From, and Promoted in
                Key White-collar Jobs at the Department
                of the Interior in Fiscal Years 1984 and
                                  1992

                                                    Separate
                                Employed     Hired         d  Promoted
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
1984

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                         13,296       444       690     1,514
White women                        1,965       114       154       459
Black men                            271         6        18        39
Black women                          129         2        16        16
Hispanic men                         433        21        19        86
Hispanic women                        57         2         5        15
Asian men                            180         5         9        10
Asian women                           50         1         3         8
Native American men                  745        50        59        90
Native American women                347         6        34        36
======================================================================
Total                             17,473       651     1,007     2,273

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          76.09     68.20     68.52     66.61
White women                        11.25     17.51     15.29     20.19
Black men                           1.55      0.92      1.79      1.72
Black women                         0.74      0.31      1.59      0.70
Hispanic men                        2.48      3.23      1.89      3.78
Hispanic women                      0.33      0.31      0.50      0.66
Asian men                           1.03      0.77      0.89      0.44
Asian women                         0.29      0.15      0.30      0.35
Native American men                 4.26      7.68      5.86      3.96
Native American women               1.99      0.92      3.38      1.58
======================================================================
Total\a 1                        00.01 1   00.00 1   00.01 9      9.99

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                        14.78     25.68   22.32\b     30.32
Black men                           2.04    1.35\b    2.61\b      2.58
Black women                         0.97    0.45\b    2.32\b      1.06
Hispanic men                        3.26      4.73      2.75      5.68
Hispanic women                      0.43      0.45    0.72\b      0.99
Asian men                           1.35    1.13\b      1.30    0.66\b
Asian women                         0.38    0.23\b    0.43\b      0.53
Native American men                 5.60     11.26    8.55\b      5.94
Native American women               2.61    1.35\b    4.93\b    2.38\b
1992

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                         14,285       800       471     2,028
White women                        3,676       340       142       839
Black men                            356        19        12        67
Black women                          223        13         8        46
Hispanic men                         556        29        20       116
Hispanic women                       163        13         8        47
Asian men                            204        11         5        25
Asian women                           99         6         2        20
Native American men                  882        66        35       157
Native American women                422        33        13        98
======================================================================
Total                             20,866     1,330       716     3,443

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          68.46     60.15     65.78     58.90
White women                        17.62     25.56     19.83     24.37
Black men                           1.71      1.43      1.68      1.95
Black women                         1.07      0.98      1.12      1.34
Hispanic men                        2.66      2.18      2.79      3.37
Hispanic women                      0.78      0.98      1.12      1.37
Asian men                           0.98      0.83      0.70      0.73
Asian women                         0.47      0.45      0.28      0.58
Native American men                 4.23      4.96      4.89      4.56
Native American women               2.02      2.48      1.82      2.85
======================================================================
Total\a                           100.00    100.00    100.01    100.02

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                        25.73     42.50   30.15\b     41.37
Black men                           2.49    2.38\b    2.55\b      3.30
Black women                         1.56      1.63    1.70\b      2.27
Hispanic men                        3.89    3.63\b    4.25\b      5.72
Hispanic women                      1.14      1.63    1.70\b      2.32
Asian men                           1.43    1.38\b      1.06    1.23\b
Asian women                         0.69      0.75      0.42      0.99
Native American men                 6.17      8.25    7.43\b      7.74
Native American women               2.95      4.13      2.76      4.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b Indicates that the relative number that entered the workforce at
the Department of Interior was less than the relative number employed
or that the relative number that separated from the workforce at
Interior was greater than the relative number employed or that the
relative number promoted in the workforce at Interior was less than
the relative number employed. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF data. 



