U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions (Letter
Report, 02/26/99, GAO/GGD-99-26).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the promotion of women
and minorities to high-level Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS)
management positions (EAS 17 and above) in the U.S. Postal Service
(USPS), focusing on: (1) the overall extent to which women and
minorities have been promoted to or are represented in EAS 17 and above
positions in USPS; (2) GAO's observations on the methodology used by a
private contractor, Aguirre International, to study workforce diversity
at USPS; (3) the status of USPS' efforts to address the recommendations
contained in the Aguirre report; and (4) GAO's analysis of whether USPS
could better capture and use data to achieve its diversity objectives.

GAO noted that: (1) at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1997, black and Asian
men and women and Hispanic men were fully represented while Hispanic
women, Native American men and women, and white women were
underrepresented in USPS at the cluster level when compared with the
civilian labor force; (2) representation of women and minorities at the
cluster level in EAS 17 and above positions increased between fiscal
years (FY) 1993 and 1997, with the exception of black men whose
representation decreased; (3) in FY 1997, women and all minority groups,
except Asian women, at the cluster lever were promoted to EAS 17 and
above positions at higher rates than women and minority groups were
represented in those EAS positions; (4) despite this progress, the
overall representation of women and minorities at the cluster level in
EAS 17 and above positions was almost 20 percent lower than their
representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions at the end of (FY) 1997;
(5) similar comparisons at the headquarters and area office workforce
levels showed some variations regarding the representation of specific
equal employment opportunity (EEO) groups; (6) GAO believes that the
methodologies used by Aguirre International were generally reasonable,
appropriate, and relevant given the parameters established for the study
and the complexities surrounding the sensitive issue of diversity in
such a large organization; (7) however, GAO believes that Aguirre's
finding of a glass ceiling beginning at EAS 17 positions could be
misleading; (8) USPS reviewed the Aguirre report and developed 23
initiatives that it believed addresses the report's major issues and
recommendations; (9) USPS believes its 23 initiatives will significantly
strengthen its diversity program and address most of Aguirre's concerns;
(10) USPS believes that it is generally on or ahead of its schedule for
implementing these initiatives; (11) by the spring of 1999, USPS plans
to create an ongoing monitoring process to ensure full implementation of
its initiatives, which will result in revised scopes, completion dates,
and implementation status for some of the initiatives; (12) USPS has
recently developed broad goals and objectives for its diversity program,
but it has not yet established specific targets and measures for
determining its progress toward meeting its diversity goals and
objectives; and (13) USPS officials said that specific targets and
measures would be established no later than March 30, 1999.

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

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-99-26
     TITLE:  U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions
      DATE:  02/26/99
   SUBJECT:  Employee promotions
             Employment discrimination
             Employment of minorities
             Fair employment programs
             Hiring policies
             Labor statistics
             Management information systems
             Women
             Statistical methods
             Postal service employees
IDENTIFIER:  USPS Application Flow Tracking System
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
Microsoft Word - 13mj01!.PBF U. S. POSTAL SERVICE

Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable Danny K. Davis

House of Representatives


February 1999 

GAO/GGD-99-26

February 1999   GAO/GGD-99-26

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

General Government Division

B-281375

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

GAO February 26, 1999 The Honorable Danny K. Davis House of
Representatives

Dear Mr. Davis: This report supplements our previous letter to you
in response to your request for information related to the
promotion of women and minorities to high- level Executive and
Administrative Schedule (EAS) management positions (EAS 17 and
above) in the U. S. Postal Service (the Service). 1 As you
requested, this report provides (1) information about the overall
extent to which women and minorities have been promoted to or are
represented in EAS 17 and above positions in the Service; (2) our
observations on the methodology used by a private contractor,
Aguirre International, to study workforce diversity at the
Service; 2 (3) the status of the Service's efforts to address the
recommendations contained in the Aguirre report; and (4) our
analysis of whether the Service could better capture and use data
to achieve its diversity objectives.

We obtained and analyzed certain Service data employees' EAS
positions, promotions, and equal employment opportunity (EEO)
groups identified on the basis of gender and race/ national origin
that were related primarily to the cluster- level workforce. 3 We
compared the representation of specific EEO groups at the cluster
level at the end of fiscal year 1997 4 with civilian labor force
(CLF) data from the 1990 decennial census. 5 According to Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission standards, the percentage rate
at which an EEO group is represented in an agency's workforce
compared to the rate at which the group is represented in the CLF,
as identified in the most recent census,

1 See U. S. Postal Service: Information About Selected Promotions
of Women and Minorities to EAS Management Level Positions
(GAO/GGD-98-200R, Sept. 21, 1998). 2 It's Good Business A Study of
Diversity in the United States Postal Service, Aguirre
International, Oct. 27, 1997. 3 A performance cluster is 1 of 85
Postal Service geographic service areas. Service employees working
at performance clusters accounted for over 732, 000, or about 96
percent, of the Service's almost 765,000 career- level employees
at the end of fiscal year 1997. The remainder was headquarters
employees (about 10, 700, or about 1 percent) and area office
employees (21, 900, or about 3 percent).

4 The Postal Service's fiscal year 1997 ended on Sept. 12, 1997,
and conforms to the Service's 13- period accounting year. Our use
of the term fiscal year in this report refers to the Service
fiscal year. 5 The CLF represents persons aged 16 years or more,
excluding those in the armed forces, who are employed or seeking
employment.

B-281375 Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

determines whether underrepresentation exists for the EEO group in
that workforce. We compared the representation of women and
minorities at the cluster level in EAS 17 and above positions in
fiscal year 1993 with their representation in fiscal year 1997 to
show any progression in terms of their representation between the
2 fiscal years. We also compared the representation of specific
EEO groups among employees promoted to EAS 17 and above positions
in fiscal year 1997 with their representation in those EAS
positions in fiscal year 1997 before the promotions to show how
the promotions reflected the comparative workforce. In addition,
we compared the fiscal year 1997 representation of these EEO
groups in EAS 17 and above positions with their representation in
EAS 11 through 16 positions because employees in positions below
EAS 16 represent the pool from which promotions to EAS 17 and
above positions would most likely come.

At the end of fiscal year 1997, black and Asian men and women and
Hispanic men were fully represented while Hispanic women, Native
American men and women, and white women were underrepresented in
the Service at the cluster level when compared with the CLF.
Representation of women and minorities at the cluster level in EAS
17 and above positions increased between fiscal years 1993 and
1997, with the exception of black men whose representation
decreased. In fiscal year 1997, women and all minority groups,
except Asian women, at the cluster level were promoted to EAS 17
and above positions at higher rates than women and minority groups
were represented in those EAS positions. Despite this progress,
the overall representation of women and minorities at the cluster
level in EAS 17 and above positions was almost 20 percent lower
than their representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions at the
end of fiscal year 1997. Similar comparisons at the headquarters
and area office workforce levels showed some variations regarding
the representation of specific EEO groups.

Based on our own standards for the design of studies and
development of methodologies to evaluate programs, we believe that
the methodologies used by Aguirre International were generally
reasonable, appropriate, and relevant given the parameters
established for the study and the complexities surrounding the
sensitive issue of diversity in such a large organization.
However, we believe Aguirre's finding of a glass ceiling beginning
at EAS 17 positions could be misleading. Aguirre based this
finding primarily on a comparison of the different EEO groups'
representation in various EAS levels or positions with each
group's representation in the overall CLF. Since CLF data are not
broken down into an appropriate pool for comparison (i. e.,
similar positions or levels or Results in Brief

B-281375 Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

individuals with relevant qualifications), we do not believe such
a comparison is appropriate. Also, Aguirre did not explicitly
define the term glass ceiling. We interpreted the term in the
general sense that is, an upper limit beyond which few or no women
and minorities could advance and to us no such ceiling existed
based on the overall data we examined. Women and minorities were
generally represented in and had been promoted to EAS 17 and above
cluster- level positions for the period we reviewed.

The Service reviewed the Aguirre report and developed 23
initiatives that it believed addressed the report's major issues
and recommendations. The Service found that several of the
recommendations seemed to be duplicative. The Service noted that
some statements in the report were confusing because it was
unclear whether they should be interpreted as recommendations and
that other statements appeared either to call for actions already
under way or not to be justified by supporting rationale.
Nevertheless, the Service believes its 23 initiatives will
significantly strengthen its diversity program and address most of
Aguirre's concerns. In addition, the Service believes that it is
generally on or ahead of its schedule for implementing these
initiatives. By the spring of 1999, the Service plans to create an
ongoing monitoring process to ensure full implementation of its
initiatives, which may result in revised scopes, completion dates,
and implementation status for some of the initiatives.

The Service has recently developed broad goals and objectives for
its diversity program, but it has not yet established specific
targets and measures for determining its progress toward meeting
its diversity goals and objectives. Service officials said that
specific targets and measures would be established no later than
March 30, 1999. In addition, the Service has not fully captured
and used data to achieve its diversity objectives. Although the
Service has a computer system in place to capture applicantflow
data that is, data showing how specific EEO groups progress
through its promotion process the system has not been effectively
implemented and used because not all Service units have
consistently entered the data into the system. We believe that the
lack of this type of systemic data showing how applicants
comprising specific EEO groups progress through the promotion
process hinders the identification of any barriers that might
impede the progress of those groups.

