PENSION BENEFIT 

GUARANTY CORPORATION

Management Directive 715 

Annual EEO Program Status Report

FISCAL YEAR 2018 

 

 

 
 

 

Table of Contents

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement. ............................................................................. i 

Anti-Harassment Policy Statment..............................................................................................ii-iv

Organization Chart. ................................................................................................................................. v 

PART A: Department or Agency Identifying Information........................................................................ 8 

PART B: Total Employment .................................................................................................................. 8 

PART C: Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s)............................. 8-10

PART D: List of subordinate components covered in this report..............................................10-11

PART E: Executive Summary .........................................................................................................12-90

PART F: Certification-Establishment of Continuing Equal Employment Opportunity.................91

PART G: Agency Self-Assessment Checklist Measuring Essential Elements...................... 92-113

PART I: EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barriers ...........................................................114-116

PART J: Special Program Plan for The Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement and

Retention of Persons with Disabilities... ..........................................................................117-132

APPENDIX:

Fiscal Year 2018 EEO Workforce Data Tables (Parts A&B)

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

FY18 Annual EEO Program Status Report 

Management Directive 715
November

TO: All PBGC Staff 

FROM: W. Thomas Reeder, Jr.

Director

SUBJECT: Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement 

T h e Pensio n Benefi t Guarant y Corporatio n (PBGC ) protects th e retiremen t income s o f nearl y 4 0 

millio n America n workers i n nearl y 24,00 0 private-secto r define d benefi t pensio n plans. Fo r 

PBG C t o d o its well , w e must continu e t o striv e fo r inclusion , cooperation , an d respect fo r th e 

talents tha t a divers e workforc e ca n brin g t o an y successful venture . 

PBG C is committe d t o ensurin g tha t its employee s an d applicants fo r employmen t are treated 

equitabl y i n a n environmen t tha t is free from discriminatio n based o n race , religion , color, sex, 

pregnancy , sexua l orientation , gende r identity , parenta l status, marita l status, nationa l origin , age, 

disability , famil y medica l history , o r geneti c information . Employee s an d applicants wh o believ e 

the y ma y hav e experience d discriminatio n o n an y o f thes e bases, o r wh o believ e the y ma y hav e 

bee n retaliate d against fo r exercisin g th e righ t t o g o throug h th e Equa l Employmen t Opportunit y 

(EEO ) process, shoul d contac t th e Offic e o f Equa l Employmen t Opportunit y (OEEO ) as discussed 

below . 

A l l employee s are responsibl e fo r exhibitin g professiona l conduc t an d behavio r i n th e workplac e 

a n d cooperatin g i n th e enforcemen t o f this policy . Individuals engagin g i n conduc t o r behavio r 

tha t violate s this polic y ma y b e subjec t t o appropriat e disciplinar y actio n u p to , an d

remova l from Federa l service . 

I f yo u believ e yo u ma y hav e bee n subjected t o discriminatio n o r retaliation , yo u shoul d contac t 

OEE O a t ext. 436 3 o r emai l eeo@pbgc.go v immediately . OEE O offers a confidentia l an d neutra l 

earl y interventio n process t o address concern s withou t you r havin g t o initiat e th e EE O complain t 

process. If , however , yo u decide t o initiat e th e EE O complain t process, yo u must d o so withi n 4 5 

calenda r day s o f th e inciden t o r th e dat e yo u became awar e o f th e incident . Wher e a n aggrieve d 

individua l elects an d OEE O determine s tha t Alternativ e Disput e Resolutio n (ADR ) is appropriate , 

managers and/o r supervisors hav e a dut y t o participat e i n PBGC' s AD R process. 

I n ou r wor k processes, PBG C wil l creat e avenue s fo r ful l participatio n t o enabl e excellenc e an d 

innovatio n tha t is realize d throug h collaboratio n o f divers e ideas, experiences, an d perspectives. 

B y workin g togethe r t o promot e th e principle s o f equa l opportunity , w e wil l ensur e tha t al l 

employee s an d applicants fo r employmen t hav e a n opportunit y t o succeed an d contribut e t o 

PBGC' s missio n o f protectin g America's retiremen t security . 

i
 Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Protectin g America' s Pension a K Street, Washington, D.C. 20005-4026 

JAN 2 4 2018 

TO: All PBGC Staff 

FROM: W. Thomas Reeder, Jr

Director

SUBJECT: Anti-Harassment Policy Statement 

T h e Pensio n Benefi t Guarant y Corporatio n (PBGC ) ha s a polic y providin g fo r a wor k environmen t 

fre e fro m al l form s o f harassment . Fo r example , i n additio n t o providin g th e protectio n require d 

b y EE O law s fro m harassmen t base d o n race , color , religion , se x (includin g pregnancy , sexua l 

harassment , gende r identity , an d non-sexua l harassmen t base d o n sex) , sexua l orientation , nationa l 

origin , age , disabilit y (menta l o r physical) , famil y medica l histor y o r geneti c information , PBGC' s

polic y protects against harassmen t o f an y kind .

Harassmen t become s unlawfu l wher e endurin g th e offensiv e conduc t become s a conditio n o f 

continue d employment , o r 2 ) th e conduc t is sever e o r pervasiv e enoug h t o creat e a wor k 

environmen t tha t a reasonabl e perso n woul d conside r intimidating , hostile , o r abusive . 

Example s ma y include , bu t ar e no t limite d to : 

• e comment s abou t a n persona l religiou s beliefs, o r tryin g t o conver t 

the m t o a certai n religiou s ideology

• g racist slang , phrases, o r nicknames

• g remark s abou t a n individual' s ski n colo r o r othe r ethni c traits

• g racist drawings , o r posters tha t migh t b e offensiv e t o a particula r group

• g offensiv e gestures

• g offensiv e referenc e t o a n individual' s menta l o r physica l disability

• g inappropriat e images, videos, e-mails, letters, o r note s o f a n offensiv e nature

• y talkin g abou t negativ e racial , ethnic , o r religiou s stereotypes; o

• g derogator y age-relate d comment

N o singl e situatio n constitute s harassmen t an d determinatio n is mad e fro m th e facts o n a case-by -

cas e basis. Harassmen t ma y b e direc t o r indirect . Th e harassmen t ma y b e directe d a t you , bu t i t 

c a n als o b e directe d a t someon e els e o r eve n a t n o one . Indirec t harassmen t ma y no t b e directe d a t 

you , bu t yo u stil l fin d i t offensive . Fo r example , tw o employee s ar e i n th e makin g 

disparagin g comment s abou t a particula r race . Th e comment s ar e no t addresse d a t anyone , bu t i t 

create s a n intimidatin g an d hostil e environmen t fo r yo u wh o happene d t o b e utilizin g th e commo n 

area . Yo u ma y b e abl e t o brin g a clai m fo r harassmen t relate d t o race . 

ii
Anti-discriminatio n law s als o prohibi t harassmen t against individual s i n retaliatio n fo r filin g a 

discriminatio n charge , testifying , o r participatin g i n an y wa y i n a n investigation , proceeding , o r 

lawsui t unde r thes e laws ; o r opposin g employmen t practice s tha t the y reasonabl y believ e 

discriminat e against individuals , i n violatio n o f thes e laws . 

Sexua l harassmen t is define d as unwelcom e sexua l advances, requests fo r sexua l favors, an d othe r 

verba l o r physica l conduc t o f a sexua l natur e whe n submissio n t o suc h conduc t is mad e eithe r 

explicitl y o r implicitl y a ter m o r conditio n o f a n individual' s employment , submissio n t o o r 

rejectio n o f suc h conduc t b y a n individua l is use d as th e basis fo r employmen t decision s affectin g 

suc h individual , o r suc h conduc t ha s th e purpos e o r effec t o f unreasonabl y interferin g wit h a n 

individual' s wor k performance , o r creatin g a n intimidating , hostile , o r offensiv e workin g 

environment . Suc h conduc t ma y include , bu t is no t limite d to : 

• n employe r o r superviso r conditionin g promotion , assignments, o r othe r tangibl e jo

benefits base d o n acquiescenc e t o unwelcom e sexua l conduct , o r penalizin g a n individua l fo r 

refusin g t o participat e i n suc h conduct

• t o r stereotypica l remark s abou t a person's clothing , body , appearance , o r activities

• y oriente d jokes , stories, remarks , o r discussions

• s o f sexua l acts

• g o r displayin g sexuall y graphi c picture s anywher e i n th e workplace

• y touching , pinching , patting , o r givin g inappropriat e look s t o anothe r person

• e fo r date s o r sexua l activity

• e telephon e calls, e-mai l messages, socia l networ k posting s o r letters o f a sexua

nature ; o

• s fo r sexua l favors

I n sexua l harassment , th e harasse r ma y b e mal e o r female , an d th e victi m ma y b e o f th e opposit e 

s e x o r th e sam e se x as th e harasser. Eve n a consensua l relationshi p betwee n th e harasse r an d th e 

victi m ma y involv e sexua l harassment . Fo r example , i f th e victi m agree s t o sexua l behavio r ou t o f 

fea r o f retaliation , th e conduc t o f th e othe r part y ma y stil l constitut e sexua l harassment . Th e focu s 

is o n whethe r th e conduc t wa s unwelcome , no t consensual . 

T h e goa l o f th e Anti-Harassmen t Polic y Statemen t is t o address an d eliminat e harassin g conduc t 

a t th e earliest possibl e stage , regardless o f whethe r th e conduc t violate d th e law . Al l employee s 

a r e responsibl e fo r exhibitin g professiona l conduc t an d behavio r i n th e workplac e an d cooperatin g 

i n th e enforcemen t o f this policy . Individual s engagin g i n conduc t o r behavio r tha t violate s this 

polic y ma y b e t o appropriat e disciplinar y actio n u p to , an d including , remova l fro m Federa l 

service . Supervisors mus t striv e t o maintai n an d promot e a wor k environmen t fre e o f harassment . 

T o preven t an d remed y incidents o f workplac e harassment , PBG C officials mus t b e mad e awar e 

o f th e conduc t o r behavio r as soo n as possibl e

PBG C wil l no t tolerat e th e creatio n o f a hostil e wor k environmen t an d wil l address reporte d 

workplac e harassmen t promptly . Individual s wh o believ e the y ar e bein g harasse d o r t o 

a hostil e wor k environmen t ar e encourage d t o tel l th e allege d harasse r (orall y o r i n writing ) t o stop , 

kee p a recor d o f th e events, immediatel y repor t th e behavior , an d cooperat e i n an y inquir y 

regardin g allegation s o f harassment . Retaliatio n fo r reportin g workplac e harassmen t o r fo r 

iii
assistin g i n an y inquir y concernin g a repor t o f harassmen t als o wil l no t b e tolerated . I n addition , 

PBG C wil l protec t th e confidentialit y o f employee s wh o brin g harassmen t claims , t o th e exten t 

possible . 

PBG C employee s wh o believ e the y hav e bee n harasse d o r hav e bee n subjecte d t o a hostil e wor k 

environmen t shoul d repor t th e matte r immediatel y t o thei r immediat e supervisor , anothe r 

managemen t official , o r t o PBGC' s Harassmen t Inquir y Committe e (HIC) . Report s t o th e HI C 

m a y b e directe d t o Kare n Esse r (HRD ) - ext . 3275 , o r Easmun t (OGC ) - ext . 3357 . 