                               Table II.2
                
                   Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                Numbers of Specific EEO Groups Employed
                in, Hired, Separated From, and Promoted
                    in Key White-collar Jobs at the
                  Department of Agriculture in Fiscal
                          Years 1984 and 1992

                                                    Separate
                                Employed     Hired         d  Promoted
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
1984

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                         37,444     1,744     2,135     4,219
White women                        7,968       772       610     2,016
Black men                          1,848        42        86       222
Black women                          724        30        30       185
Hispanic men                       1,427        55        67       200
Hispanic women                       271        10         9        61
Asian men                            529        20        19        80
Asian women                          122        10         5        28
Native American men                  547        21        41        70
Native American women                116         4         7        27
======================================================================
Total                             50,996     2,708     3,009     7,108

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          73.43     64.40     70.95     59.36
White women                        15.62     28.51     20.27     28.36
Black men                           3.62      1.55      2.86      3.12
Black women                         1.42      1.11      1.00      2.60
Hispanic men                        2.80      2.03      2.23      2.81
Hispanic women                      0.53      0.37      0.30      0.86
Asian men                           1.04      0.74      0.63      1.13
Asian women                         0.24      0.37      0.17      0.39
Native American men                 1.07      0.78      1.36      0.98
Native American women               0.23      0.15      0.23      0.38
======================================================================
Total\a                           100.00    100.01    100.00     99.99

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                        21.28     44.27   28.57\b     47.78
Black men                           4.94    2.41\b      4.03      5.26
Black women                         1.93    1.72\b      1.41      4.38
Hispanic men                        3.81    3.15\b      3.14      4.74
Hispanic women                      0.72    0.57\b      0.42      1.45
Asian men                           1.41    1.15\b      0.89      1.90
Asian women                         0.33      0.57      0.23      0.66
Native American men                 1.46    1.20\b    1.92\b      1.66
Native American women               0.31    0.23\b    0.33\b      0.64

1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                         31,020     1,036     1,184     3,346
White women                       12,700       756       582     3,020
Black men                          1,803        93        54       255
Black women                        1,347        80        52       344
Hispanic men                       1,644       105        53       213
Hispanic women                       613        42        20       157
Asian men                            684        42        14        93
Asian women                          276        19         9        72
Native American men                  771        40        38       120
Native American women                315        27        18        85
======================================================================
Total                             51,173     2,240     2,024     7,705

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          60.62     46.25     58.50     43.43
White women                        24.82     33.75     28.75     39.20
Black men                           3.52      4.15      2.67      3.31
Black women                         2.63      3.57      2.57      4.46
Hispanic men                        3.21      4.69      2.62      2.76
Hispanic women                      1.20      1.88      0.99      2.04
Asian men                           1.34      1.88      0.69      1.21
Asian women                         0.54      0.85      0.44      0.93
Native American men                 1.51      1.79      1.88      1.56
Native American women               0.62      1.21      0.89      1.10
======================================================================
Total\a                           100.01    100.02    100.00    100.00

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                        40.94     72.97   49.16\b     90.26
Black men                           5.81      8.98      4.56      7.62
Black women                         4.34      7.72    4.39\b     10.28
Hispanic men                        5.30     10.14      4.48      6.37
Hispanic women                      1.98      4.05      1.69      4.69
Asian men                           2.21      4.05      1.18      2.78
Asian women                         0.89      1.83      0.76      2.15

1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American men                 2.49      3.86    3.21\b      3.59
Native American women               1.02      2.61    1.52\b      2.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b Indicates that the relative number that entered the workforce at
the Department of Agriculture was less than the relative number
employed or that the relative number that separated from the
workforce at Agriculture was greater than the relative number
employed or that the relative number promoted in the workforce at
Agriculture was less than the relative number employed. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF data. 