The Postal Service, the nation's largest civilian employer, had
about 765,000 career employees at the end of fiscal year 1997.
Service employees Background

B-281375 Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

include craft employees, the largest group; 6 EAS; the Postal
Career Executive Service (PCES); and others, such as inspectors
for the Postal Inspection Service. The Service structure includes
headquarters, 11 areas, and 85 performance clusters, with cluster-
level employees making up about 96 percent of the Service
workforce. For the purposes of this review, we focused on the
cluster- level EAS workforce.

The EAS workforce consists primarily of employees in EAS 11
through 26 positions. 7 EAS management- level positions begin at
EAS 16 and include such positions as postmaster, manager of
customer services, and manager of postal operations. At the end of
fiscal year 1997, EAS positions totaled 80,238, or about 10
percent of total Service career- level employees. PCES,
established in 1979, includes Service senior- level officers and
executives in positions such as area vice presidents. At the end
of fiscal year 1997, the Service had about 900 employees in PCES
positions. We did not include employees in PCES positions in our
analyses for this report.

According to the Service, one of its corporate goals is a
commitment to employees, which includes an effort to provide equal
employment opportunities to all employees, take advantage of its
diverse workforce, and compete effectively in the communications
marketplace. To that end, the Service created its Diversity
Development Department in headquarters in 1992, which was to
foster an all- inclusive business environment. The head of the
Department reports directly to the Deputy Postmaster General. The
Department is responsible for, among other things, actively
supporting the recruitment, retention, and upward mobility of
women and minorities. In addition, the Service's 1999 Annual
Performance Plan includes achieving a diverse workforce as one of
its goals. 8

To determine the effectiveness of the Service's diversity
development program, the Postal Service Board of Governors
commissioned Aguirre International, a contractor, to undertake a
6- month study (May 2, 1997, to Nov. 2, 1997) of workforce
diversity at the Postal Service. The study addressed Service
personnel and supplier diversity and was issued in October 1997.
The report stated that the Service was a leader in meeting
affirmative action goals as well as striving for parity between
its workforce

6 Craft employees make up the bulk of Postal Service career
employees, about 89 percent. 7 Before the Service's restructuring
in 1992, the EAS workforce consisted of EAS 11 through 30
positions. After the restructuring, EAS 27 through 30 positions
were reclassified and included in EAS 1 through 26 positions.
However, about four EAS employees were still classified in EAS 27
through 30 positions.

8 USPS Annual Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 1999.

B-281375 Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

and the CLF. It also stated, among other things, that women and
minorities appeared to be experiencing problems advancing to
management jobs at EAS 17 and above positions. The Board of
Governors subsequently directed the Service to develop an action
plan for dealing with the diversity issues raised by Aguirre. The
Service developed an action plan and briefed the Board on the plan
in April 1998.

In our previous letter, 9 we reviewed promotions to EAS 16 and
above positions at four selected performance clusters.
Documentation in the promotion files and our discussions with
Service officials provided evidence that the Service's required
promotion procedures we reviewed were followed for the 127 fiscal
year 1997 promotions at these 4 sites. In addition, for 117 of
these promotions, we provided statistical data on the distribution
of the specific EEO groups throughout the promotion process stages
applications received, applicants considered best qualified, and
applicants promoted. The specific EEO groups discussed in this
report include white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American
men and women.

We did our work from July 1998 through January 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We
requested comments on a draft of this report from the Postmaster
General and from Aguirre International's Director of Operations.
The Postal Service's oral comments and Aguirre's written comments
are discussed near the end of this letter. Further details about
the scope and methodology of our review can be found in appendix
I.

The analyses that follow show how the representation of cluster-
level women and minority groups (1) compared with their
representation in the 1990 CLF; (2) changed between fiscal years
1993 and 1997 in EAS 17 and above positions; (3) among those
promoted to EAS 17 and above positions in fiscal year 1997,
compared with their representation in EAS 17 and above positions
in fiscal year 1997 (before the promotions); and (4) in EAS 17 and
above positions, compared with their representation in EAS 11
through 16 positions in fiscal year 1997. We also made similar
comparisons for women and minorities involving the remainder of
the Postal Service workforce located at the headquarters and area
office levels, as detailed in appendix II.

9 GAO/GGD-98-200R. Postal Service Positions Representation and

Promotion of Women and Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions at
the Cluster Level

B-281375 Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Table 1 shows that when we compared fiscal year 1997 data for the
Service's cluster- level workforce with CLF data from the 1990
decennial census, black and Asian men and women and Hispanic men
were fully represented, while Hispanic women, Native American men
and women, and white women were underrepresented. Specifically,
black men and women comprised 11.3 and 9.6 percent, respectively,
of the cluster workforce compared with their respective 5.0 and
5.5 percent representation in the CLF; Asian men and women
comprised 3.5 and 1.9 percent, respectively, of the workforce
compared with their respective 1.5 and 1.3 percent representation
in the CLF. However, white and Hispanic women were
underrepresented, comprising 22.1 percent and 2.0 percent,
respectively, of the workforce compared with their respective 35.3
percent and 3.4 percent CLF representation. White men were
represented in the workforce similarly to their level of
representation in the CLF.

Workforce White men White

women Black men Black

women Hispanic men Hispanic

women Asian men Asian

women Native

American men

Native American

women

Cluster 44.34% 22.09% 11.34% 9. 58% 4.82% 2.00% 3.46% 1.87% 0.29%
0.22% CLF 42.64 35.30 4.95 5.45 4.77 3.35 1.51 1.32 0.35 0.30
Ratio a 1.04 0.63 2.29 1.76 1.01 0.60 2.29 1.42 0.83 0.73

Legend: Bold indicates a ratio of 0.99 or lower. a Ratios
(comparison group percentage divided by base group percentage) as
used in this table show

the relative percentage of each EEO group within the Service
clusters to the percentage of those EEO groups represented in the
CLF. For example, a ratio of 1. 00 indicates that the EEO group's
representation in the clusters equaled the group's representation
in the CLF. A ratio of 1.01 or higher indicates that the
representation of the EEO group in the clusters was greater than
the EEO group's representation in the CLF, and a ratio of 0.99 or
lower indicates that the EEO group's representation was lower in
the clusters than it was in the CLF.

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data and 1990 CLF
data.

In addition to the cluster- level workforce data presented in
table 1, we analyzed similar data for the Service's headquarters-
level and area officelevel workforces. Table II. 1 in appendix II
shows that white and Hispanic women and Native American men were
underrepresented among the three workforce levels. Native American
women were underrepresented among cluster employees and
headquarters employees, but not among area office employees.
Hispanic men were underrepresented among headquarters and area
office employees, while white men were underrepresented among area
office employees. Black and Asian men and women were fully
represented in all three workforce levels. Cluster- Level Women
and

Minority Workforce Representation in Fiscal Year 1997 Compared
With the 1990 CLF

Table 1: Comparison of Service Cluster Workforce in Fiscal Year
1997 With the 1990 CLF

B-281375 Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Figure 1 shows our analysis of the representation of women and
minorities at the cluster level in EAS 17 and above positions in
fiscal year 1993 compared with fiscal year 1997. As the figure
shows, generally, the representation of women and minorities
increased over this period; black men's representation decreased
0.6 percent over this period. Also, white men's representation
decreased over this period by about 2.0 percent.

Note: See appendix II, table II. 2, for more detailed information.
Source: GAO analysis of Service data for fiscal years 1993 and
1997 for the cluster level.

Women and Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions in Fiscal Year
1993 Compared With Fiscal Year 1997, at the Cluster Level

Figure 1: Comparison of Cluster- Level Representation of Women and
Minorities at EAS 17 and Above Positions in Fiscal Year 1993 With
Fiscal Year 1997

B-281375 Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Table II. 2 in appendix II shows this same type of comparison
between the 2 fiscal years for women and minorities in EAS 17 and
above positions at the headquarters and area office levels. At the
headquarters level, in addition to the slight decrease in
representation of black and white men as happened at the cluster
level, representation of Native American men also showed a slight
decrease. At the area office level, the representation of black
men, Asian men, and Native American men all generally decreased.
Also, at the headquarters and area office levels, the
representation of white men decreased.

As shown in figure 2, we compared the representation of each EEO
group at the cluster level promoted to EAS 17 and above positions
in fiscal year 1997 with their representation in EAS 17 and above
positions at the cluster level in fiscal year 1997 before the
promotions. Our analysis showed that the representation of women
and all minority groups among those promoted was higher than the
representation of women and minority groups in EAS 17 and above
positions, with the exception of Asian women . Also, the
representation of white males in promotions to these higher EAS
positions was lower than their representation in the cluster-
level workforce.

Table II. 3 in appendix II shows the same type of information for
the same period for the headquarters and area office workforce
levels. At the headquarters level, representation of women and all
minority groups among those promoted was higher than their
representation in EAS 17 and above positions, with the exception
of Asian women and black and Native American men. However, at the
area office level, representation of white women; Hispanic men and
women; and Native American men and women was lower than their
representation in EAS 17 and above positions. Also, white men were
promoted at a rate lower than their representation at the
headquarters and area office levels. Women and Minorities

Promoted to EAS 17 and Above Positions Compared With Their
Representation in Those Positions for the Cluster Workforce,
Fiscal Year 1997

B-281375 Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Note: See appendix II, table II. 3, for more detailed information.
Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data for the
cluster level.