Additiona l informatio n abou t th e HI C is availabl e o n SharePoin t at: 

Employee s ma y als o repor t allegation s o f harassmen t t o PBGC' s Offic e o f Equa l Employmen t 

Opportunit y a t ext . 4363 ,

Upo n receip t o f a harassmen t allegatio n th e Agenc y wil l conduc t a prompt , thorough , an d impartia l 

inquiry , i f appropriate . Th e Agenc y wil l tak e immediat e an d appropriat e correctiv e actio n i f i t 

determine s harassmen t ha s occurred . 

A n employe e wh o reports allegation s o f harassmen t o r hostil e wor k environmen t t o th e HIC , a 

PBG C supervisor/manager , o r HR D ha s not file d a n EE O complaint . A n employe e wh o wishe s 

t o a n EE O complain t mus t contac t PBGC' s EE O Offic e withi n 4 5 calenda r day s o f th e allege d 

harassin g conduc t o r th e dat e the y becam e awar e o f th e harassin g conduct . Failur e t o d o so ma y 

resul t i n th e dismissa l o f th e EE O complaint . 

The federal sector EE O discrimination complaint process cannot be initiated by reporting 

harassment or hostile work environment to a supervisor or management official, the HIC, 

HRD or by contacting the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) or union. 

Thi s polic y applie s t o al l PBG C employees . Relate d question s o r requests fo r informatio n shoul d 

b e directe d t o OEEO , Breneci a Watson , ext.6868 . 

iv
Small group that represents interests 

of employers with pension plans, 

employee organizations and the 

general public.

Secretary of Labor and Board Chair 

Secretary of Treasury 

Secretary of Commerce

OFFICE OF THE 

PARTICIPANT AND PLAN

SPONSOR ADVOCATE (OPPSA)

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 

GENERAL (OIG)

 Director

Thomas Reeder

Office of the Director (OD) 

April 23, 2019

Constance Donovan 

Participant and Plan 

Sponsor Advocate 

Robert Westbrooks

Inspector General 

Ann Orr

Chief of Staff (COS)

Brenecia Watson

Director 

Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity 

(OEEO)

OFFICE OF BENEFITS OFFICE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICE OF THE GENERAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & OFFICE OF NEGOTIATIONS OFFICE OF POLICY AND

ADMINISTRATION (OBA) OFFICER (OCFO) COUNSEL (OGC) TECHNOLOGY (OIT) ADMINISTRATION (OMA) & RESTRUCTURING (ONR) EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (OPEA)

David Foley

Chief of Benefits 

Administration

JaniceBrown-Taylor

Deputy Chief of Benefits 

Administration

Patricia Kelly

Chief Financial Officer

Judith Starr

General Counsel

Robert Scherer

Chief Information Officer

Alice Maroni

Chief Management Officer

Karen Morris

Chief of Negotiations

and Restructuring Rossi Marcelin

Deputy Chief of 

Negotiations and 

Restructuring

Scott Young

Director

Actuarial Services and 

Technology Department 

(ASTD)

Jennifer Messina

Director

Participant Services 

Department (PSD)

MIchael Hutchins

Director

Plan Asset and Data Management 

Department (PADMD)

Franklin Pace

Director

Corporate Controls & 

Reviews Department 

(CCRD)

John Greenberg 

Chief Investment Officer 

Corporate Investments 

Department (CID)

Theodore Winter

Director

Financial Operations 

Department (FOD)

Charles Finke

Deputy General Counsel 

Bankruptcy, Litigation and 

Terminations (BLT)

Kartar Khalsa

Deputy General Counsel 

Bankruptcy, Transactions 

andTerminations (BTT)

Philip Hertz

Deputy General Counsel 

General Law and 

Operations (GLO)

Dan Liebman

Deputy General Counsel

Program Law and Policy (PLP)

Vidhya Shyamsunder

Director

Business Innovation 

Services Department (BISD)

Melanie Carter

Director

Enterprise Governance 

Department (EGD)

Joshua Kossoy

Director

Information Technology 

Infrastructure Operations 

Department (ITIOD)

Kimberly Mayo

Director

Budget Department (BD)

Arrie Etheridge

Director

Human Resources 

Department (HRD)

Jeffrey Donahue 

Director 

Procurement 

Department (PD)

Diane Braunstein

Director

Quality Management 

Department (QMD)

Alisa Cottone

Director

Workplace Solutions 

Department (WSD)

Adi Berger

Director

Corporate Finance & 

Restructuring 

Department (CFRD)

Board of Directors

Vacant

Chief Policy Officer

Michael Rae

Deputy Chief 

Policy Officer

Martha Threatt

Director

Communications Outreach 

and Legislative Affairs 

Department (COLAD)

Ted Goldman

Director

Policy, Research and Analysis 

Department (PRAD)

Advisory 

Committee

v
8

Part A - Department or Agency Identifying Information

Agency

Second 

Level 

Component

Address City State Zip 

Code

Agency 

Code

FIPS Code

Pension 

Benefit 

Guaranty 

Corporation

1200 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 BG 11

Part B - Total Employment

Total Employment Permanent Workforce Temporary Workforce Total Workforce

Number of Employees 900 44 944

Part C.1 - Head of Agency and Head of Agency Designee

Agency Leadership Name Title

Head of Agency W. Thomas Reeder PBGC Director

Head of Agency 

Designee N/A

Part C.2 - Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s)

EEO Program 

Staff Name Title

Occupa 

tional 

Series

Pay 

Plan 

and 

Grade

Phone 

Number Email Address

Principal EEO 

Director/Official

Brenecia 

Watson EEO Director 260 GS-15

202-326- 

4000 ext.

6868

watson.brenecia@pbgc.gov

Affirmative 

Employment 

Program 

Manager

Hope Fuller Lead EEO 

Specialist 260 GS-14

202-326- 

4000 ext.

3345

fuller.hope@pbgc.gov

Complaint 

Processing 

Program 

Manager

Dianne Wood Attorney Advisor

905 GS-14

202-326- 

4000 ext.

3307

wood.dianne@pbgc.gov

Complaint 

Processing 

Program 

Manager

Craig Cassidy EEO Specialist 260 GS-13

202-326- 

4000 ext.

3043

cassidy.craig@pbgc.gov

MD-715 Parts A Through E
9

EEO Program 

Staff Name Title

Occupa 

tional 

Series

Pay 

Plan 

and 

Grade

Phone 

Number Email Address

Diversity & 

Inclusion 

Officer

Karen Esser Problem 

Resolution 

Specialist

301 GS-14

202-326-

4000 ext.

3275

esser.karen@pbgc.gov

Hispanic 

(Affirmative 

Employment) 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Kimberly 

Rodgers EEO Specialist 260 GS-11

202-326-

4000 ext.

3575

rodgers.kimberly@pbgc.gov

Women's 

(Affirmative 

Employment) 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Beverley 

Hebron

Management 

Analyst 343 GS-13

202-326-

4000 ext.

6237

hebron.beverley@pbgc.gov

Disability 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Donald 

Beasley HR Specialist 201 GS-13

202-326-

4000 ext.

3637

beasley.donald@pbgc.gov

Special 

Placement 

Program 

Coordinator 

(Individuals 

with 

Disabilities)

Donald 

Beasley HR Specialist 201 GS-13

202-326-

4000 ext.

3637

beasley.donald@pbgc.gov

Reasonable 

Accommodatio 

n Program 

Manager

Donald 

Beasley HR Specialist 201 GS-13

202-326-

4000 ext.

3637

beasley.donald@pbgc.gov

AntiHarassment 

Program 

Manager

Karen Esser Problem 

Resolution 

Specialist

301 GS-14

202-326-

4000 ext.

3275

esser.karen@pbgc.gov

ADR Program 

Manager Craig Cassidy EEO Specialist 260 GS-13

202-326-

4000 ext.

3043

cassidy.craig@pbgc.gov

Compliance 

Manager

Dianne Wood Attorney Advisor

905 GS-14

202-326-

4000 ext.

3307

wood.dianne@pbgc.gov

Principal MD715 Preparer Hope Fuller Lead EEO 

Specialist 260 GS-14

202-326-

4000 ext.

3345

fuller.hope@pbgc.gov

Other EEO 

Staff

Cynthia 

Searles EEO Specialist 260 GS-09

202-326-

4000 ext.

3405

searles.cynthia@pbgc.gov
10

EEO Program 

Staff Name Title

Occupa 

tional 

Series

Pay 

Plan 

and 

Grade

Phone 

Number Email Address

Part D.1 – List of Subordinate Components Covered in this Report

Please identify the subordinate components within the agency (e.g., bureaus, regions, etc.). If the agency does not 

have any subordinate components, please check thebox. 

Subordinate Component City State Country 

(Optional)

Agency 

Code

FIPS 

Codes

Part D.2 – Mandatory and Optional Documents for this Report

In the table below, the agency must submit these documents with its MD-715 report.

Did the agency submit the following mandatory documents? Please respond Yes 

or No Comments

Organizational Chart YES 

EEO Policy Statement YES 

Strategic Plan YES 

Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures YES 

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures YES 

Updated procedures 

were submitted to 

EEOC for approval 

September 25, 2018

Personal Assistance Services Procedures YES 

Updated procedures 

were submitted to 

EEOC for approval 

September 25, 2018

Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures YES 

In the table below, the agency may decide whether to submit these documents with its MD-715 report.

Did the agency submit the following optional documents? Please respond Yes 

or No Comments

Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report YES 

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP

) Report

YES 
11

Did the agency submit the following optional documents? Please respond Yes 

or No Comments

Operational Plan for Increasing Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities under Executive Order 13548 YES

Diversity and Inclusion Plan under Executive Order 13583 YES

Diversity Policy Statement YES

Human Capital Strategic Plan YES

EEO Strategic Plan YES

Results from most recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or 

Annual Employee Survey YES
12

EEOC FORM 

715-01 

PART E

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation For period covering October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018

0BEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E.1: Mission

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC or Corporation) protects the retirement incomes of 

nearly 37 million American workers in nearly 25,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans. PBGC 

was created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to encourage the continuation 

and maintenance of private-sector defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted 

payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at a minimum. For over 40 years, 

the PBGC has protected the pension benefits of millions of America’s workers and retirees, and it is 

critical to our nation’s retirement security. During FY 2018, PBGC assumed responsibility for 28,000 

people in 58 trusteed single-employer plans and paid $5.9 billion to more than 861,000 retirees from 

4,919 failed single-employer plans.

PBGC promotes full and fair opportunities for employment, career advancement and access to programs 

so that employees of PBGC are valued, respected and are free to develop their full potential in a culture 

aligned with the Corporation’s priorities. The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) manages 

the agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program and follows the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations and policy.

Management Directive 715 (MD-715) is the policy guidance which the EEOC provides to federal 

agencies for their use in establishing and maintaining effective programs of equal employment 

opportunity under Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, and 

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended.

MD-715 provides a roadmap for creating effective EEO programs for all federal employees as required 

by Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. The stated objective of the Directive is to ensure that all employees 

and applicants for employment enjoy equality of opportunity in the federal workplace, regardless of race, 

sex, national origin, color, religion, disability or reprisal for engaging in prior protected activity. 

Additionally, the EEOC seeks to ensure the same opportunities to all groups regardless of age, genetic 

information, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or other prohibited bases.

MD-715 requires agencies to take appropriate steps to ensure that all employment decisions are free 

from discrimination. It sets forth standards by which agencies’ EEO programs will be reviewed by the 

EEOC, including, but not limited to, the requirement that agencies conduct periodic self-assessments 

and barrier analysis to identify and remove barriers which may preclude access to equal employment 

opportunities in the workplace.