                               Table II.3
                
                   Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                Numbers of Specific EEO Groups Employed
                in, Hired, Separated From, and Promoted
                    in Key White-collar Jobs at the
                 Department of the Navy in Fiscal Years
                             1984 and 1992

                                                    Separate
                                Employed     Hired         d  Promoted
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
1984

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                         28,685     2,384     1,790     5,503
White women                        1,695       308       139       807
Black men                          1,026       113        68       278
Black women                          236        34        13        94
Hispanic men                         651        85        45       191
Hispanic women                        59         8         7        24
Asian men                          2,063       252       117       472
Asian women                          138        28         6        74
Native American men                   93        14         5        12
Native American women                 10         0         1         2
======================================================================
Total                             34,656     3,226     2,191     7,457

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          82.77     73.90     81.70     73.80
White women                         4.89      9.55      6.34     10.82
Black men                           2.96      3.50      3.10      3.73
Black women                         0.68      1.05      0.59      1.26
Hispanic men                        1.88      2.63      2.05      2.56
Hispanic women                      0.17      0.25      0.32      0.32
Asian men                           5.95      7.81      5.34      6.33
Asian women                         0.40      0.87      0.27      0.99
Native American men                 0.27      0.43      0.23      0.16
Native American women               0.03      0.00      0.05      0.03
======================================================================
Total\a                           100.00     99.99     99.99    100.00

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                         5.91     12.92    7.77\b     14.66
Black men                           3.58      4.74    3.80\b      5.05
Black women                         0.82      1.43      0.73      1.71
Hispanic men                        2.27      3.57    2.51\b      3.47
Hispanic women                      0.21      0.34    0.39\b      0.44
Asian men                           7.19     10.57      6.54      8.58
Asian women                         0.48      1.17      0.34      1.34
Native American men                 0.32      0.59      0.28    0.22\b
Native American women               0.03    0.00\b    0.06\b      0.04

1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                         32,103       531     1,333     4,046
White women                        2,894       102       160       747
Black men                          1,359        21        59       244
Black women                          416        16        18       112
Hispanic men                       1,073        31        47       222
Hispanic women                       145         9         6        50
Asian men                          3,257        78       106       572
Asian women                          468        15        28       152
Native American men                  151         5        14        17
Native American women                 23         0         0         8
======================================================================
Total                             41,889       808     1,771     6,170

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          76.64     65.72     75.27     65.58
White women                         6.91     12.62      9.03     12.11
Black men                           3.24      2.60      3.33      3.95
Black women                         0.99      1.98      1.02      1.82
Hispanic men                        2.56      3.84      2.65      3.60
Hispanic women                      0.35      1.11      0.34      0.81
Asian men                           7.78      9.65      5.99      9.27
Asian women                         1.12      1.86      1.58      2.46
Native American men                 0.36      0.62      0.79      0.28
Native American women               0.05      0.00      0.00      0.13
======================================================================
Total\a                           100.00    100.00    100.00    100.01

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                         9.02     19.21   12.00\b     18.46
Black men                           4.23    3.95\b    4.43\b      6.03
Black women                         1.30      3.01    1.35\b      2.77
Hispanic men                        3.34      5.84    3.53\b      5.49
Hispanic women                      0.45      1.69      0.45      1.24
Asian men                          10.15     14.69      7.95     14.14
Asian women                         1.46      2.82    2.10\b      3.76
Native American men                 0.47      0.94    1.05\b    0.42\b
Native American women               0.07    0.00\b      0.00      0.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b Indicates that the relative number that entered the workforce at
the Department of the Navy was less than the relative number employed
or that the relative number that separated from the workforce at Navy
was greater than the relative number employed or that the relative
number promoted in the workforce at Navy was less than the relative
number employed. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF data. 