Figure 2: Comparison of the Cluster- Level Representation of Women
and Minorities Promoted to EAS 17 and Above With Their
Representation in Those Positions (before the promotions), Fiscal
Year 1997

B-281375 Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Table 2 shows our last comparison, the fiscal year 1997
representation of women and minorities in EAS 17 and above
positions with their representation in EAS 11 through 16
positions. We made this comparison because employees in EAS 11
through 16 positions represent the workforce pool from which
selections for promotion to EAS 17 and above positions would
likely be made.

EEO group Cluster- level EAS position White

men White women Black

men Black women Hispanic

men Hispanic women Asian

men Asian women

Native American

men Native

American women

Percentage of women/

minorities

EAS 11- 16 39.13% 34.29% 8. 74% 9.85% 3.20% 1.79% 1.31% 0.93%
0.33% 0.43% 61% EAS 17- 30 57.70 17.69 8.81 7.72 4.40 1.27 1.18
0.48 0.54 0.23 42

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data.

Our analyses in table 2 show that among cluster- level employees,
the overall representation of women and minorities in EAS 17 and
above positions was lower than it was in EAS 11 through 16
positions in fiscal year 1997 42 percent compared to 61 percent.
Table II. 4 in appendix II shows variation in the representation
of women and minorities in the higher EAS positions at the
headquarters and area office levels compared with their
representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions.

Based on our own standards for designing studies and developing
methodologies to evaluate programs, we believe that the
methodologies used by Aguirre International were generally
reasonable, appropriate, and relevant given the established study
parameters, including the 6- month time frame in which the study
was to be completed and the complexities associated with
addressing the sensitive issue of diversity in an organization as
large as the Postal Service. In addition, limitations resulting
from the study's parameters, as well as cautions regarding the
study's findings, were noted throughout the report. However, in
our review of the Aguirre report, we noted one area of concern:
The report stated that it appeared that a glass ceiling impeded
the progression of women and minorities to EAS 17 and above
positions, but in our opinion, the report did Women and Minority

Representation at EAS 17 and Above Positions Compared With Their
Representation in EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, Fiscal Year 1997

Table 2: Comparison of Cluster- Level Representation of Women and
Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions With Their Representation
in EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, Fiscal Year 1997

Observations on Methodologies Used in Aguirre Study

B-281375 Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

not explicitly define the term glass ceiling or present convincing
supporting evidence.

At the direction of the Postal Service Board of Governors, the
Service contracted with Aguirre International to study the
Service's diversity program. The Board was specifically interested
in the Service's progress in meeting its goal of creating a
Service workforce as diverse as the CLF. The Board asked Aguirre
to look at several areas, including hiring, promoting, training
and development, and contracting. Aguirre was to complete the
study within a 6- month period May 2, 1997, through November 2,
1997. The Aguirre report stated that the study was designed to
assess the effectiveness of the Service's diversity program in
eight research areas, which are listed in appendix III of this
report.

The approach to the study taken by Aguirre researchers involved
the use of multiple research methods to research the eight
questions (see app. III). Aguirre's report indicated that it had
performed numerous data analyses, reviewed written policies and
practices, validated a Service database, visited 10 postal sites,
and conducted a survey and interviews. Such an approach allowed
the issues presented in the report to be discussed from several
perspectives, which in our opinion and based on our standards for
performing studies and evaluations, was an acceptable
methodological approach. For example, Aguirre made what we believe
were appropriate adjustments to the 1990 Census CLF data to arrive
at compatible postal districts for comparisons. Aguirre staff
developed models and adjusted the models to allow for Service
hiring requirements and restrictions, such as English language
proficiency and veteran's preference. Using these data, they made
numerous comparisons of the Postal workforce to the CLF.

In addition, the report indicated that Aguirre staff gathered data
from various organizational levels in the Service. It indicated
that the staff spoke with Service officials at headquarters and
selected sites, a number of Service employees, potential Service
employees, and contractors to obtain their perspectives on
diversity- related issues in the Service. Aguirre staff also
visited selected Service sites and conducted employee surveys and
interviews. They arranged focus group discussions with community
residents who were viewed as potential employees to gather
information about, among other things, their views on barriers to
diversity at the Service. They also held focus groups with and
interviewed potential contractors to explore the extent to which
any known barriers might impede contractors, especially minority-
owned contractors, from obtaining Service business. In addition,
the Aguirre report referred to Study Methodologies Were

Generally Appropriate, With Limitations and Cautions Noted

Methodological Approach Had Many Strengths

B-281375 Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

organizations with success in the area of diversity and used
internal benchmarking to report promising practices within the
Service.

Certain study parameters set by the Board of Governors, such as
the time frame for the study and the preselection of certain
sites, resulted in numerous study limitations. The Aguirre report
clearly noted these limitations in appropriate sections, citing
appropriate cautions for readers regarding the study's findings.

According to the Aguirre Project Director, the 6- month period for
the study that was set by the Board of Governors affected the
manner in which the study was implemented in a number of ways. She
said Aguirre wanted to further analyze the data but ran out of
time. She also said that interviews and discussions with Service
employees, potential employees, and potential contractors were
limited in that Aguirre staff spoke only with individuals located
near the sites they visited. Thus, the views of these individuals
may not represent the views of similar individuals at other
Service sites.

Finally, the Aguirre report recognizes the information obtained
from Aguirre's visits to postal sites may not be typical of
Service sites throughout the country. The Board selected the first
5 of the 10 sites visited because these sites had known diversity
problems or were of special interest to particular Board members.
This resulted in a highly urban sample of sites. Aguirre attempted
to balance these sites by selecting five others based on
demographics that were more rural and, according to Aguirre and
Service officials, that had achieved some success in the area of
diversity. However, even this larger sample of 10 sites had
African- American representation that was twice that of the other
75 performance clusters that were not selected for review. Indeed,
the report cautioned readers that the views of individuals at
these sites could not be generalized to the Service as a whole. As
a result, the findings from the site visits may be more indicative
of specific sites selected rather than the status of the Service
overall.

Aguirre stated in its report that it appeared that a glass ceiling
existed at positions beginning at EAS 17 for women and minorities.
Aguirre did not explicitly define the term glass ceiling. Further,
Aguirre officials told us that Aguirre based its finding of the
glass ceiling primarily on its analyses of fiscal year 1996 data
and comparisons of that data with the CLF and secondarily on
discussions it had with Service employees. Specifically, Aguirre
compared the level of women and minority representation at the
various levels or positions within the EAS with their
representation in the Parameters of Study Resulted in

Limitations to Interpretation of Its Findings

Report's Glass Ceiling Finding Could Be Misleading

B-281375 Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

CLF. Because the representation of women and minorities in
positions beginning at EAS 17 was less than their representation
in the CLF, Aguirre stated that it appeared that a glass ceiling
began at EAS 17 positions.

In addition, the Project Leader for the Aguirre study told us that
although Aguirre's finding of a glass ceiling was supported
primarily by its analyses and comparisons of data, the finding was
also supported by the views of postal workers, many of whom
perceived that barriers existed to the promotion of women and
minorities to higher EAS and PCES positions. She said that the
views of the Service employees Aguirre interviewed were consistent
that is, barriers, such as a perceived old boy network, prevented
women and minorities from progressing to EAS 17 and above
positions. However, she acknowledged, as did the Aguirre report,
that the views expressed by these individuals at these sites could
not be generalized to the entire Service workforce.

We do not believe that it is appropriate to compare the EEO group
representation in specific EAS positions or levels in the Service
with the CLF because CLF data are not, nor were they intended to
be, broken down into an appropriate pool of employees for such a
comparison (i. e., similar positions or levels, as well as
individuals with appropriate qualifications for those positions).
Both the Aguirre Project Director and Project Leader for the study
told us that Aguirre used the comparison with the CLF because the
Service asked them to. Nevertheless, the Service also disagreed
with Aguirre's glass- ceiling finding on the basis of its
comparison of women and minorities in specific EAS positions with
the general CLF.

Further, we believe that the use of the term glass ceiling in the
Aguirre report could be misleading, particularly if the term were
to be interpreted by readers in a general sense that is, an upper
limit beyond which few or no women and minorities could pass.
Under this definition, and according to our review of workforce
and promotion data for EAS 17 and above cluster- level employees
in fiscal year 1997, no glass ceiling existed. For example, as
shown in table 3, we found that for the cluster level, women and
minorities were present in all positions and had been promoted to
most of those positions. In addition, the percentage of women and
minorities being promoted into these higher EAS positions was
generally greater than was their representation in the same
positions in fiscal year 1997 (before the promotions). For
example, for EAS 17 positions, women and minorities comprised
about 54 percent of the positions and received about 58 percent of
the promotions. However, both our analyses and Aguirre's suggest
that opportunity may exist for the Service to increase the

B-281375 Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

diversity of its workforce in the higher EAS positions, even
though a glass ceiling does not appear to exist. For example,
women and minorities were often less represented in the EAS 17 and
above positions than they were in the EAS 11 to 16 positions.