As required by the EEOC, this report was completed utilizing data compiled at the end of FY 2018 and 

covers the period from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. The workforce data utilized 

includes permanent employees and was extracted from DataMart, the Interior Business Center of the 

Department of the Interior.

PBGC’s noteworthy progress in FY 2018 in developing an equitable work environment and its plans for 

enhancing the EEO program are described in the remainder of the document.
13

The major occupations at PBGC during FY 2018 include Auditor (Series 0511), General Attorney (Series 

0905), Actuary (Series 1510), Information Technology Specialist (Series 2210), Accountant (Series 

0510), Employee Benefit Law Specialist (Series 0958), Financial Analyst (Series 1160), and Contract 

Specialist (Series 1102). These occupations represent a significant portion of the PBGC workforce. 

Planned affirmative employment and outreach efforts include collaborating with management and the 

Human Resources Department on recruitment and retention in these major categories.

Results of the Agency’s Annual Self-Assessment

PBGC conducted its annual self-assessment of the six Essential Elements as regulated by EEOC’s 

Management Directive (MD) 715 and continues to report steady progress towards model EEO 

program status.

The following chart reflects the percentage met for each essential element of a model EEO program 

over the past three fiscal years:

Element 

A - Demonstrated

Leadership Commitment

FY 2018 FY 2017 FY 2016

Number of 

Deficiencies Percentage

Number of 

Deficiencies Percentage

Number of 

Deficiencies Percentage

2 86% 0 100% 1 95%

B - Integration of EEO in 

Strategic Mission 0 100% 0 100% 3 91%

C - Management & Program 

Accountability 1 98% 0 100% 0 100%

D - Proactive Discrimination 

Prevention 0 100% 1 90% 2 80%

E - Efficiency 1 97% 2 94% 2 94%

F - Responsive & Legal 

Compliance 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%

Summary Score 97% 97% 93%

E.2: Essential Elements A - F 

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership

• The EEO Director met with the Agency Head, Senior Leadership and/or Department Directors 

to discuss EEO programs and initiatives throughout the year.

• The State of the Agency’s EEO Program briefing was delivered to the Agency Head and Senior 

Leadership. The presentation was posted to the Agency’s intranet.

Agency leadership supported the following:

• Posting of MD-715 and No FEAR Act Quarterly and Annual Reports on internal and external 

websites.

• Dissemination of information about PBGC’s EEO programs to employees in new employee 

orientations and on the agency’s internal website.

• Equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion by supporting the PBGC Diversity Council’s 

“Community Day” event which showcased the agency’s organizational diversity and by 

supporting the various special emphasis observances held throughout the year.

• Affirmative Employment Committee agency staff participation.
14

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Agency’s Strategic Mission

• PBGC enhanced collaborative departmental partnerships involving OEEO that resulted in 

measurably improved integration of EEO, diversity and inclusion principles throughout the 

agency’s strategic operations in FY 2018.

• Collaborative preparation of Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP), 

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP), and Hispanic Employment Reports for 

FY 2018.

• PBGC conducted barrier and trends analysis (BATA) on key human capital areas, e.g. 

recruitment and hiring, separations, promotions.

• The agency developed, conducted, delivered, and participated in multiple trainings on EEO, 

diversity and inclusion, anti-harassment, and reasonable accommodation, as well as seven 

educationally focused Special Emphasis Program/Disability Awareness observances.

• PBGC’s OEEO and Human Resources Department (HRD) collaboratively participated in 

discussions on human capital programs, succession planning, recruitment, personnel 

directives/policies, and special emphasis programming.

• OEEO continued to receive from HRD semi-annual reports highlighting promotions to 

supervisory positions, confirming issuance of Policy Statements, and schedules for mandatory 

training.

• OEEO reviewed and established a schedule for ongoing mandatory EEO training courses for 

both current and new managers and supervisors.

• OEEO worked with HRD through ongoing EEO/HR Team meetings and PBGC’s Diversity & 

Inclusion Strategic Plan initiatives to recommend and coordinate diversity-training courses for 

both current and new managers, supervisors and employees.

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability

• PBGC managers and supervisors are evaluated on their commitment to PBGC’s affirmative 

employment principles, and EEO and Diversity goals.

• Agency policies, procedures, and practices were examined to identify if there were barriers to 

equal employment opportunity for employees and applicants.

• PBGC has a policy discouraging offensive conduct before it rises to the level of discriminatory 

harassment. Employees are encouraged to report offensive, unwanted conduct. In FY 2018, the 

Office of the General Counsel and the Human Resources Department jointly evaluated 21 reports 

of potential harassment and conducted inquiries as appropriate through the Agency’s 

Harassment Inquiry Committee (HIC).

• PBGC has an annual mandatory reasonable accommodation and diversity and inclusion training 

requirement for all supervisors and managers and HRD delivered multiple training sessions in 

these areas in FY 2018. The agency’s Reasonable Accommodations Coordinator briefs all new 

employees on reasonable accommodation procedures during New EmployeeOrientation.
15

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

• PBGC provided managers, supervisors, and employees with information regarding their rights 

and responsibilities under various anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws through posters, 

intranet content, all-employee emails, and policy statements.

• The Agency conducted formal trainings for PBGC managers and staff in the areas of EEO, 

Diversity, Inclusion, anti-harassment and reasonable accommodation.

• Agency organizations supported the EEO program in identifying and/or correcting potential 

barriers to equal employment opportunity and supported EEO-related committees andprojects.

Essential Element E: Efficiency

• The agency promotes early resolution of complaints and the use of alternative dispute resolution 

(ADR) as an option to its traditional administrative EEO process. The commitment to ADR is 

communicated to employees through the intranet, training, and during individual meetings with 

parties seeking assistance from OEEO.

• For FY 2018, ADR was offered at a rate of 15 percent for the 32 Informal EEO Complaints cases 

filed. Of the five cases where it was offered, two individuals, or 40 percent accepted.

• PBGC received and processed 18 formal complaints alleging employment discrimination in FY 

2018.

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

• Annual Federal EEO Statistical Report on Discrimination Complaints (EEOC Form 462) and 

Annual Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (NO 

FEAR) report were submitted in advance of established timeframes.

• The Agency successfully processed 83 percent of informal complaints within regulatory time 

frames.

• The following reflects PBGC’s formal complaints activity in FY2018:

• By the end of the fiscal year, the agency had 32 formal complaints in inventory:

o 69 formal complaints were on hand from FY2017

o 18 formal complaints were filed in FY2018

o 2 formal complaints were remanded from the EEOC

o 53 formal complaints were closed

• Of the 32 formal complaints on hand at the end of the fiscal year:

o 0 pending letter of acknowledgement

o 2 pending accept/dismiss

o 3 in the investigative phase

o 21 pending hearing with administrative judge

o 6 pending final agency decisions
16

E.4 – E.5: PBGC’s Accomplishments and Ongoing Commitment to a Model EEOProgram

• PBGC’s senior leadership team, including its Director, demonstrate its commitment to moving 

the corporation to model EEO program status. Through leadership support, barrier analysis, 

Agency-wide EEO, Diversity, and Inclusion training was continued during FY 2018.

• OEEO will continue to collaborate with HRD through quarterly EEO/HR meetings to ensure use 

of meaningful and effective Senior Level and managerial performance standards that clearly 

demonstrate agency leadership commitment to and accountability for promoting EEO and 

affirmative employment principles, as well as incorporating the EEOC model agency program 

compliance indicators and measures.

• During FY2018, OEEO offered Supervisory EEO training and EEO Employee training and will 

review and establish a schedule for ongoing EEO training courses for both current and new 

managers and supervisors.

• OEEO will continue to collaborate with HRD through ongoing EEO/HR Team meetings and 

PBGC’s Diversity & Inclusion Strategic Plan initiatives to support and recommend programs that 

increase employee engagement.

• Agency senior leaders have provided continued support for barrier analysis by providing 

organizational points of contact to work with OEEO so that equal opportunity and diversity and 

inclusion are integrated into the agency’s strategic operations. The goal is to be proactive in the 

prevention of discrimination.

• OEEO will continue to engage senior leaders, human resource staff, outreach coordinator and 

hiring officials to examine ways to improve recruitment and retention and discuss process 

improvement to determine whether the recruitment and selection process should be refined 

internally.

• OEEO introduced a book club focused on topics that support equity, diversity, and inclusion in 

order to create a more engaged workforce.

• OEEO has developed a program (YOUniversity) for agency leaders that focuses on unconscious 

bias self-awareness that will be implemented in FY 2019.

• PBGC’s Affirmative Employment Committees actively participated in barrier analysis to help 

identify triggers to equal opportunity.
17

• A1: Total Workforce-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

• A2: Permanent Workforce by Component-Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity and Sex

• A3: Occupational Categories-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity andSex

• A4: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades-Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity and Sex-Permanent Workforce

E.3: Workforce Analysis

Data Tables
18

2018 Workforce Analysis

During the reporting period, PBGC had 944 permanent and temporary employees. The total 

number of permanent and temporary employees decreased from 953 in FY 2017. The statistical 

data reflects that of PBGC’s total workforce, African American males and females, and Asian 

American males and females have a higher than expected representation rate, while Hispanic 

males and females and White males and females have a lower than anticipated representation, 

in comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmarks.

Table A1: Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators Hispanic Males % Change Hispanic Females % Change

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 

(A1)

2.01% 1.89% 2.04% -1.47% 2.22% 2.2% 2.45% -9.39%

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

5.17% 4.79%

Occupational 

Categories (A3):

Officials & Managers 2.11% 2.09% 1.85% 14.05% 1.88% 1.86% 2.08% -9.62%

Executive/Seniorlevel

3.17% 3.33% 2.52% 25.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Professionals 1.95% 1.95% 2.42% -19.42% 2.68% 2.43% 2.42% 10.74%

Administrative 

Support

1.75% 1.59% 1.49% 17.45% 1.75% 0.00% 1.49% 17.45%

Grade-level 

distribution (A4)

GS-15 1.99% 2.76% 2.11% -5.69% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% N/A

GS-14 1.99% 2.30% 2.66% -25.19% 1.99% 1.64% 1.33% 49.62%

GS-13 1.79% 1.30% 1.37% 30.66% 2.68% 2.60% 3.65% -26.58%

GS-12 2.06% 1.98% 1.65% 24.85% 2.06% 2.97% 2.48% -16.94%

GS-11 2.56% 0.00% 2.33% 9.87% 7.69% 5.71% 9.30% -17.31%

GS-9 5.56% 4.00% 0.00% N/A 5.56% 4.00% 0.00% N/A

GS-7 0.00% 0.00% 3.85% -100.00% 0.00% 4.55% 3.85% -100.00%

GS-4 to 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% N/A

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

2018-2016 Trend Analysis

Over the past three fiscal years, Hispanic males and females were underrepresented in 

comparison to the National Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmark, however the PBGC’s 

participation rate improved in the Occupational and Grade Level categories, as follows:

Hispanic Female Increase in Occupational Categories

• Professionals increased from 2.42% (FY16) and 2.43% (FY17) to 2.68% (FY18)

• Administrative Support increased from 1.49% (FY16) and 0.00% (FY17) to 1.75% 

(FY18)

Hispanic Female Increase in Grade Level Categories

• GS-15 increased from 0.00% (FY16) and 0.00% (FY17) to .66% (FY18)