                               Table II.4
                
                   Numbers, Percentages, and Relative
                Numbers of Specific EEO Groups Employed
                in, Hired, Separated From, and Promoted
                     in Foreign Service Jobs at the
                Department of State in Fiscal Years 1984
                                and 1992

                                                    Separate
                                Employed     Hired         d  Promoted
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
1984

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          5,568       286         6       828
White women                        1,872       114         0       314
Black men                            253        16         0        23
Black women                          147        13         0        27
Hispanic men                         168        23         0        38
Hispanic women                        59         8         0        11
Asian men                             80         6         0        13
Asian women                           53         6         0         8
Native American men                   19         0         0         4
Native American women                  8         0         0         0
======================================================================
Total                              8,227       472         6     1,266

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          67.68     60.59    100.00     65.40
White women                        22.75     24.15      0.00     24.80
Black men                           3.08      3.39      0.00      1.82
Black women                         1.79      2.75      0.00      2.13
Hispanic men                        2.04      4.87      0.00      3.00
Hispanic women                      0.72      1.69      0.00      0.87
Asian men                           0.97      1.27      0.00      1.03
Asian women                         0.64      1.27      0.00      0.63
Native American men                 0.23      0.00      0.00      0.32
Native American women               0.10      0.00      0.00      0.00
======================================================================
Total\a                           100.00     99.98    100.00    100.00

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                        33.62     39.86      0.00     37.92
Black men                           4.54      5.59      0.00    2.78\b
Black women                         2.64      4.55      0.00      3.26
Hispanic men                        3.02      8.04      0.00      4.59
Hispanic women                      1.06      2.80      0.00      1.33
Asian men                           1.44      2.10      0.00      1.57
Asian women                         0.95      2.10      0.00      0.97
Native American men                 0.34    0.00\b      0.00      0.48
Native American women               0.14    0.00\b      0.00    0.00\b
1992

Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          4,387       458       248       529
White women                        1,678       140       111       282
Black men                            218        19        14        31
Black women                          149         9         8        21
Hispanic men                         194        19         8        32
Hispanic women                        79         6         2        11
Asian men                             87        12         1        10
Asian women                           64        11         3        11
Native American men                   21         3         3         2
Native American women                 13         3         0         2
======================================================================
Total                              6,890       680       398       931

Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men                          63.67     67.35     62.31     56.82
White women                        24.35     20.59     27.89     30.29
Black men                           3.16      2.79      3.52      3.33
Black women                         2.16      1.32      2.01      2.26
Hispanic men                        2.82      2.79      2.01      3.44
Hispanic women                      1.15      0.88      0.50      1.18
Asian men                           1.26      1.76      0.25      1.07
Asian women                         0.93      1.62      0.75      1.18
Native American men                 0.30      0.44      0.75      0.21
Native American women               0.19      0.44      0.00      0.21
======================================================================
Total\a                            99.99     99.98     99.99     99.99

Relative number
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White men
White women                        38.25  30.57 \b  44.76 \b     53.31
Black men                           4.97    4.15\b    5.65\b      5.86
Black women                         3.40    1.97\b      3.23      3.97
Hispanic men                        4.42    4.15\b      3.23      6.05
Hispanic women                      1.80    1.31\b      0.81      2.08

1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian men                           1.98      2.62      0.40    1.89\b
Asian women                         1.46      2.40      1.21      2.08
Native American men                 0.48      0.66    1.21\b    0.38\b
Native American women               0.30      0.66      0.00      0.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b Indicates that the relative number that entered the workforce at
the Department of State was less than the relative number employed or
that the relative number that separated from the workforce at State
was greater than the relative number employed or that the relative
number promoted in the workforce at State was less than the relative
number employed. 

Source:  OPM's CPDF data. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
========================================================== Appendix II

See pp.  6, 65. 



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
========================================================== Appendix II

See pp.  7, 8,
72-3. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

See pp.  7, 8,
72-3. 



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII


   GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1

Steven J.  Wozny, Assistant Director
Carmen Rivera-Lowitt, Evaluator-in-Charge
Charlesetta Bailey, Senior Evaluator
Clifton G.  Douglas, Senior Evaluator
Douglas Sloane, Technical Advisor
Greg Wilmoth, Senior Social Science Specialist
Ging Louie, Evaluator
Michael Little, Communications Analyst


   NORFOLK REGIONAL OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2

Hank Arzadan, Regional Assignment Manager
Ruth Winchester, Evaluator

*** End of document. ***