EAS position

Number of employees in EAS position

Percentage of women/ minorities

represented in EAS position

Number of employees promoted to EAS

position Percentage of

women/ minorities promotions to

EAS position

17 3,820 53.51% 160 57.50% 18 6,090 40.49 250 54.40 19 2,036 47.25
135 50.37 20 3,510 35.93 120 48.33 21 2,435 36.83 93 53.76 22
1,636 38.02 38 50.00 23 437 32.95 11 54.55 24 739 49.66 22 36.36
25 283 40.99 10 30.00 26 a 64 40.62 N/ A N/ A

Legend: N/ A = Not applicable; no promotions were made in fiscal
year 1997. a Table does not include data for the four employees
still classified in EAS 27 through 30 positions

after the Service's restructuring in 1992 (see footnote 7).
Source: GAO analysis of Service end of fiscal year 1997 data.

Service officials stated that the Aguirre report was intended to
provide an impression of the overall state of diversity in the
Postal Service. In that context, Service officials said that they
have accepted the report's basic message that the Service needs to
strengthen its diversity program and have developed and begun
implementing a plan to do so. They said that although it was
difficult to determine the exact number of recommendations
contained in the Aguirre report, they believe the actions they
have under way or planned will address the major issues, concerns,
and recommendations Aguirre reported. Service officials also said
that their initiatives would result in ongoing changes in the way
that the Service incorporates diversity into its operations.

The Service developed 23 initiatives designed to improve its
diversity program and address what it believed to be the Aguirre
report's major issues, concerns, and recommendations. As of
December 1998, the Service reported that it had completed
implementation of nine of the initiatives and was on schedule for
completing the remaining initiatives, with the exception of two
initiatives for which completion would be delayed. We did not
verify the accuracy of the Service's estimate of the completion
status of initiatives in process nor did we evaluate whether any
of the initiatives would resolve the concerns raised by Aguirre.
When Service

Table 3: Women and Minority Workforce and Promotion Representation
at EAS 17 and Above Positions for Cluster- Level Employees, Fiscal
Year 1997

Aguirre's Perspective on the Glass Ceiling Service Progress in
Implementing Aguirre's

Diversity Program Recommendations

Service Developed 23 Initiatives to Address Aguirre Report's Major
Issues and Recommendations

B-281375 Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

officials reported that a new policy or process had been
established to partially or fully address 1 of its 23 initiatives,
we obtained available documentation confirming the new policy or
process.

The Service organized its 23 diversity initiatives into 6
functional groups. Table 4 shows these six groups, the specific
initiatives established within each group, Service estimates of
the status of its efforts to implement the initiatives, and target
completion dates for implementing the initiatives. The projected
completion dates shown in the table are those initially
established by the Service. As of December 1998, the Service
reported that it was progressing in its implementation of the 23
initiatives. The Service reported that nine initiatives had been
completed, and seven were 90 to 99 percent complete. Of the
remaining inititiatives, three were estimated to be 80 percent
complete, and four ranged from 30 percent to 50 percent complete.
Service officials said that initiative 22 using supplier diversity
data to measure the success of the Supplier Diversity Program will
be partially delayed because of the need to focus resources on
resolving the Year 2000 computer system issue. Also, initiative 23
establishing accountability for complying with the Supplier
Diversity Program for all Service employees making purchases will
require more time than initially established so that discussions
with buyers on issues associated with accountability for supplier
diversity can occur.

According to Service Diversity Development officials, their
statement that initiatives were 100- percent complete indicated
that, in some cases, a policy, process, procedure, or plan had
been developed and approved but that the relevant actions covered
by the policy, process, procedure, or plan were still ongoing.
However, for other completed initiatives, no further actions were
to be taken. For example, for initiative 1, after a new Diversity
Development policy statement was issued, no further actions to
implement this initiative were considered necessary. This was also
the case for initiatives 2 and 3 revising the Diversity Business
Plan and establishing a Diversity Oversight Group. However, for
initiatives 4 (evaluating the current Diversity Development
Organization and staff and establishing appropriate headquarters
and field staffing), 6 (establishing an economic incentive for
attaining diversity targets), 16 (expanding Supplier Diversity
Program communications), 18 (linking local buying to the
commitment for the Supplier Diversity Program), and 20 (making it
easier for suppliers to participate more effectively in the postal
purchasing process), actions associated with these initiatives
were still under way. Likewise, some other initiatives may involve
additional action after the Service designates them 100- percent
complete.

B-281375 Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Service Diversity Development officials said that they plan to
monitor the implementation of new policies, processes, procedures,
or plans covered by the 23 initiatives, at least on a quarterly
basis, until they become standard operating procedures. Service
officials also told us that they expected the monitoring process
to be operational by the spring of 1999 and that, consequently,
the scopes, completion dates, and implementation status for some
of the initiatives could change.

Initiative number Description of group/ initiative Status of

implementation Projected

completion date Group 1  Policy, Structure, and Staffing

1 Issue a new Diversity Development corporate policy statement
clearly defining diversity and referencing supplier diversity and
explaining how diversity can support achievement of
CustomerPerfect! goals

100% 7/ 31/ 98 2 Revise the Diversity Business Plan (May 1997) to
incorporate the new diversity policy

statement and integrate it with CustomerPerfect! goals 100 7/ 31/
98 3 Establish a Diversity Oversight Group to review
recommendations and check that goals are

progressing 100 6/ 30/ 98 4 Evaluate the current Diversity
Development Organization and staff and establish appropriate

headquarters and field staffing to meet goals based on the new
policy statement

100 11/ 1/ 98

Group 2 - Goal Setting and Accountability

5 Mainstream the management of diversity under CustomerPerfect!
umbrella 80 4/ 1/ 99 6 Establish an economic incentive for
attaining diversity targets 100 4/ 1/ 99

Group 3  Recruitment and Outreach

7 Promote the Service as an equal opportunity employer and a good
company for employment 98 6/ 30/ 99 8 Develop a job applicant
database to access and track data pertaining to underrepresented

groups 98 2/ 1/ 99 9 Develop a comprehensive recruitment process
for local implementation that is focused on

underrepresented groups 90 12/ 1/ 98 10 Improve support for new
employees during probationary periods to increase retention

success (Pub. 42 revision) 100 12/ 31/ 98

Group 4  Promotion and Outreach

11 Expand the Executive and Corporate Succession Planning process
to promote entrance and continued advancement in PCES for
underrepresented groups 80 12/ 31/ 98 12 Establish a Career
Management Program to promote advancement from initial- to mid-
level

EAS positions 95 12/ 31/ 98 13 Create a greater diversity focus in
selection processes, including promotions, task force

participation, temporary assignments, and review boards 90 10/ 1/
98

Group 5  Education and Communications

14 Evaluate current Postal Service training and develop diversity
modules to be integrated in selected training curricula 30 6/ 1/
99 15 Develop a strong and effective communication plan to promote
and disseminate a clear

diversity message to all levels of the Postal Service using
available internal media 95 12/ 31/ 98

Group 6  Purchasing and Supplier Diversity

16 Expand Supplier Diversity Program communications 100 12/ 31/ 98
17 Expand Purchasing and Materials Supplier Diversity Operating
Plan (fiscal years 1998-

2002) and continue implementation 98 12/ 31/ 98

Table 4: Implementation Status of Postal Service Initiatives as of
December 31, 1998

B-281375 Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Initiative number Description of group/ initiative Status of

implementation Projected

completion date

18 Link local buying (e. g., credit cards and local service
contracts) to the commitment for the Supplier Diversity Program
100 12/ 31/ 98 19 Improve subcontracting participation to include
more women and minorities 35 5/ 1/ 99 20 Make it easier for
suppliers to participate more effectively in the postal purchasing
process 100 9/ 30/ 98 21 Provide supplier diversity training to
Purchasing and Materials personnel and other

employees participating in local buying 47 5/ 1/ 99 22 Use
supplier diversity data to measure the success of the Supplier
Diversity Program 50 5/ 1/ 99 23 Establish accountability for
complying with the Supplier Diversity Program for all employees

making purchases for the Postal Service 80 3/ 31/ 99 Source: GAO
analysis of data provided by the Service's Manager of Diversity
Development and Vice President of Diversity Development.

Service officials said that the Board of Governors did not request
that they address all of Aguirre's recommendations. Rather, they
were asked to develop initiatives that they believed would help
improve diversity at the Service and result in improvements in the
way that the Service incorporated diversity in its operations,
thereby improving Service diversity overall. They said that they
believed their initiatives have addressed Aguirre's major issues,
concerns, and recommendations. Service officials noted that
determining the exact number of Aguirre's recommendations was
difficult because recommendations were noted in several locations
in the report and many of them appeared to be duplicative. Service
officials also noted that it was sometimes unclear as to whether
Aguirre's statements were intended as recommendations or just
observations.