• GS-14 increased from 1.33% (FY16) and 1.64% (FY17) to 1.99% (FY18)

• GS-9 increased from 0.00% (FY16) and 4.00% (FY17) to 5.56% (FY18)
19

Hispanic Males Increase in Occupation Category

• Officials and Managers increased from 1.85%(FY16) and 2.09% (FY17) to 2.11% 

(FY18)

Hispanic Males Increase in Grade Level Category

• GS-13 increased from 1.37% (FY16) and 1.30% (FY17) to 1.79% (FY18)

• GS-12 increased from 1.65% (FY16) and 1.98% (FY17) to 2.06% (FY18)

• GS-11 increased from 2.33% (FY16) and 0.00% (FY17) to 2.56% (FY18)

• GS-09 increased from 0.00% (FY16) and 4.00% (FY17) to 5.56% (FY18)

The PBGC also saw decreases in Hispanic male and female representation in the Grade Level 

categories, as follows:

Hispanic Female Decrease in Grade Level Category

• GS-13 decreased from 3.65% (FY16) and 2.60% (FY17) to 2.68% (FY18)

• GS-07 decreased from 3.85% (FY16) and 4.55% (FY17) to 0.00% (FY18)

Hispanic Males Decrease in Grade Level Category

• GS-15 decreased from 2.11% (FY16) and 2.76% (FY17) to 1.99% (FY18)

• GS-14 decreased from 2.66% (FY16) and 2.30% (FY17) to 1.99% (FY18)

• GS-07 decreased from 3.85% (FY16) and 0.00% (FY17) to 0.00% (FY18)

Table A2: Permanent Workforce by Component – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators Hispanic Males % Change Hispanic Females % Change

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Civilian Labor Force 

(A1)

5.17% 4.79%

Component 

Utilization

OCFO 2.58% 1.71% 1.64% 57.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

OMA 2.65% 3.64% 3.60% -26.39% 3.54% 2.73% 2.70% 31.11%

OBA 1.56% 1.12% 1.11% 40.54% 1.95% 1.87% 1.85% 5.41%

ONR 3.19% 3.00% 3.09% 3.24% 5.31% 5.00% 4.12% 28.88%

OGC 1.41% 1.45% 1.35% 4.44% 2.11% 1.45% 1.35% 56.30%

OPEA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.23% 3.23% 3.13% 3.19%

OCIO 2.08 3.54% 3.74% -44.39% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2018 Workforce Analysis by Organization

During the reporting period, PBGC had a total of 40 Hispanic employees. The total number of 

Hispanic employees increased from 39 in FY 2017. The statistical data reflects that PBGC’s 

Hispanic male and female workforce has a lower than anticipated representation in 

comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmarks of 5.17% for males and 4.79% for 

females.

FY2018 to FY2016 Trend Analysis

Although the representation level remained steadily below the CLF benchmark, over the past 

three years, PBGC’s organizations did experience a net increase in representation for Hispanic 

males and females, as follows:
20

Hispanic Male Increase per Component Category

• OCFO increased from 1.64% (FY16) and 1.71% (FY17) to 2.58% (FY18)) 

• OBA increased from 1.11% (FY16) and 1.12% (FY17) to 1.56% (FY18)

• ONR increased from 3.09% (FY16) and 3.00% (FY17) to 3.19% (FY18)

• OGC increased from 1.35% (FY16) and 1.45% (FY17) to 1.41% (FY18)

Hispanic Female Increase per Component Category

• OMA increased from 2.70% (FY16) and 2.73% (FY17) to 3.54% (FY18)

• OBA increased from 1.85% (FY16) and 1.87% (FY17) to 1.95% (FY18)

• ONR increased from 4.12% (FY16) and 5.00% (FY17) to 5.31% (FY18)

• OGC increased from 1.35% (FY16) and 1.45% (FY17) to 2.11% (FY18)

• OPEA increased from 3.13% (FY16) and 3.23% (FY17) to 3.23% (FY18)

Table A1: Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators White Males % Change White Females % Change

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 

(A1)

23.31% 24.13% 25.02% -6.83% 17.16% 16.68

%

17.04% 0.70%

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

38.33% 34.03%

Occupational 

Categories (A3):

Officials & 

Managers

25.12% 25.58% 26.10% -3.75% 19.25% 19.77% 21.25% -9.41%

Executive/Seniorlevel

37.30% 39.17% 39.50% -5.57% 23.02% 23.33% 23.53% -2.17%

Professionals 23.84% 25.79% 26.88% -11.31% 16.55% 15.82% 15.01% 10.26%

Administrative 

Support

8.77% 7.94% 10.45% -16.08% 3.51% 3.17% 2.99% 17.39%

Grade-level 

distribution (A4)

GS-15 33.77% 35.86% 38.73% -12.81% 26.49% 24.83% 23.24% 13.98%

GS-14 31.89% 33.88% 33.89% -5.90% 17.94% 17.43% 19.93% -9.98%

GS-13 16.07% 16.45% 19.63% -18.14% 10.71% 11.26% 10.50% 2.00%

GS-12 7.22% 9.90% 9.09% -20.57% 18.56% 13.86% 14.05% 32.10%

GS-11 10.26% 2.86% 11.63% -11.78% 7.69% 22.86% 13.95% -44.87%

GS-9 0.00% 8.00% 0.00% N/A 5.56% 8.00% 20.83% -73.31%

GS-7 0.00% 0.00% 11.54% -100.00% 5.00% 4.55% 3.85% 29.87%

GS-4 to 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

2018 Workforce Analysis

During the reporting period, PBGC had 382 White male and female employees. The total 

number of White male and female employees decreased from 389 in FY 2017. The statistical 

data reflects that White males and females have a lower than anticipated representation, in 

comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmarks.
21

PBGC saw an increase in White female representation at the GS-14 grade level, from 17.43% 

(FY2017) to 17.94% (FY2018) and a decrease in representation at the GS-9 grade level, from 

8% (FY2017) to 5.56% (FY2018), a total of one employee; and a decrease of White females at 

the GS-11 grade level from 22.86% (FY2017) to 7.69% (FY2018), a total of 5 employees.

PBGC’s participation rate of White males in the total workforce decreased from 24.13% 

(FY2017) to 23.31% (FY2018), while White females increased from 16.68% (FY2017) to 17.16% 

(FY2018).

2018-2016 Trend Analysis

Over the past three years, White males and females were underrepresented in comparison to 

the National Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmark, however the PBGC’s participation rate 

improved in the Occupational and Grade Level categories for White females, as follows:

White Female Increase in Occupational Categories

• Professionals increased from 15.01% (FY16) and 15.82% (FY17) to 16.55% (FY18)

• Administrative Support increased from 2.99% (FY16) and 3.17% (FY17) to 3.51% 

(FY18)

White Female Increase in Grade Level Categories

• GS-15 increased from 23.24% (FY16) and 24.83% (FY17) to 26.49% (FY18)

• GS-07 increase 3.85% (FY16) and 4.55% (FY17) to 5.00% (FY18)

• GS-12 increased from 14.05% (FY16) and 13.86% (FY17) to 18.56% (FY18)

White Males Decrease in Occupation Category

• Officials and Managers decreased from 26.10% (FY16) and 25.58% (FY17) 

to 25.12% (FY18)

• Professional decreased from 26.88% (FY16) and 25.79% (FY17) to 23.84% (FY18)

White Males Decrease in Grade Level Category

• GS-15 decreased from 38.73% (FY16) and 35.86% (FY17) to 33.77% (FY18)

• GS-14 decreased from 33.89% (FY16) and 33.88% (FY17) to 31.89% (FY18)

• GS-13 decreased from 19.63% (FY16) and16.45% (FY17) to 16.07% (FY18)

• GS-07 decreased from 11.54% (FY16) and 0.00% (FY17) to 0.00% (FY18)

PBGC also experienced decreases in White female representation in the Grade Level and 

Occupation categories, as follows:

White Female Decrease in Grade Level Category

• GS-09 decreased from 20.83% (FY16) and 5.56% (FY17) to 8.00% (FY18)

• GS-11 decreased from 13.95% (FY16) and 22.86% (FY17) to 7.69% (FY18)

• GS-14 decreased from 19.93% (FY16) and 17.43% (FY17) to 17.94% (FY18)

White Female Decrease in Occupation Level Category

• Official/Manager decreased from 21.25% (FY16) and 19.77% (FY17) to 19.25% (FY18)

• Executive/Senior Level decreased from 23.53% (FY16) and 23.33% (FY17) to 23.02% 

(FY18)
22

Table A2: Permanent Workforce by Component – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators White Males % Change White Females % Change

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Civilian Labor Force 

(A1)

38.33% 34.03%

Component 

Utilization

OCFO 21.55% 23.08% 24.59% -12.36% 10.34% 11.11% 11.48% -9.93%

OMA 14.16% 13.64% 15.32% -7.57 22.12% 22.73% 21.62% 2.31%

OBA 16.02% 20.22% 20.37% -21.35 10.94% 11.24% 11.11% -1.53%

ONR 26.60% 26.00% 27.84% -4.45 17.02% 18.00% 18.56% -8.30%

OGC 11.27% 35.51% 35.14% -67.93 35.51% 33.33% 33.78% 5.12%

OPEA 35.48% 38.71% 37.50% -5.39 19.35% 19.35% 21.88% -11.56%

OCIO 29.36% 30.97% 28.97% 1.35% 6.42% 7.08% 8.41% -23.66%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

FY2018 Workforce Analysis

The statistical data reflects that White males and females have a lower than anticipated 

representation, in comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmarks, 38.33% for males; 

and 34.03% for females. However, during the FY2017 to FY2018 period, PBGC saw an 

increase in White female representation in OGC; and an increase in White male representation 

in OMA and ONR.

FY2018 to FY2016 Trend Analysis

Over the past three years, PBGC saw a decrease in White male representation in these 

organizations:

• OMA decreased from 15.32% (FY16) and 13.64% (FY17) to 14.16% (FY18) 

• OBA decreased from 20.37% (FY16) and 20.22% (FY17) to 16.02% (FY18)

• ONR decreased from 27.84% (FY16) and 26.00% (FY17) to 26.60% (FY18)

• OGC decreased from 35.14% (FY16) and 35.51% (FY17) to 11.27% (FY18)

• OPEA decreased from 37.50% (FY16) and 38.71% (FY17) to 35.48% (FY18)

Table A1: Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators Black Males % Change Black Females % Change

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 

(A1)

12.5% 12.8% 12.04% 29.66% 29.8% 29.18%

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

5.49% 6.53%

Occupational 

Categories (A3):

Officials & 

Managers

13.15% 12.79% 11.55% 13.85% 30.75% 30.00% 30.02% 2.43%

Executive/Seniorlevel

12.70% 11.67% 12.61% 0.71% 14.29% 13.33% 12.61% 13.32%

Professionals 11.19% 12.65% 12.35% -9.39% 24.57% 22.87% 23.73% 3.54%

Administrative 

Support

12.28% 14.29% 11.94% 2.85% 64.91% 66.67% 65.67% -1.16%
23

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

FY2018 Workforce Analysis

During the FY2018 reporting period, PBGC had 398 Black male and female employees. The 

total number of Black male and female employees decreased from 406 in FY 2017. The 

statistical data reflects that of PBGC’s total workforce, Black male and female representation is 

above the anticipated representation, in comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) 

benchmarks.