We also found it difficult to determine with precision the number
of specific Aguirre recommendations for the same reasons the
Service cited. For example, in chapter 5 of its report, Aguirre
stated that the Service may want to do further study of the
employees it classifies as American Indian/ Alaskan Native since
many of the employees in this category consider themselves to be
something else. It is not clear whether Aguirre intended this
statement to be a recommendation or an action the Service could
consider. Also, the Service's initiative 1 as shown in table 4 was
designed to address five different Aguirre recommendations, all of
which seemed to be directed at the same concern developing and
issuing a clear corporate policy on diversity. Service officials
said that other recommendations by Aguirre called for actions that
the Service was already taking or planned to take. For example,
Aguirre recommended that the Service define the attrition rate
that can be predicted using age and past performance for trainers
and EEO experts. The Service said that this information would be
available from its New Workforce Planning Model, which was already
in the design phase of development. Aguirre Recommendations

Sometimes Difficult to Discern

B-281375 Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Service officials said that several of Aguirre's recommendations
seemed to be based on inaccuracies or misstatements about current
Service policies and procedures. For example, Aguirre reported
that the Service usually selects bidders with the lowest price.
Aguirre recommended that bidder selection should consider other
criteria, such as quality of the processes and products, as well
as price. Service officials told us that they did not accept this
recommendation because it is already their general policy to make
awards based on best value not lowest price. Further, Service
officials said that for some of Aguirre's recommendations, they
found no basis or rationale and did not plan to implement them at
this time. For example, Aguirre recommended that a minimum of 7
percent of the Service's total contract dollars be awarded to
minority suppliers. Service officials said that they did not find
any supporting rationale for this recommendation, and they
believed that the Service's current goal of 6 percent of total
contract dollars to be awarded to minority businesses by 2002 was
appropriate.

The Service collects a variety of diversity- related data and has
a number of initiatives under way in response to the Aguirre
report that are designed to improve its data collection methods
and use as well as to enhance its ability to meet its diversity
goals and objectives. The Service is also in the process of
establishing targets and measures to use in assessing its progress
toward meeting its diversity goals and objectives. However, the
Service does not have reliable data on the flow of applicants
through its promotion processes that would help it to identify and
remove any barriers to the promotion of women and minorities.

The Service collects a wide variety of diversity data that are
primarily related to its program areas, such as Purchasing and
Materials. Managers of these program areas, in coordination with
the Service's Diversity Development Department, are to use these
data to help achieve program goals and Service diversity goals.
For example, the Purchasing and Materials Department is to collect
data on the dollar size and number of contracts awarded to women
and minority- owned businesses. The Aguirre report, while
acknowledging that the Service collects a substantial amount of
diversity- related data, made a number of comments, observations,
and recommendations to the Service related to gathering, using,
and monitoring such data. At least 5 of the Service's 23
initiatives (initiatives 5, 6, 8, 18, and 22) involve some of the
issues raised by Aguirre about gathering and using diversity-
related data. For example, Aguirre observed that the Service did
not systematically track credit card purchases by gender or EEO
group and thus data on the differential impact of the credit card
program on women and minority contractors are not available. The
Capture and Better

Use of Data to Achieve Diversity Goals

Service Initiatives to Improve Data Collection and Usage in
Response to Aguirre Report Recommendations

B-281375 Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Service plans to address this issue through initiative 18, which
is aimed at improving supplier diversity.

In November 1998, the Service released its 1999 Annual Performance
Plan related to its performance goals, objectives, and associated
measures as part of its implementation of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act). Within the
plan, the Service identified a goal of improving employee and
organizational effectiveness. The plan also stated that one of the
subcomponents of that goal was the strategy to manage and develop
human capital. Under that strategy, the plan identified the need
to achieve a diverse workforce. Further, the Annual Performance
Plan stated that based on the Aguirre study's findings and
recommendations, the Service had prepared a diversity development
action plan 10 to promote the hiring of women and minorities,
improve recruitment hiring and promotion activities, and develop
indicators to measure progress linked to this strategy.

In addition, the Service's Diversity Business Plan, dated December
3, 1998, supports the Service's strategic plan. 11 The business
plan contains four principal diversity objectives, which,
according to Diversity Development officials, are to be used in
partnership with other organizational functions to develop
programs and initiatives that will help achieve Service diversity
goals. The four objectives are (1) articulate a clear diversity
message; (2) ensure the representation of all employee groups in
all levels of Postal Service employment; (3) create a work
environment that is free from discrimination and sexual
harassment; and (4) establish and maintain a strong, competitive,
and diverse supplier base.

According to the Manager of Diversity Policy and Planning, now
that the business plan has been approved, the Service is in the
beginning stages of developing specific targets and measures that
would help the Service track its progress in meeting its diversity
goals and objectives. According to the Service, methods to
evaluate and measure success will be completed no later than March
30, 1999. Along with the establishment of diversity goals and
objectives, the establishment of specific targets and measures
will help the Service to focus the efforts of its numerous
organizational units, achieve accountability, gauge progress, and
meet goals.

10 Postal Service's Diversity Improvement Opportunity, Suggested
Courses of Action, Mar. 12, 1998. 11 Diversity Development, The
Diversity Business Plan, Dec. 3, 1998. Establishing Diversity

Targets and Measures

B-281375 Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Although the Service has had a requirement for many years that its
managers are to collect applicant data for EAS promotions and
enter that data into a central electronic database, according to
the Service, most locations have fallen behind in entering these
data into the system. Thus, the Service has not been in the best
position to analyze data on women and minorities as they move, or
do not move, through the Service's promotion process or to
determine if and for what reason impediments or barriers exist to
the promotion of women and minorities to higher levels of
responsibility in the Service, generally, and within the EAS,
specifically.

The Vice President of Human Resources, in February 1997, sent a
memorandum to area and district human resource managers reminding
them that the requirement to collect applicant- flow data was
still effective. She noted that such information was critical to
Service efforts to examine the promotion process for continuous
improvement. Although recognizing that managers were facing
various priorities, she asked that managers develop a plan for
collecting and entering past applicant data into the Promotion
Report System. She also noted that this automated system was the
source of data for the Applicant Flow Tracking System (AFTS), a
system vital to the Diversity Development Department's
responsibility for reporting promotion demographics.

According to a manager in the Service's Human Resources
Department, the Service has had a centralized, computer- based
tracking system in place for the last 10 years the AFTS which is
to track diversity data related to promotions within the Service.
He acknowledged, however, that participation in this system varies
across Service units. Some units have consistently entered the
data into the AFTS as required, while others have never entered
the data. Another manager in Human Resources said that this
inconsistent use of the AFTS and subsequent incomplete data in the
system have occurred because unit managers have few incentives to
see that the data are entered into the system because the system
is not tied to any essential information system, such as
accounting and payroll or the employee master file. In addition,
he said that there have been few or no consequences to these
managers for not doing so.

Because of the unreliability of the AFTS database, the Service has
to use the Employee Master File and a separate personnel action
database to obtain race, ethnicity, and gender data for those
applicants who are promoted; the Service cannot readily compile
and use this information on applicants seeking promotion. A
reliable and complete database on all applicants would (1) provide
an essential baseline against which to assess the promotion
progress of specific EEO groups and (2) help the Service
Requirement to Capture and

Use Promotion ApplicantFlow Data Was Not Enforced

B-281375 Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

identify and remove or reduce the impact of barriers to the
promotion of women and minorities. For example, during our initial
review in response to your request, we noted that there were no
Hispanic women applicants for promotion to EAS levels 17 and above
in the Service's Atlanta performance cluster in fiscal year 1997.
12 The Service could use this type of information to (1) determine
whether any problems or barriers existed in the cluster that had
caused this situation, and if so, (2) take appropriate corrective
action.

In fiscal year 1997, overall women and minority representation in
the Service's cluster- level workforce did not parallel that of
the 1990 CLF. Relative to their representation in the CLF, several
specific EEO groups were fully represented, while others were
underrepresented. Also, in fiscal year 1997, women and minorities
were generally promoted to EAS 17 and above positions in
percentages higher than or close to their workforce representation
in the three workforce levels cluster, headquarters, and area
offices. As of September 1997, women and minorities were present
in all EAS 17 and above positions and generally had been promoted
to EAS 17 and above positions during 1997 in the three workforce
levels. Nonetheless, as of September 1997, women and minority
representation was generally lower in EAS 17 and above positions
than it was in EAS 11 through 16 positions.

Overall, given the short time frame and preselection of sites that
resulted in certain study limitations, we believe that the
multiple methodologies Aguirre used for its study were reasonable,
relevant, and appropriate. However, Aguirre's finding that a glass
ceiling appeared to exist at positions beginning at EAS 17 could
be misleading. Evidence that Aguirre cited to support this finding
was not convincing, and according to our analysis, women and
minorities were generally represented in and were being promoted
to EAS 17 and above positions, albeit at varying percentages, for
the period we reviewed.

Neither the Service nor we could determine the exact number of
recommendations made by Aguirre. Nevertheless, the Service is
making progress in implementing the 23 initiatives it developed in
response to the Aguirre report, which are aimed at strengthening
its diversity program. We believe that the Service's ongoing plan
to continue monitoring the implementation of policies, processes,
procedures, and plans covered by its 23 initiatives is especially
important given the Service's designation of some initiatives as
being completed when such policies, processes,

12 GAO/GGD-98-200R. Conclusions

B-281375 Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

procedures, and plans have been developed and approved although
specific actions required by some of these initiatives may still
be ongoing.