PBGC saw a net decrease in Black male representation from 12.8% (FY2017) to 12.05% 

(FY2018) a total of 4 employees; and a net decrease in Black female representation from 29.8% 

(FY2017) to 29.66% (FY2018) a total of 4 employees.

FY2018- FY2016 Trend Analysis

Over the past three fiscal years, Black male and female representation exceeded the National 

Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmark. However, it should be noted that Black male and female 

representation in grades GS-15 and SL are significantly below their rates of representation in 

PBGC. PBGC’s participation rate for Occupational and Grade Level categories, is as follows:

Black Females Increase in Occupational Categories

• Professionals increased from 23.73% (FY16) and 22.87% (FY17) to 24.57% (FY18)

Black Females Increase in Grade Level Categories

• Executive Senior Level increased from12.61% (FY16) and 13.33% (FY17) to 14.29% 

(FY18)

• GS-13 increased from 33.33% (FY16) and 36.36% (FY17) to 37.95% (FY18)

• GS-12 increased from 43.80% (FY16) and 43.56% (FY17) to 44.33% (FY18)

• GS-11 increase from 41.86% (FY16) and 45.71% (FY17) to 46.15% (FY18)

• GS-07 increased from 61.54% (FY16) and 63.64% (FY17) to 80.00% (FY18)

Black Males Increase in Grade Level Category

• GS-15 increased from 10.56% (FY16) and 10.34% (FY17) to 11.26% (FY18) 

• GS-09 increased from 8.33% (FY16) and 12.00% (FY17) to 27.78% (FY18)

Black Males Increase in Occupation Level Category

• Officials/Managers increased from 11.55% (FY16) and 12.79% (FY17) to 13.15% 

(FY18)

The PBGC saw decreases in Black female and male representation in the Grade Level and 

Occupation categories, as follows:

Grade-level 

distribution (A4)

GS-15 11.26% 10.34% 10.56% 6.63% 14.57% 15.17% 15.49% -5.94%

GS-14 11.63% 12.17% 10.63% 9.41% 21.26% 20.72% 21.26% 0.00%

GS-13 15.63% 17.32% 17.81% -12.24% 37.95% 36.36% 33.33% 13.86%

GS-12 11.34% 10.89% 12.40% -8.55% 44.33% 43.56% 43.80% 1.21%

GS-11 12.82% 17.14% 11.63% 10.23% 46.15% 45.71% 41.86% 10.25%

GS-9 27.78% 12.00% 8.33% 233.49% 50.00% 52.00% 66.67% -25.00%

GS-7 5.00% 13.64% 3.85% 29.87% 80.00% 63.64% 61.54% 30.00%

GS-4 to 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 85.71% 85.71% 87.50% -2.05%
24

Black Females Decrease in Grade Level Category

• GS-09 decreased from 66.67% (FY16) and 52.00% (FY17) to 50.00% (FY18)

Black Females Decrease in Occupation Level Category

• Administrative Support decreased from 65.67% (FY16) and 66.67% (FY17) to 64.91% 

(FY18)

Black Males Decrease in Occupation Category

• Professional decreased from 12.35% (FY16) and 12.65% (FY17) to 11.65% (FY18)

Black Males Decrease in Grade Level Category

• GS-12 decreased from 12.40% (FY16) and 10.89% (FY17) to 11.34% (FY18)

• GS-13 decreased from 17.81% (FY16) and 17.32% (FY17) to 15.63% (FY18)

Table A2: Permanent Workforce by Component – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators Black Males % Change Black Females % Change

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Civilian Labor Force 

(A1)

5.49% 6.53%

Component 

Utilization

OCFO 18.10% 17.09% 18.03% 0.39% 27.59% 29.06% 28.69% -3.83%

OMA 14.16% 13.64% 12.61% 14.67% 39.82% 40.00% 41.44% -3.91%

OBA 15.23% 16.85% 16.67% -8.64% 36.72% 35.58% 35.56% 3.26%

ONR 15.96% 15.00% 13.40% 19.10% 21.28% 20.00% 19.59% 8.63%

OGC 0.70% 2.17% 1.35% -48.15% 20.42% 18.84% 19.59% 4.24%

OPEA 6.45% 6.45% 6.25% 3.20% 19.35% 22.58% 21.88% -11.56%

OCIO 12.84% 11.50% 12.15% 5.68% 25.69% 24.78% 25.23% 1.82%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

FY2018 Workforce Analysis

The statistical data reflects that Black males and females have a higher than anticipated 

representation, in comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmarks, 5.49% for male; 

and 6.53% for females. However, PBGC saw a decrease in Black female representation in 

OCFO, OMA, ONR and OPEA, and a decrease in Black male representation in OBA and OGC 

during the FY2018 reporting period.

FY2018-FY2016 Trend Analysis

Over the past 3 years, Black females have decreased representation and Black males have 

increased representation as follows:

Black Female Decrease per Component Category:

• OMA decreased from 41.44% (FY16) and 40.00% (FY17) to 39.82% (F718)

Black Male Increase per Component Category:

• OCFO increased from 18.03% (FY16) and 17.09% (FY17) to 18.10% (FY18)

• OMA increased from 12.61% (FY16) and 13.64% (FY17) to 14.16% (FY18)

• ONR increased from 13.40% (FY16) and 15.00% (FY17) to 15.96% (FY18)

• OPEA increased from 6.25% (FY16) and 6.45% (FY17) to 6.45% (FY18)
25

Table A1: Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators Asian Males % Change Asian Females % Change

FY-18 FY17FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY16

Total Workforce 

(A1)

5.93% 5.98% 5.41% 9.61% 5.83% 5.56% 5.82% 0.17%

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

1.97% 1.93%

Occupational 

Categories (A3):

Officials & 

Managers

2.82% 2.79% 3.00% -6.00% 3.52% 3.72% 3.46% 1.73%

Executive/Seniorlevel

5.56% 5.83% 5.88% -5.44% 3.97% 3.33% 3.36% 18.15%

Professionals 9.73% 9.98% 7.99% 21.78% 8.52% 8.03% 8.47% 0.59%

Administrative 

Support

3.51% 3.17% 2.99% 17.39% 3.51% 3.17% 2.99% 17.39%

Grade-level 

distribution (A4)

GS-15 4.64% 4.83% 4.93% -5.88% 6.62% 6.21% 4.93% 34.28%

GS-14 7.31% 6.25% 4.98% 46.79% 4.65% 4.61% 5.32% -12.59%

GS-13 6.70% 6.49% 6.39% 4.85% 6.25% 6.49% 5.94% 5.22%

GS-12 5.15% 8.91% 5.79% -11.05% 9.28% 7.92% 9.09% 2.09%

GS-11 5.13% 0.00% 4.65% 10.32% 7.69% 5.71% 2.33% 230.04%

GS-9 5.56% 8.00% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 4.00% 4.17% -100.00%

GS-7 5.00% 9.09% 7.69% -34.98% 5.00% 4.55% 3.85% 29.87%

GS-4 to 8 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

FY2018 Workforce Analysis

During the FY2018 reporting period, PBGC had 111 Asian males and females. The total number 

of Asian male and female employees increased from 110 in FY 2017. The statistical data reflects 

that of PBGC’s total workforce, Asian male and female representation is above the anticipated 

representation, in comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmarks. PBGC saw a net 

decrease in Asian male representation from 5.98% (FY2017) to 5.93% (FY2018), and a net 

increase in Asian female representation from 5.56% (FY2017) to 5.83% (FY2018).

FY2018-FY2016 Trend Analysis

Over the past three fiscal years, Asian male and female representation has been above the 

National Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmark. PBGC’s participation rate for Occupational 

and Grade Level categories is as follows:

Asian Females Increase in Occupational Categories

• Administrative Support increased from 2.99% (FY16) and 3.17% (FY17) to 3.51% (FY18)

Asian Females Increase in Grade Level Categories

• GS-15 increased from 4.93% (FY16) and 6.21% (FY17) to 6.62% (FY18)

• GS-12 increased from 9.09% (FY16) and 7.92% (FY17) to 9.28% (FY18)

• GS-11 increased from 2.33% (FY16) and 5.71% (FY17) to 7.69% (FY18)

• GS-07 increased from 3.85% (FY16) and 4.55% (FY17) to 5.00% (FY18)
26

Asian Males Increase in Grade Level Category

• GS-14 increased from 4.98% (FY16) and 6.25% (FY17) to 7.31% (FY18)

• GS-13 increased from 6.39% (FY16) and 6.49% (FY17) to 6.70% (FY18)

• GS-11 increased from 4.65% (FY16) and 0.00% (FY17) to 5.13% (FY18)

Asian Males Increase in Occupation Level Category

• Administrative Support increased from 2.99% (FY16) and 3.17% (FY17) to 3.51% (FY18) 

The PBGC saw decreases in Asian males and females Grade Level representation, asfollows:

Asian Females Decrease in Grade Level Category

• GS-09 decreased from 4.17% (FY16) and 4.00% (FY17) to 0.00% (FY18)

Asian Males Decrease in Grade Level Category 

• GS-15 decreased from 4.93% (FY16) and 4.83% (FY17) to 4.64% (FY18)

Table A2: Permanent Workforce by Component – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Work Indicators Asian Males % Change Asian Females % Change

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Civilian Labor Force 

(A1)

1.97% 1.93%

Component 

Utilization

OCFO 10.34% 9.40% 8.20% 26.10% 8.90% 6.84% 5.74% 55.05%

OMA 0.88% 1.82% 1.80% -51.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

OBA 5.86% 5.62% 5.56% 5.40% 7.03% 6.74% 7.41% -5.13%

ONR 4.26% 5.00% 5.15% -17.28% 7.45% 7.00% 7.22% 3.19%

OGC 1.40% 1.45% 1.35% 3.70% 5.63% 5.80% 6.08% -17.27%

OPEA 3.23% 3.23% 3.13% 3.19% 9.68% 6.45% 6.25% 54.88%

OCIO 15.60% 15.04% 14.02% 11.27% 6.42% 6.19% 5.64% 13.83%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

FY2018 Workforce Analysis

The statistical data reflects that Asian male and female representation has been above the 

anticipated representation, in comparison to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) benchmarks, 1.97% 

for males and 1.93% for females. PBGC experienced a decrease in representation for Asian 

males in OMA, ONR and OGC during the FY2018 reporting period. There was also a decrease 

in the representation of Asian females in OBA and OGC during the FY2018 reporting period.

FY2018-FY2016 Trend Analysis

Over the past 3 years, Asian males and females have increased representation within these 

components, as follows:

Asian Males Increase in Component Category:

OCFO increased from 8.20% (FY16) and 9.40% (FY17) to 10.34% (FY18) 

OBA increased from 5.56% (FY16) and 5.62% (FY17) to 5.86% (FY18) 

OPEA increased from 3.13% (FY16) and 3.23% (FY17) to 3.23% (FY18) 

OCIO increased from 14.02% (FY16) and 15.04% (FY17) to 15.60% (FY18)
27

Asian Females Increase in Component Category:

OCFO increased from 5.74% (FY16) and 6.84% (FY17) to 8.90% (FY18) 

ONR increased from 7.22% (FY16) and 7.00% (FY17) to 7.45% (FY18) 

OPEA increased from 6.25% (FY16) and 6.45% (FY17) to 9.68% (FY18) 

OCIO increased from 5.64% (FY16) and 6.19% (FY17) to 6.42% (FY18)
28

• A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations-Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity and Sex-Permanent Workforce

• A7: Hires for Major Occupations-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and 

Sex-Permanent Workforce

• A14: Separations by Type of Separations-Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity and Sex-Permanent Workforce

• B6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations-Distribution by 

Disability-Permanent Workforce

• B7: Hires for Major Occupations-Distribution by DisabilityPermanent Workforce

• B14: Separations by Type of Separation-Distribution by DisabilityPermanent Workforce

Data Tables
29

Table A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations by RNO-Permanent Workforce

Work Indicators Hispanic Males % Change Hispanic Females % Change

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

5.17% 4.79%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 2.01% 1.89% 2.04% -1.47% 2.22% 2.20% 2.45% -9.39%

Occupational 

Distributions (A6):

Accounting (0510) 1.64% 1.56% 1.56% 5.13% 1.64% 1.56% 0.00% NA

Occupational CLF 2.19% 2.19% 2.19% 3.93% 3.93% 3.93%

Auditing (0511) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 5.26% 5.17% 1.74%

Occupational CLF 2.19% 2.19% 2.19% 3.93% 3.93% 3.93%

General Attorney 

(0905)

0.99% 1.01% 0.97% 2.06% 1.98% 1.01% 0.97% 104.12%

Occupational CLF 2.52% 2.52% 2.52% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85%

Employee Benefit 

Law Specialist 

(0958)

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.86% -100.00%

Occupational CLF 2.05% 2.05% 2.05% 7.35% 7.35% 7.35%

Contract Specialist 

(1102)

5.26% 5.26% 5.00% 5.20% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% -100.00%

Occupational CLF 3.29% 3.29% 3.29% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80%

Financial Analyst 

(1160)

4.44% 4.08% 3.92% 13.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF 3.10% 3.10% 3.10% 1.97% 1.97% 1.97%

Actuary Science 

(1510)

4.30% 3.23% 3.26% 31.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF 1.30% 1.30% 1.30% 0.56% 0.56% 0.56%

Information 

Technology 

Specialist (2210)

2.86% 3.67% 3.77% -24.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF 5.39% 5.39% 5.39% 2.17% 2.17% 2.17%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from FY2016 to FY2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the 

value in 2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

Hispanic Employees in PBGC Workforce

Hispanic males are well above their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in 

the Occupational CLF for the following mission-critical occupations:

 Contract Specialist: 5.26% (PBGC) vs. 3.29% (OCLF)

 Financial Analyst: 4.44% (PBGC) vs. 3.10% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 4.30% (PBGC) vs. 1.30% (OCLF)

Hispanic males have lower than anticipated participation rates in following mission-critical 

occupations:

 Accounting: 1.64% (PBGC) vs. 2.19% (OCLF)

 Auditing: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 2.19% (OCLF)

 General Attorney: 0.99% (PBGC) vs. 2.52% (OCLF)

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 2.05% (OCLF)

 Information Technology Specialist: 2.86% (PBGC) vs. 5.39% (OCLF)
30

Hispanic females are well above their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability 

in the Occupational CLF for the following mission-critical occupations:

 Auditing: 5.26% (PBGC) vs. 3.93% (OCLF)

 General Attorney: 1.98% (PBGC) vs. 1.85% (OCLF)

Hispanic females have lower than anticipated participation rates in following mission-critical 

occupations:

 Accounting: 1.64% (PBGC) vs. 3.93% (OCLF)

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 7.35% (OCLF)

 Contract Specialist: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 3.80% (OCLF)

 Financial Analyst: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 1.97% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 0.56% (OCLF)

 Information Technology Specialist: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 2.17% (OCLF)

3- year trend analysis (FY2018-FY2016)

When considering PBGC’s mission-critical occupations over a three-year period (FY2018 - 

FY2016), Hispanic males were below their anticipated participation rate relative to their 

availability in the Occupational CLF for Accounting (0510), Auditing (0511), General Attorney 

(0905), Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958), and Information Technology Specialist (2210) 

occupations.

Hispanic females were below their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF for Accounting (0510), Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958), Financial 

Analyst (1160), Actuary Science (1510) and Information Technology Specialist (2210) 

occupations.

Participation rates for Hispanic females in the General Attorney mission-critical occupation 

increased over three years from 0.97% (FY-16) and 1.01% (FY-17) to 1.98% (FY-18) and is 

above their availability in the OCLF of 1.85%

Participation rates for Hispanic females in the Auditing mission-critical occupation increased 

over three years from 5.17% (FY-16) and 5.26% (FY-17) to 5.26% (FY-18) and is above the 

OCLF of 3.93% and National CLF of 4.79%.

Participation rates for Hispanic females in the Employee Benefit Law Specialist occupation 

decreased from 2.86% (FY-16) and 0.00% (FY-17) to 0.00% (FY-18) and remain below the 

OCLF of 7.35%.

Participation rates for Hispanic females in the Contract Specialist occupation decreased from 

5.00% (FY-16) 0.00%, and (FY-17) to 0.00% (FY-18) and remain below the OCLF of 3.80%.
31

Table A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations by RNO-Permanent Workforce

Work Indicators White Males % Change White Females % Change

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

38.33% 34.03%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 23.31% 24.13% 25.20% -7.50% 17.16% 16.68% 17.04% 0.70%

Occupational 

Distributions (A6):

Accounting (0510) 18.03% 17.19% 18.75% -3.84% 6.56% 7.81% 7.81% -16.01%

Occupational CLF 31.79% 31.79% 31.79% 44.23% 44.23% 44.23%

Auditing (0511) 12.28% 12.28% 12.93% -5.03% 9.65% 9.65% 9.48% 1.79%

Occupational CLF 31.79% 31.79% 31.79% 44.23% 44.23% 44.23%

General Attorney 

(0905)

37.62% 41.41% 43.69% -13.89% 40.59% 38.38% 34.95% 16.14%

Occupational CLF 59.68% 59.68% 59.68% 26.68% 26.68% 26.68%

Employee Benefit 

Law Specialist (0958)

18.75% 17.14% 17.14% 9.39% 3.13% 2.86% 2.86% 9.44%

Occupational CLF 19.18% 19.18% 19.18% 55.67% 55.67% 55.67%

Contract Specialist 

(1102)

31.58% 31.58% 30.00% 5.27% 21.05% 21.05% 20.00% 5.25%

Occupational CLF 38.09% 38.09% 38.09% 41.87% 41.87% 41.87%

Financial Analyst 

(1160)

33.33% 38.78% 41.18% -19.06% 22.22% 18.37% 19.61% 13.31%

Occupational CLF 53.98% 53.98% 53.96% 22.01% 22.01% 22.01%

Actuary Science 

(1510)

37.63% 38.71% 40.22% -6.44% 16.13% 16.13% 15.22% 5.98%

Occupational CLF 60.44% 60.44% 60.44% 27.01% 27.01% 27.01%

Information 

Technology Specialist 

(2210)

33.33% 34.86% 33.02% 0.94% 5.71% 5.50% 6.60% -13.48%

Occupational CLF 52.21% 52.21% 52.21% 20.89% 20.89% 20.89%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

White Employees in PBGC Workforce

Participation rates for White males in PBGC mission-critical occupations is less than their 

anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the Occupational CLF for all 

occupations:

 Accounting: 18.03% (PBGC) vs. 31.79% (OCLF)

 Auditing: 12.28% (PBGC) vs. 31.79% (OCLF)

 General Attorney: 37.62% (PBGC) vs. 59.68% (OCLF)

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 18.75% (PBGC) vs. 19.18% (OCLF)

 Contract Specialist: 31.58% (PBGC) vs. 38.09% (OCLF)

 Financial Analyst: 33.33% (PBGC) vs. 53.98% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 37.63% (PBGC) vs. 60.44% (OCLF)

 Information Technology Specialist: 33.33% (PBGC) vs. 52.21% (OCLF)

White females are above their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF for the following mission-critical occupations:
32

 General Attorney: 40.59 (PBGC) vs. 26.68% (OCLF)) 

 Financial Analyst: 22.22% (PBGC) vs. 22.01% (OCLF)

White females have lower than anticipated participation rates in following mission-critical 

occupations: 

 Accounting: 6.56% (PBGC) vs. 44.23% (OCLF)

 Auditing: 9.65% (PBGC) vs. 44.23% (OCLF)

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 3.13% (PBGC) vs. 55.67% (OCLF)

 Contract Specialist: 21.05% (PBGC) vs. 41.87% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 16.13% (PBGC) vs. 27.01% (OCLF)

 Information Technology Specialist: 5.71% (PBGC) vs. 20.89% (OCLF)

3- year trend analysis (2018-2016)

When considering PBGC’s mission-critical occupations over three-year period (FY2018 - 

FY2016), White males were below their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability 

in the Occupational CLF for Accounting (0510), Auditing (0511), General Attorney (0905), 

Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958), Contract Specialist (1102) Financial Analyst (1160), 

Actuary Science (1510), and Information Technology Specialist (2210) occupations.

Participation rates for White males in the Employee Benefit Law Specialist mission-critical 

occupation increased over three years from 17.14% (FY16) and 17.14% (FY17) to 18.75% 

(FY18) but remain below the occupational CLF of 19.18%

Participation rates for White males in the Contract Specialist occupation increased over three 

years from 30.00% (FY16) and 31.58% (FY17) to 31.58% (FY18) but remain below the 

occupational CLF of 38.09%

Participation rates for White males in the Financial Analyst occupation decreased from 41.18% 

(FY16) 38.78% (FY17) to 33.33% (FY18) and remain below the occupational CLF of 53.98%.

Participation rates for White males in the Actuary Science occupation decreased from 40.22% 

(FY16) 38.71% (FY17) to 37.63% (FY18) and remain below the occupational CLF of 60.44%.

White females were below their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF for Accounting (0510), Auditing (0511), Employee Benefit Law Specialist 

(0958), Contract Specialist (1102), Actuary Science (1510), and Information Technology 

Specialist (2210) occupations.

Participation rates for White females in the Contract Specialist occupation increased over three 

years from 20.00% (FY16) and 21.05 (FY17) to 21.05% (FY18) but remain below the 

occupational CLF of 41.87%.

Participation rates for White females in the Financial Analyst occupation increased over three 

years from 19.61% (FY16) and 18.37% (FY17) to 22.22% (FY18) and is above the occupational 

CLF of 22.01%.

Participation rates for White females in the Actuary Science occupation increased from 15.22% 

(FY16) and 16.13% (FY17) to 16.13% (FY18) but remain below the occupational CLF of 27.01%.
33

Participation rates for White females in the Information Technology Specialist occupation 

decreased from 6.60% (FY16) and 5.50% (FY17) to 5.71% (FY18) and remains below the 

occupational CLF of 20.89%.