Service initiatives to better capture and use data in response to
the Aguirre study appear reasonable. However, the Service has not
yet (1) established and implemented targets and measures for
tracking the Service's progress in meeting its diversity goals and
objectives or (2) fully captured or used EEO data on applicants as
they progress, or do not progress, through the Service's promotion
process. The Service has developed diversity goals and objectives,
and now that its Diversity Business Plan has been approved, is in
the process of developing specific targets and measures for
assessing its progress in meeting its goals and objectives.
However, the Service is not capturing reliable EEO data on
promotion applicants' progress through the promotion process.
Although we recognize that collecting and using EEO data on
promotion applicants will require additional effort, such data are
important for identifying problems and barriers affecting women
and minorities in the promotion process.

We recommend that the Postmaster General ensure that appropriate
Service officials capture EEO group data in the AFTS and use these
data to help improve the Service's diversity program, including
the identification of any barriers that might impede promotions to
high- level EAS positions.

On February 4, 1999, we were informed by the Postal Service that
the Vice President of Diversity Development and the Vice President
of Human Resources concurred with the information provided in the
draft report. In addition, the Vice President of Human Resources
stated that, in response to our recommendation, she would
reemphasize to the field the need to enter data into the Promotion
Report System, which is the source of the data for the AFTS. Also
she stated that once the data are complete and reliable, they can
be used as a tool to identify the point that impedes the
promotions of applicants to high- level EAS positions.

On January 28, 1999, Aguirre provided written comments stating
that it found our report to be instructive and informative.
Aguirre noted the conditions under which its study was done, such
as a charged atmosphere at the Service and the short time frame
for the study. Aguirre also noted differences between the scope of
its study and ours, such as its (1) use of fiscal year 1996 data
compared to our use of fiscal year 1997 data and (2) inclusion of
PCES data while our review did not. Aguirre also pointed out that
it found clear distinctions in perceptions about the types of
positions within the EAS levels, and that to do a thorough
analysis, one should look at these differences. For example,
Aguirre said it found that women were Recommendation

Comments and Our Evaluation

B-281375 Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

overrepresented in the attorney area and in rural postmaster jobs
and underrepresented in more power and influence positions. We
believe that Aguirre was suggesting that these differences in
scope could account for differences between the results of its
study and ours.

We used fiscal year 1997 data in our analysis because it was the
latest period for which complete data were available. We did not
include PCES positions in our analysis because we were asked to
analyze the Service's EAS workforce. An analysis of any perceived
or actual differences in representation of women and minorities
among types of EAS positions was beyond the scope of our review.
Nevertheless, even with these differences in scope, we do not
believe that there were significant differences between the
results of our work and Aguirre's study results in those areas
that we both addressed. Both reports point out that women and
minorities were less represented in higher EAS positions than they
were in lower EAS positions. In addition, our report does not take
issue with Aguirre's view that barriers may exist to the promotion
of women and minorities to high- level EAS positions.

Aguirre further stated that it stood behind its conclusion that
there seemed to be a drop in the numbers of women and minorities
somewhere around the EAS 17 through 22 level based on data
presented in its report. Aguirre said that these data were coupled
with the views of Service employees it interviewed who believed
that a barrier, or in their terms, a glass ceiling existed near or
around this EAS level. However, our concern is that Aguirre's use
of the term glass ceiling in its report could be misleading
because (1) Aguirre did not define the term glass ceiling in its
report; (2) the data in its report did not, in our view, support
the existence of a glass ceiling as defined in the general sense,
that is, an upper limit beyond which few or no women and
minorities could advance; and (3) data in both Aguirre's report
and in our report showed that women and minorities were
represented in and were promoted to levels above EAS 17, showing
the advancement of women and minorities. The Postal Service raised
a similar concern about Aguirre's use of the term glass ceiling.
Nevertheless, we agree with Aguirre that opportunity may exist for
the Service to increase diversity at higher EAS levels, and our
report recommends that the Service ensure that appropriate EEO
group data are captured and used so that any barriers impeding the
promotion of women and minorities to high- level EAS positions can
be identified.

Aguirre said that our report lacked a discussion of the feeder
flow from which Postal employees move into higher level EAS
positions. We believe, however, that our report addressed this
issue, at least in part, through our

B-281375 Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

analysis of the diversity of the Service's EAS 11 through 16
workforce, which forms the pool from which promotions to EAS 17
and above positions would likely come.

Finally, Aguirre provided several technical comments, which we
considered and included in our report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, House
Committee on Government Reform; the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services, Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs; the Postmaster General; and Aguirre
International. We will also make copies available to others on
request.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me
on (202) 512- 8387. Major contributors to this report are listed
in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours, Bernard L. Ungar Director, Government Business

Operations Issues

Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

Contents 1 Letter 28 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

32 Women and Minority Representation at the Service's

Three Workforce Levels 32 Appendix II

Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster, Headquarters,
and Area Office Workforces

36 Appendix III Aguirre Study's Methodological Approach

38 Appendix IV Major Contributors to This Report

Table 1: Comparison of Service Cluster Workforce in Fiscal Year
1997 With the 1990 CLF

6 Table 2: Comparison of Cluster- Level Representation of

Women and Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions With Their
Representation in EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, Fiscal Year 1997

10 Table 3: Women and Minority Workforce and Promotion

Representation at EAS 17 and Above Positions for Cluster- Level
Employees, Fiscal Year 1997

14 Tables

Table 4: Implementation Status of Postal Service Initiatives as of
December 31, 1998

16

Contents Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS
Positions

Table II. 1: Comparison of Service Cluster, Headquarters, and Area
Office Workforces With the 1990 CLF, by EEO Group, as of the End
of Fiscal Year 1997

32 Table II. 2: Comparison of Change in Representation of

Women and Minorities at EAS 17+ Positions at the Cluster,
Headquarters, and Area Office Levels, by EEO Group, Fiscal Year
1993 and Fiscal Year 1997

33 Table II. 3: Comparison of the Representation of Women

and Minorities Promoted to EAS 17+ Positions (During Fiscal Year
1997) With Their Representation in the Cluster, Headquarters, and
Area Office Workforces, as of the end of Fiscal Year 1997

34 Table II. 4: Comparison of Representation of Women and

Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions With Their Representation
in EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, as of the end of Fiscal Year 1997

35 Table III. 1: Aguirre Study's Eight Research Areas and the

Methodological Approach Taken 36

Figure 1: Comparison of Cluster- Level Representation of Women and
Minorities at EAS 17 and Above Positions in Fiscal Year 1993 With
Fiscal Year 1997

7 Figure 2: Comparison of the Cluster- Level

Representation of Women and Minorities Promoted to EAS 17 and
Above With Their Representation in Those Positions (before the
promotions), Fiscal Year 1997

9 Figures

Abbreviations

AFTS Application Flow Tracking System CLF Civilian Labor Force EAS
Executive and Administrative Schedule EEO equal employment
opportunity PCES Postal Career Executive Service

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

This report, which follows our previous letter on selected
promotions of women and minorities to Executive and Administrative
Schedule (EAS) management- level positions, 1 provides (1)
information about the overall extent to which women and minorities
have been promoted to or are represented in EAS management- level
positions in the Postal Service; (2) our observations on the
methodology used by a private contractor, Aguirre International,
to study workforce diversity at the U. S. Postal Service; (3) the
status of the Service's efforts to address the recommendations in
the Aguirre report; and (4) our analysis of whether the Service
could better capture and use data to achieve its diversity
objectives.

To determine the overall extent to which women and minorities have
been promoted to or are represented in EAS management- level jobs,
we obtained Service workforce statistics from the its Diversity
Development Department and annual promotion statistics for career-
level employees, with the exception of the Postal Career Executive
Service (PCES), from the Human Resources Information Systems
Office. The Diversity Development Department, in conjunction with
the Service's Minneapolis Data Center, provided us with data tapes
containing information related to the equal employment opportunity
(EEO) composition of the Service career- level workforce for
Service fiscal years 1993 through 1997. We chose to focus our
analysis on these years since major downsizing and other changes
occurred in the Service in 1992 because of an extensive
reorganization. Data from fiscal year 1998 were not available at
the time of our analysis. The data we used included EAS level;
race, national origin, and gender; location of employee; number of
employees by EEO group; and civilian labor force (CLF) statistics
for each EEO group. We did not verify these data by comparing them
to original source documents.

We obtained information on promotions from the Service's Human
Resource Information Office; this information was compiled from
the Employee Master and Payroll Accounting files. Using the nature
of action code from Forms 50, Notice of Personnel Action, we
identified career- level employees who had been promoted, by EAS
level, throughout the Service. We used this information to assess
the extent of promotions to specific EAS positions by EEO groups
in the Service. Our limited verification of this promotion data
against the promotions reviewed at the three areas 2 reported on
in our previous letter showed it to be accurate.

1 GAO/GGD-98-200R. 2 See GAO/GGD-98-200R, in which we reported on
the promotion process and EEO status of a selected number of
employees applying for promotions to EAS management- level
positions in Atlanta, GA; Fort Worth, TX; and Van Nuys, CA.