Table A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations by RNO-Permanent Workforce

Work Indicators Black Males % Change Black Females % Change

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

5.49% 6.53%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 12.5% 12.80% 12.04% 3.82% 29.66% 29.80% 29.18% 1.64%

Occupational 

Distributions (A6):

Accounting (0510) 21.31% 20.31% 21.88% -2.61% 27.87% 28.13% 29.69% -6.13%

Occupational CLF 2.49% 2.49% 2.49% 5.66% 5.66% 5.66%

Auditing (0511) 16.67% 21.05% 20.69% -19.43% 39.47% 36.84% 37.07% 6.47%

Occupational CLF 2.49% 2.49% 2.49% 5.66% 5.66% 5.66%

General Attorney 

(0905)

0.99% 2.02% 0.97% 2.06% 10.89% 9.09% 9.71% 12.15%

Occupational CLF 2.13% 2.13% 2.13% 2.60% 2.60% 2.60%

Employee Benefit 

Law Specialist 

(0958)

21.88% 22.86% 22.86% -4.29% 53.13% 54.29% 51.43% 3.31%

Occupational CLF 2.66% 2.66% 2.66% 7.41% 7.41% 7.41%

Contract Specialist 

(1102)

21.05% 21.05% 20.00% 5.25% 21.05% 21.05% 20.00% 5.25%

Occupational CLF 3.01% 3.01% 3.01% 5.47% 5.47% 5.47%

Financial Analyst 

(1160)

22.22% 20.41% 17.65% 25.89% 8.89% 8.16% 7.84% 13.39%

Occupational CLF 3.55% 3.55% 3.55% 3.96% 3.96% 3.96%

Actuary Science 

(1510)

10.75% 10.75% 10.87% -1.10% 9.68% 9.68% 9.78% -1.02%

Occupational CLF 1.17% 1.17% 1.17% 1.23% 1.23% 1.23%

Information 

Technology 

Specialist (2210)

12.38% 11.93% 12.26% 0.98% 20.00% 19.27% 20.75% -3.61%

Occupational CLF 6.61% 6.61% 6.61% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

Black Employees in PBGC Workforce

Participation rates for Black males in PBGC mission-critical occupations is higher than their 

anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the Occupational CLF and National 

CLF of 5.49% for following occupations:

 Accounting: 21.31% (PBGC) vs. 2.49% (OCLF)

 Auditing: 16.67% (PBGC) vs. 2.49% (OCLF)

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 21.88%(PBGC) vs. 2.66% (OCLF)

 Contract Specialist: 21.05% (PBGC) vs. 3.01% (OCLF)

 Financial Analyst: 22.22% (PBGC) vs. 3.55% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 10.75% (PBGC) vs. 1.17% (OCLF)
34

 Information Technology Specialist: 12.38% (PBGC) vs. 6.61% (OCLF)

Black males are below their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF and National CLF of 5.49% for the following mission-critical occupations:

 General Attorney: 0.99% (PBGC) vs. 2.13% (OCLF)

Black females have higher than anticipated participation rates relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF and National CLF of 6.53% in all PBGC mission-critical occupations:

 Accounting: 27.87% (PBGC) vs. 5.66% (OCLF)

 Auditing: 39.47% (PBGC) vs. 5.66% (OCLF)

 General Attorney: 10.89% (PBGC) vs. 2.60% (OCLF)

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 53.13% (PBGC) vs. 7.41% (OCLF)

 Contract Specialist: 21.05% (PBGC) vs. 5.47% (OCLF)

 Financial Analyst: 8.89% (PBGC) vs. 3.96% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 9.68% (PBGC) vs. 1.23% (OCLF)

 Information Technology Specialist: 20.00% (PBGC) vs. 4.50% (OCLF)

3- year trend analysis (FY2018-FY2016)

When considering PBGC’s mission-critical occupations over three-year period (FY2018 - 

FY2016), Black males were well above their anticipated participation rate relative to their 

availability in the Occupational CLF and National CLF for Accounting (0510), Auditing (0511), 

Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958), Contract Specialist (1102), Financial Analyst (1160), 

Actuary Science (1510), and Information Technology Specialist (2210) occupations.

Participation rates for Black males in Accounting occupation decreased over three years from 

21.88% (FY16) and 20.31% (FY17) to 21.31% (FY18) but remains above the National CLF of 

5.49%.

Participation rates for Black males in Auditing occupation decreased over three years from 

20.69% (FY16) and 21.05% (FY17) to 16.67% (FY18) but remains above the National CLF of 

5.49%.

Participation rates for Black males in Employee Benefit Law Specialist decreased over three 

years from 22.86% (FY16) and 22.86% (FY17) to 21.88% (FY18) but remain above the National 

CLF of 5.49%.

Participation rates for Black males in Contract Specialist occupation increased from 20.00% 

(FY16) and 21.05% (FY17) to 21.05% (FY18) and remain above the National CLF of 5.49%.

Participation rates for Black males in Financial Analyst mission-critical occupation increased 

over three years from 17.65% (FY16) and 20.41% (FY17) to 22.22% (FY18) and is above the 

National CLF of 5.49%.

Participation rates for Black males in Actuary Science occupation decreased over three years 

from 10.87% (FY16) and 10.75% (FY17) to 10.75% (FY18) but remain above the National CLF 

of 5.49%.

Black females were above their anticipated participation rates relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF and National CLF for Accounting (0510), Auditing (0511), General Attorney
35

(0905), Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958), Contract Specialist (1102), Financial Analyst 

(1160), Actuary Science (1510), and Information Technology Specialist (2210) occupations.

Participation rates for Black females in the Accounting occupation decreased over three years 

from 29.69% (FY16) and 28.13% (FY17) to 27.87% (FY18) but remain above the National CLF 

of 6.53%.

Participation rates for Black females in the Auditing occupation increased over three years from 

37.07% (FY16) and 36.84% (FY17) to 39.47% (FY18) and remain above the National CLF of 

6.53%.

Participation rates for Black females in the General Attorney occupation increased over three 

years from 9.71% (FY16) and 9.09% (FY17) to 10.89% (FY-18) and remain above the National 

CLF of 6.53%.

Participation rates for Black females in the Contract Specialist occupation increased over three 

years from 20.00% (FY16) and 21.05 (FY17) to 21.05% (FY18) and remain above the National 

CLF of 6.53%.

Participation rates for Black females in the Financial Analyst occupation increased over three 

years from 7.84% (FY16) and 8.16% (FY17) to 8.89% (FY18) and remain above the National 

CLF of 6.53%.

Participation rates for Black females in Actuary Science occupation decreased over three years 

from 9.78% (FY16) and 9.68% (FY17) to 9.68% (FY18) but remain above the National CLF of 

6.53%.

Participation rates for Black females in Information Technology Specialist occupation decreased 

over three years from 20.75% (FY16) and 19.27% (FY17) to 20.00% (FY18) but remain above 

the National CLF of 6.53%.

Table A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations by RNO-Permanent Workforce

Work Indicators Asian Males % Change Asian Females % Change

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

1.97% 1.93%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 5.93% 5.98% 5.41% 9.61% 5.83% 5.56% 5.82% 0.17%

Occupational 

Distributions 

(A6):

Accounting (0510) 14.75% 15.63% 12.50% 18.00% 8.20% 7.81% 12.50% -34.40%

Occupational CLF 3.06% 3.06% 3.06% 5.49% 5.49% 3.06%

Auditing (0511) 7.02% 7.02% 6.03% 16.42% 7.89% 7.02% 7.76% 0.00%

Occupational CLF 3.06% 3.06% 3.06% 5.49% 5.49% 5.49%

General Attorney 

(0905)

0.99% 1.01% 0.97% 2.06% 5.94% 6.06% 7.77% -23.55%

Occupational CLF 1.82% 1.82% 1.82% 1.74% 1.74% 1.74%

Employee Benefit 

Law Specialist 

(0958)

3.13% 2.86% 2.86% 9.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF 1.64% 1.64% 1.64% 2.24% 2.24% 2.24%
36

Note: % change is the percentage change for the total workforce and for each gender and RNO 

group from 2016 to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 

2018 and dividing the difference by the value in 2016.

Asian Employees in PBGC Workforce

Participation rates for Asian males in PBGC mission-critical occupations is higher than their 

anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the Occupational CLF and National 

CLF of 1.97% for following occupations:

 Accounting: 14.75% (PBGC) vs. 3.06% (OCLF)

 Auditing: 7.02% (PBGC) vs. 3.06% (OCLF)

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 3.13% (PBGC) vs. 1.64% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 10.75% (PBGC) vs. 4.06% (OCLF)

 Information Technology Specialist: 18.10% (PBGC) vs. 5.14% (OCLF)

Asian males have lower than anticipated participation rates relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF for the following mission-critical occupations:

 General Attorney: 0.99% (PBGC) vs. 1.82% (OCLF)

 Contract Specialist: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 1.38%

 Financial Analyst: 4.44% (PBGC) vs. 6.14% (OCLF)

Participation rates for Asian females in PBGC mission-critical occupations is higher than their 

anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the Occupational CLF and National 

CLF of 1.93% for following occupations:

 Accounting: 8.20% (PBGC) vs. 5.49% (OCLF)

 Auditing: 7.89% (PBGC) vs. 5.49% (OCLF)

 General Attorney: 5.94% (PBGC) vs. 1.74% (OCLF)

 Financial Analyst: 4.44% (PBGC) vs. 4.40% (OCLF)

 Actuary Science: 10.75% (PBGC) vs. 4.06% (OCLF)

 Information Technology Specialist: 18.10% (PBGC) vs. 5.14% (OCLF)

Asian females have lower than anticipated participation rates in following mission-critical 

occupations:

 Employee Benefit Law Specialist: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 2.24% (OCLF)

 Contract Specialist: 0.00% (PBGC) vs. 1.38% (OCLF)

Contract Specialist 

(1102)

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF 1.38% 1.38% 1.38% 1.77% 1.77% 1.77%

Financial Analyst 

(1160)

4.44% 4.08% 3.92% 13.27% 4.44 6.12% 3.92% 13.27%

Occupational CLF 6.14% 6.14% 6.14% 4.40 4.40% 6.14%

Actuary Science 

(1510)

10.75% 10.75% 9.78% 9.92% 10.75% 10.75% 10.87% -1.10%

Occupational CLF 4.06% 4.06% 4.06% 3.91% 3.91% 3.91%

Information 

Technology 

Specialist (2210)

18.10% 17.43% 16.04% 12.84% 6.67% 6.42% 6.60% 1.06%

Occupational CLF 5.14% 5.14% 5.14% 1.55% 1.55% 1.55%
37

3-year trend analysis (FY2018-FY2016)

When considering PBGC’s mission-critical occupations over three-year period (FY2018 - 

FY2016), Asian males were below their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability 

in the Occupational CLF for General Attorney (0905) and Contract Specialist (1102) 

occupations.

Participation rates for Asian males in the Financial Analyst mission-critical occupation increased 

over three years from 3.92% (FY16) and 4.08% (FY17) to 4.44% (FY18) and is above the 

National CLF of 1.97%

Participation rates for Asian males in the Information Technology Specialist occupation 

increased over three years from 16.04% (FY16) and 17.43% (FY17) to 18.10% (FY18) and is 

above the National CLF of 1.97%

Participation rates for Asian males in the Auditing mission-critical occupation increased over 

three years from 6.03% (FY16) 7.02% and (FY17) to 7.02% (FY18) and is above the national 

CLF of 1.97%

Participation rates for Asian males in the Actuary Science mission-critical occupation increased 

over three years from 9.78% (FY16) and 10.75% (FY17) to 10.75% (FY18) and is above the 

National CLF of 1.97%

Asian females were below their anticipated participation rate relative to their availability in the 

Occupational CLF for the Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958) and Contract Specialist 

(1102) occupations.

Over three- year period participation rates for Asian females were above the national CLF of 

1.93% for Accounting (0510), Auditing (0511), General Attorney (0905), Financial Analyst 

(1160), Actuary Science (1510), and Information Technology Specialist (2210) mission-critical 

occupations.