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

We used this information to construct a workforce profile by EEO
group at three workforce levels headquarters, area offices, and
performance clusters. In our analysis, we included all career-
level employees from each performance cluster; employees reporting
to area offices, whether they were located in an area office or a
cluster facility; and headquarters' employees, including employees
physically housed at L'Enfant Plaza in Washington, D. C., as well
as those reporting to headquarters but located elsewhere. We
analyzed data provided by the Service for the three groups of
employees: (1) cluster- level employees, who represented 732,112
(or 95.7 percent) of the about 765,000 career- level employees at
the Service at the end of fiscal year 1997; (2) area office
employees, who represented 21,864 (2. 9 percent) of the career-
level employees; and (3) headquarters' employees, who represented
10,707 (1.4 percent) of the career- level employees. We looked at
employees in the three workforce levels because responsibility and
authority for diversity is separated into these three levels.

To provide some context for the results of our analysis, we first
compared the 1997 Service data with CLF data from the 1990
decennial census separately for the three workforce levels of
employees. We used figures from the 1990 census because this was
the comparative baseline used by the Service and by Aguirre
International in its study. We recognize there are more recent
estimates that would have accounted for the changes in the
population, especially in the Hispanic and Asian subpopulations in
certain areas. However, these estimates are not broken down into a
geographic level that is comparable to Service performance
clusters.

Regarding promotions to women and minorities as well as the
Aguirre report's finding of a glass ceiling at EAS 17 and above
positions, we did several analyses: First, we considered how the
representation of each of the 10 EEO groups in EAS 17 and above
positions had changed between fiscal years 1993 and 1997. Second,
we considered whether the percentage of employees in each of the
10 EEO groups (i. e., white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native
American men and women) that were promoted to EAS 17 and above
positions during fiscal year 1997 were greater or less than the
percentages of employees in each of the 10 EEO groups that were
employed in those positions at the beginning of fiscal year 1997
(before the promotions). We computed a ratio statistic to express
the percentage of employees in each of the 10 EEO groups that were
promoted to EAS 17 and above positions during fiscal year 1997
compared with the percentage of employees in each group already
employed in EAS 17 and above positions before the promotions. The
positive ratio of 1.23 for black men, for example, was the
percentage of all promotions going to black men

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

(10.85 percent) divided by the percentage of the cluster- level
workforce, which was black men at EAS 17 and above (8.81 percent)
at the beginning of fiscal year 1997. These same comparisons and
ratios were done separately for cluster, headquarters, and area
office employees. Finally, we considered how the representation of
the various groups of women and minorities in higher level EAS
positions (17 through 30) compared with their representation in
the lower level EAS positions (11 through 16).

To provide observations on the methodology used by Aguirre
International in its study of workforce diversity at the Service,
we reviewed the Aguirre report and the methodologies used in
relation to the study's objectives, limitations, and findings. In
addition, we reviewed both the comments from the Advisory
Diversity Team on Aguirre's draft report and Aguirre's response to
Service questions. We also interviewed the Project Director for
the Aguirre study. We reviewed a copy of the contract and
statement of work between the Service and Aguirre International,
and discussed the report with the two secretaries to the Board of
Governors. We also looked at the Aguirre study's methodology in
relation to the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
guidance and our previous work on diversity- related issues.

To provide information on the status of the Service's efforts to
address the Aguirre report's recommendations, we reviewed the
Service's response to the study as well as several status reports
prepared by the Diversity Oversight Committee, which is a
Servicewide committee established to oversee the implementation of
the Service's response to the Aguirre report. We also interviewed
the Vice President of Diversity Development as well as the manager
in charge of the Supplier Development and Diversity program in the
Purchasing and Materials Department concerning the Aguirre
report's recommendations, among other things. We reviewed the
Service's action plan, which laid out 23 initiatives and was
prepared in response to the Aguirre report. We limited our
verification of the implementation status of the 23 initiatives to
obtaining and reviewing available relevant documents, such as
plans and directives, prepared by the Service.

To determine whether the Service could improve its capture and use
of diversity- related data, we reviewed (1) diversity- related
data historically collected and used by the Service; (2) Aguirre's
recommendations related to data collection and the Service's
response to them; (3) Service documents prepared in response to
the Results Act; and (4) Service documents related to the AFTS. In
addition, we interviewed knowledgeable Service officials and
Aguirre's Project Director.

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

We did our work from July 1998 through January 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We
requested comments on a draft of this report from the Postmaster
General and Aguirre International's Director of Operations. The
Postal Service's oral comments and Aguirre's written comments are
discussed near the end of the letter.

Appendix II Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster,
Headquarters, and Area Office Workforces

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

The following tables present information on women and minority
representation at the three Service workforce levels the cluster,
headquarters, and area office levels and includes the following
comparisons for women and minorities:

 representation at the three workforce levels as of the end of
fiscal year 1997 compared with their representation in the 1990
CLF (table II. 1);

 changes in women and minority representation at EAS 17 and above
positions at the three workforce levels for fiscal years 1993 and
1997 (table II. 2);

 promotions to EAS 17 and above positions as of the end of fiscal
year 1997 compared with women and minority representation in those
positions at all three workforce levels during fiscal year 1997
before the promotions (table II. 3); and

 women and minority representation in EAS 17 and above positions
compared with their representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions
(table II. 4).

Table II. 1 shows that when comparing Service data as of the end
of fiscal year 1997 with CLF data from the 1990 decennial census,
black and Asian men and women were fully represented, while white
and Hispanic women and Native American men were underrepresented
at headquarters, in the area offices, and among cluster- level
employees. Native American women were also underrepresented among
the large group of cluster employees as well as among headquarters
personnel. In addition, white men were underrepresented among area
office employees, while Hispanic men were underrepresented at the
headquarters and area office levels.

Workforce level White

men White women Black

men Black women Hispanic

men Hispanic women Asian

men Asian women

Native American

men Native

American women

Cluster 44.34% 22.09% 11.34% 9. 58% 4.82% 2.00% 3.46% 1.87% 0.29%
0.22% HQ 47.64 20.81 11.06 10.90 2.90 1.49 2.83 1.83 0.32 0.21
Area office 30.72 22.26 18.01 16.37 4.03 2.49 3.29 2.17 0.27 0.38

CLF 42.64 35.30 4.95 5.45 4.77 3.35 1.51 1.32 0.35 0.30

Ratio Cluster 1. 04 0. 63 2. 29 1. 76 1. 01 0. 60 2. 29 1. 42 0.
83 0. 73 HQ 1.12 0.59 2.23 2.00 0.61 0.44 1.87 1.39 0.91 0.70 Area
office 0.72 0.63 3.64 3.00 0.84 0.74 2.18 1.64 0.77 1.27

Note: Ratio, in this instance, is a method used to compare the
relationships between the representation of each EEO group within
the Service's cluster, headquarters, and area office levels
relative to the CLF.

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data and 1990 CLF
data.

Women and Minority Representation at the Service's Three Workforce
Levels

Women and Minority Workforce Representation in Fiscal Year 1997
Compared With Their Representation in the 1990 CLF

Table II. 1: Comparison of Service Cluster, Headquarters, and Area
Office Workforces With the 1990 CLF, by EEO Group, as of the End
of Fiscal Year 1997

Appendix II Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster,
Headquarters, and Area Office Workforces

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

As shown in table II. 2, we determined how the representation of
the 10 EEO groups in the higher EAS positions had changed between
fiscal years 1993 and 1997. White and black men were the only EEO
groups that decreased in their representation among all three
workforce levels at EAS 17 and above positions during this period.
Native American men also decreased in their representation among
employees at high- level EAS positions at headquarters and area
offices, and Asian men decreased slightly in their representation
among employees at high- level EAS positions at the area offices.

Workforce level/ Fiscal year White

men White women Black

men Black women Hispanic

men Hispanic women Asian

men Asian women

Native American

men Native

American women Cluster

1993 59.59% 16.10% 9. 39% 7.36% 4.21% 1.11% 1.12% 0.45% 0.47%
0.20% 1997 57.70 17.69 8.81 7.72 4.40 1.27 1.18 0.48 0.54 0.23
Ratio 1997: 1993 0.97 1.10 0.94 1.05 1.05 1.14 1.05 1.07 1.15 1.15

Headquarters

1993 62.40 16.36 7.31 5.59 2.24 0.96 2.95 1.65 0.42 0.11 1997
59.21 18.18 7.12 6.16 2.76 1.09 3.12 1.82 0.41 0.15 Ratio 1997:
1993 0.95 1.11 0.97 1.10 1.23 1.14 1.06 1.10 0.98 1.36

Area office

1993 53.87 16.02 12.00 9.44 3.25 1.24 2.17 1.16 0.62 0.23 1997
50.35 18.05 11.48 11.01 3.46 1.44 2.08 1.33 0.46 0.35 Ratio 1997:
1993 0. 93 1. 13 0. 96 1. 17 1. 06 1. 16 0. 96 1. 15 0. 74 1. 52

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal years1993 and 1997 data.

Women and Minority Workforce Representation at EAS 17 and Above
Positions in Fiscal Years 1993 and 1997

Table II. 2: Comparison of Change in Representation of Women and
Minorities at EAS 17+ Positions at the Cluster, Headquarters, and
Area Office Levels, by EEO Group, Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year
1997

Appendix II Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster,
Headquarters, and Area Office Workforces

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

As shown in table II. 3, we determined whether the percentages of
employees in each of the 10 EEO groups that were promoted to EAS
17 and above positions during fiscal year 1997 were greater or
less than the percentages of employees in each of the 10 EEO
groups employed at those levels at the beginning of fiscal year
1997 (before the promotions).

Asian women were the only group other than white men, among
clusterlevel employees, who were not promoted during fiscal year
1997 to EAS 17 and above positions in numbers that would have been
sufficient to increase their representation in those higher EAS
positions. This was also true for black men, Asian women, and
Native American men among headquarters' employees. Among area
office employees, the percentages of white women and Hispanic and
Native American men and women promoted to EAS 17 and above
positions were not as large as the percentages employed at those
higher levels. White men were the only group for which percentages
of promotions to 17 and above positions were lower than the
percentages of white men already employed in those positions
across all three workforce levels.

Workforce level White

men White women Black

men Black women Hispanic

men Hispanic women Asian

men Asian women

Native American

men Native

American women Cluster

Workforce 57.70% 17.69% 8. 81% 7.72% 4.40% 1.27% 1.18% 0.48% 0.54%
0.23% Promotions 47.56 19.55 10.85 11.32 5.13 2.26 2.15 0.36 0.60
0.24 Ratio 0. 82 1. 11 1. 23 1. 47 1. 17 1. 78 1. 82 0. 75 1. 11
1. 04

Headquarters

Workforce 59.21% 18.18% 7. 12% 6.16% 2.76% 1.09% 3.12% 1.82% 0.41%
0.15% Promotions 46.59 22.95 6.14 7.73 7.27 2.95 4.32 1.59 0.23
0.23 Ratio 0. 79 1. 26 0. 86 1. 25 2. 63 2. 71 1. 38 0. 87 0. 56
1. 53

Area office

Workforce 50.35% 18.05% 11.48% 11.01% 3. 46% 1.44% 2.08% 1.33%
0.46% 0.35% Promotions 48.89 17.78 13.33 13.33 2.22 0.00 2.22 2.22
0.00 0.00 Ratio 0. 97 0. 99 1. 16 1. 21 0. 64 0. 00 1. 07 1. 67 0.
00 0. 00

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data.

Women and Minority Promotions to EAS 17 and Above Positions
Compared With Their Workforce Representation, During Fiscal Year
1997

Table II. 3: Comparison of the Representation of Women and
Minorities Promoted to EAS 17+ Positions (During Fiscal Year 1997)
With Their Representation in the Cluster, Headquarters, and Area
Office Workforces, as of the end of Fiscal Year 1997

Appendix II Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster,
Headquarters, and Area Office Workforces

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

As shown in table II. 4, we determined whether, as of the end of
fiscal year 1997, the representation of various EEO groups of
minority men and women employed in EAS 17 and above positions
resembled their representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions.
Among cluster- level employees and headquarters employees, all EEO
groups of women but none of the groups of men, except black men at
headquarters and Asian men at the cluster level were less well
represented in EAS 17 through 30 positions than they were in EAS
11 through 16 positions. Among area office employees, Hispanic men
and Asian and Native American men and women fared better while
black men, similar to black and Hispanic women, were less well
represented in EAS 17 and above positions compared with the EAS 11
through 16 positions.

EEO group Workforce/ EAS level White

men White women Black

men Black women Hispanic

men Hispanic women Asian

men Asian women

Native American

men Native

American women

Percentage of women/

minorities Cluster

11 to 16 39.13% 34.29% 8. 74% 9.85% 3.20% 1.79% 1.31% 0.93% 0.33%
0.43% 61% 17 to 30 57.70 17.69 8.81 7.72 4.40 1.27 1.18 0.48 0.54
0.23 42 Ratio 17+: 11- 16 1.47 0.52 1.01 0.78 1.38 0.71 0.90 0.52
1.64 0.53

Headquarters

11 to 16 17.15% 39.00% 7. 28% 25.75% 1. 37% 3.44% 2.28% 3.19%
0.05% 0.51% 83% 17 to 30 59.21 18.18 7.12 6.16 2.76 1.09 3.12 1.82
0.41 0.15 41 Ratio 17+: 11- 16 3.45 0.47 0.98 0.24 2.01 0.32 1.37
0.57 8.20 0.29

Area office

11 to 16 35.20% 19.52% 18.77% 18.43% 2. 59% 2.50% 1.33% 1.17%
0.33% 0.17% 65% 17 to 30 50.35 18.05 11.48 11.01 3.46 1.44 2.08
1.33 0.46 0.35 50 Ratio 17+: 11- 16 1.43 0.92 0.61 0.60 1.34 0.58
1.56 1.14 1.39 2.06

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data.

Women and Minority Representation at EAS 17 and Above Positions
Compared With That at EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, Fiscal Year
1997

Table II. 4: Comparison of Representation of Women and Minorities
in EAS 17 and Above Positions With Their Representation in EAS 11
Through 16 Positions, as of the end of Fiscal Year 1997

Appendix III Aguirre Study's Methodological Approach

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

Table III. 1 provides the details of the primary methodologies
used by Aguirre researchers to develop answers to the eight
research questions on which the study was based. As shown in the
table, Aguirre researchers used multiple methods to research the
questions, including extensive data analysis.

Eight research areas Methodologies used by Aguirre researchers

(1) How does the composition of the postal workforce by race/
national origin and gender compare to the population nationally
and locally?

 Developed statistical analysis of (1) Census CLF data a and (2)
Service workforce data at national and local levels

 Created models for mapping Census data into race and national
origin categories

 Did Service workforce trend analysis (2) Does the hiring process
address local population profiles?  Reviewed Service written
policies and practices for hiring

 Interviewed Service national and local staff

 Analyzed Service workforce data

 Compared local Service workforce data with CLF data

 Interviewed potential employees (3) Does the Diversity Reporting
System provide accurate information on the race and national
origin of Service employees?

 Reviewed written Service policies and practices in assigning
employees to race/ national origin categories; also interviewed
relevant Service staff at national and local levels

 Analyzed two data files: Active Employee Reference file and
Personnel Actions file, extracted from Notice of Personnel Action,
Form 50

 Surveyed sample of employees selected from Diversity Reporting
System to verify race and national origin

(4) Do promotion policies and practices result in promotions that
are proportionate to the number of minority groups represented in
the workforce, nationally and locally?

 Reviewed Service's written policies and practices for promotions

 Interviewed Service staff at national and local levels

 Analyzed Service workforce data for distribution of annual
promotions by level, EEO group, and compared the data with CLF
data

(5) How well do Training and Development Programs address
diversity needs?  Interviewed training and diversity staff in each
of the 10 sites as well as in

headquarters

 Interviewed Service employees (6) How effectively does Postal
Service contracting and subcontracting with minority- owned
business support diversity goals, nationally and locally?

 Reviewed Service's written policies and practices for contracting

 Interviewed Service staff at national and local levels

 Analyzed Service Supplier Diversity data

 Held focus groups with potential vendors at six sites

 Conducted six in- depth interviews with potential vendors in
Dallas

Table III. 1: Aguirre Study's Eight Research Areas and the
Methodological Approach Taken

Appendix III Aguirre Study's Methodological Approach

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

Eight research areas Methodologies used by Aguirre researchers

(7) How does the Postal Service Diversity Program compare with
those of other large organizations?  Compared Service's diversity
program in the area of contracting with that of

other mail carriers

 Compared Service's diversity program with those of other
companies that have achieved success with diversity (e. g.,
Motorola, Allstate, and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care) (8) What
strategic direction should the Diversity Program take?  Identified
best practices used by other organizations in the private sector

reported to have successful diversity programs

 Identified promising practices used in Service's Diversity
program

 Identified certain organizations' diversity programs/ objectives
as models against which the Service can compare its strategies,
etc.

Note: Aguirre researchers visited Service facilities at the
following 10 selected sites: Los Angeles; Chicago; Washington, D.
C.; Dallas; Miami; Jackson, MS; Hartford, CT; Seattle; and
Albuquerque; New Orleans was a pilot site. Due to union and other
logistical issues, Aguirre researchers were unable to survey a
random sample of employees at each target site; but they did, with
support from informal networks and Service professional
organizations, survey a judgmental sample of employees. a Aguirre
used 1970, 1980, and 1990 CLF Census data for comparisons with the
1996 and 1997

Service workforce. Source: GAO analysis of It's Good Business A
Study of Diversity in the United States Postal Service, Aguirre
International, Oct. 27, 1997.

Appendix IV Major Contributors to This Report

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

William R. Chatlos, Senior Social Science Analyst Douglas Sloane,
Senior Social Science Analyst Hazel Bailey, Evaluator
(Communications Analyst)

Victor B. Goddard, Staff Attorney Sherrill H. Johnson, Assistant
Director Billy W. Scott, Evaluator- in- Charge General Government

Division, Washington, D. C.

Office of the General Counsel

Dallas Field Office Dallas Field Office

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High- Level EAS Positions

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent.

Order by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4 th St. NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a
touch- tone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send
e- mail message with info in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http:// www. gao. gov

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548-
0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100

(240326)

*** End of document. ***