Participation rates for Asian females in the Accounting occupation decreased over three years 

from 12.50% (FY16) and 7.81% (FY17) to 8.20% (FY18) but remain above the occupational 

CLF of 5.49% and National CLF of 1.93%

Participation rates for Asian females in the General Attorney occupation decreased over three 

years from 7.77% (FY16) and 6.06% (FY17) to 5.94% (FY18) but remain above the occupational 

CLF of 1.74% and national CLF of 1.93%.
38

Table B6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations Distribution by Disability-Permanent 

Workforce 

Work Indicators Employees without 

Disabilities

% Change Employees with 

Disabilities

% Change

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 85.28% 86.57% 86.73% -1.67% 9.85% 8.92% 8.57% 14.94%

Occupational 

Distributions (A6):

Accounting (0510) 90.16% 89.06% 90.63% -0.52% 9.84% 10.94% 9.38% 4.90%

Occupational CLF

Auditing (0511) 91.30% 91.23% 90.43% 0.96% 4.35% 4.39% 4.35% 0.00%

Occupational CLF

General Attorney 

(0905)

84.31% 83.84% 84.76% -0.53% 7.84% 7.07% 6.67% 17.54%

Occupational CLF

Employee Benefit 

Law Specialist 

(0958)

93.75% 91.29% 91.43% 2.54% 6.25% 5.71% 5.71% 9.46%

Occupational CLF

Contract Specialist 

(1102)

84.21% 94.74% 95.00% -11.36% 10.53% 5.26% 5.00% 110.60%

Occupational CLF

Financial Analyst 

(1160)

88.89% 89.80% 92.00% -3.38% 11.11% 8.16% 6.00% 85.17%

Occupational CLF

Actuary Science 

(1510)

86.02% 87.10% 88.89% -3.23% 9.68% 8.60% 7.78% 24.42%

Occupational CLF

Information 

Technology 

Specialist (2210)

84.76% 85.32% 86.54% -2.06% 12.38% 11.01% 10.58% 17.01%

Occupational CLF

Note: % change is the percentage change for each group in the occupational category from 2016 

to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 2018 and dividing 

the difference by the value in 2016.

Employees with Disabilities in PBGC Workforce

Persons with Disabilities (PWD) are not tracked in the US labor pool. However, EEOC has 

established a goal of 12% for persons with disabilities. Employees with Disabilities are above 

EEOC’s established goal of 12% for the following mission-critical occupation: Information 

Technology Specialist which is represented at 12.38%. Employees with Disabilities are below 

EEOC established goal of 12% for the following mission critical occupations: Accounting (0510), 

Auditing (0511), General Attorney (0905), Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958), Contract 

Specialist (1102), Financial Analyst (1160), and Actuary Science (1510).

This data is based solely on individual self-identification obtained through OPM Standard Form

256 and does not consider individuals with disabilities who are identified through PBGC’s 

reasonable accommodation program and under hiring authorities that take disability into 

account.
39

3-year trend analysis (FY2018-FY2016)

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased in the PBGC total workforce over 

three years from 8.57% (FY16) and 8.92% (FY17) to 9.85% (FY18) but remain below EEOC 

established goal of 12%.

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased over three years in Accounting 

mission-critical occupation from 9.38% (FY16) and 10.94% (FY17) to 9.84% (FY18) but remain 

below EEOC goal of 12%.

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased over three years in General 

Attorney occupation from 6.67% (FY16) and 7.07% (FY17) to 7.84% (FY18) but remain below 

EEOC goal of 12%.

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased over three years in Employee 

Benefit Law Specialist occupation from 5.71% (FY16) and 5.71% (FY17) to 6.25% (FY18) but 

remain below EEOC goal of 12%.

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased over three years in Contract 

Specialist occupation from 5.00 % (FY16) and 5.26% (FY17) to 10.53% (FY18) but remain below 

EEOC goal of 12%.

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased over three years in the Financial 

Analyst occupation from 6.00% (FY16) and 8.16% (FY17) to 11.11% (FY18) but remain below 

EEOC goal of 12%.

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased over three years in the Actuary 

Science occupation from 7.78% (FY16) and 8.60% (FY17) to 9.68% (FY18) but remain below 

EEOC goal of 12%.

Participation rates for Employees with Disabilities increased over three years in the Information 

Technology Specialist occupation from 10.58% (FY16) and 11.01% (FY17) to 12.38% (FY18) 

and is above EEOC established goal of 12%.

Table B6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations Distribution by Disability-Permanent 

Workforce 

Work Indicators Employees without 

Targeted Disabilities

% Change Employees with Targeted 

Disabilities

% Change

Civilian Labor 

Force (A1)

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 85.28% 86.57% 86.73% -1.67% 1.59% 1.33% 1.33% 19.55%

Occupational 

Distributions (A6):

Accounting (0510) 90.16% 89.06% 90.63% -0.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF

Auditing (0511) 91.30% 91.23% 90.43% 0.96% 0.87% 0.88% 0.87% 0.00%

Occupational CLF

General Attorney 

(0905)

84.31% 83.84% 84.76% -0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF
40

Note: % change is the percentage change for each group in the occupational category from 2016 

to 2018. This was calculated by subtracting the value in 2016 from the value in 2018 and dividing 

the difference by the value in 2016.

Employees with Targeted Disabilities in PBGC Workforce

Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTD) are not tracked in the US labor pool. However, 

EEOC has established a goal of 2.00% for persons with targeted disabilities. Employees with 

Targeted Disabilities are above EEOC established goal of 2.00% for Financial Analyst (1160), 

Actuary Science (1510) and Information Technology Specialist (2210) mission-critical 

occupations. The participation rate for Employees with Targeted Disabilities is below EEOC 

established goal of 2.00% for Accounting (0510), Auditing (0511), General Attorney (0905), 

Employee Benefit Law Specialist (0958), and Contract Specialist (1102) mission-critical 

occupations.

This data is based solely on individual self-identification obtained through OPM Standard Form

256 and does not consider individuals with disabilities who are identified through PBGC’s 

reasonable accommodation program and under hiring authorities that take disability into 

account.

3-year trend analysis (FY2018-FY2016)

The participation rate for Employees with Targeted Disabilities increased over three years in 

PBGC total workforce from 1.33% (FY16) 1.33% (FY17) to 1.59% (FY18) but remain below 

EEOC established goal of 2.00%.

The participation rate for Employees with Targeted Disabilities increased over three years in the 

Financial Analyst-1160 occupation from 2.00% (FY16) and 2.04% (FY17) to 2.22% (FY18) and 

is above EEOC’s established goal of 2.00%. The participation rate for Employees with Targeted 

Disabilities increased over three years in the Actuary Science-1510 occupation from 3.33% 

(FY16) and 4.30% (FY17) to 4.30% (FY18) and is above EEOC’s established goal of 2.00%. 

The participation rate for Employees with Targeted Disabilities decreased over three years in 

the Information Technology Specialist occupation from 2.88% (FY16) to 2.86% (FY18) but 

remains above EEOC established goal of 2.00%.

Employee Benefit 

Law Specialist 

(0958)

93.75% 91.29% 91.43% 2.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF

Contract Specialist 

(1102)

84.21% 94.74% 95.00% -11.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF

Financial Analyst 

(1160)

88.89% 89.80% 92.00% -3.38% 2.22% 2.04% 2.00% 11.00%

Occupational CLF

Actuary Science 

(1510)

86.02% 87.10% 88.89% -3.23% 4.30% 4.30% 3.33% 29.13%

Occupational CLF

Information 

Technology 

Specialist (2210)

84.76% 85.32% 86.54% -2.06% 2.86% 2.75% 2.88% -0.69

Occupational CLF
41

Table A7: Applicants and Hires for Major Occupations-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex 

Hispanic Employees in PBGC

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 2.19%

Voluntarily Identified 465 4.52%

Qualified Applicants 420 4.52%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.06%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.06%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 2.19%

Voluntarily Identified 488 3.48%

Qualified Applicants 424 2.59%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.59%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.18%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male

0905 General Attorney

CLF 2.52%

Voluntarily Identified 150 7.33%

Qualified Applicants 145 7.59%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.91%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

3.01%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male

1102 Director, Procurement

CLF 3.29%

Voluntarily Identified 395 7.34%

Qualified Applicants 297 6.06%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.23%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.84%
42

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male

1160 Supvy. Financial Analyst

CLF 3.10%

Voluntarily Identified 496 7.86%

Qualified Applicants 174 6.32%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.54%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.04%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male

1510 Actuary

CLF 5.39%

Voluntarily Identified 412 8.98%

Qualified Applicants 306 9.15%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.67%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.70%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 5.39%

Voluntarily Identified 412 8.98%

Qualified Applicants 306 9.15%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.67%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.70%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 3.93%

Voluntarily Identified 465 5.16%

Qualified Applicants 420 5.00%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.31%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.27%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 3.93%

Voluntarily Identified 488 3.48%

Qualified Applicants 424 3.54%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.88%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.90%
43

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 1.85%

Voluntarily Identified 150 4.67%

Qualified Applicants 145 4.83%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.52%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.61%

1102 Director, Procurement Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Female

CLF 3.80%

Voluntarily Identified 395 5.57%

Qualified Applicants 297 5.72%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies *

1.47%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies

1.51%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Female

1160 Supvy Financial Analyst

CLF 2.00%

Voluntarily Identified 496 3.02%

Qualified Applicants 174 3.45%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.51%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.73%

Target Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 2.17%

Voluntarily Identified 412 2.43%

Qualified Applicants 306 2.61%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.12%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.20%
44

White Employees in PBGC

Target Workforce White

All Male

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 31.79%

Voluntarily Identified 465 10.11%

Qualified Applicants 420 10.24%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.32%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.32%

Target Workforce White

All Male

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 31.79%

Voluntarily Identified 488 10.86%

Qualified Applicants 420 11.56%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.34%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.36%

Target Workforce White

All Male

0905 General Attorney

CLF 59.68%

Voluntarily Identified 150 23.33%

Qualified Applicants 145 22.07%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.39%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.37%

Target Workforce White

All Male

1102 Director, Procurement

CLF 38.09%

Voluntarily Identified 395 12.91%

Qualified Applicants 297 14.14%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.34%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.37%
45

Target Workforce White

All Male

1160 Supvy. Financial Analyst

CLF 54.00%

Voluntarily Identified 496 20.77%

Qualified Applicants 174 21.84%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.38%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.40%

Target Workforce White

All Male

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 52.21%

Voluntarily Identified 412 19.66%

Qualified Applicants 306 17.32%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.38%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.33%

Target Workforce White

All Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 44.23%

Voluntarily Identified 465 10.75%

Qualified Applicants 420 10.95%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.24%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.25%

Target Workforce White

All Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 44.23%

Voluntarily Identified 488 8.61%

Qualified Applicants 424 9.43%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.19%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.21%
46

Target Workforce White

All Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 26.68%

Voluntarily Identified 150 30.00%

Qualified Applicants 145 31.03%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.12%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.16%

1102 Director, Procurement Target Workforce White

All Female

CLF 41.87%

Voluntarily Identified 395 8.10%

Qualified Applicants 297 8.42%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies *

0.19%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies

0.20%

Target Workforce White

All Female

1160 Supvy Financial Analyst

CLF 22.00%

Voluntarily Identified 496 10.89%

Qualified Applicants 174 12.07%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.50%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.55%

Target Workforce White

All Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 20.89%

Voluntarily Identified 412 5.83%

Qualified Applicants 306 6.21%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.28%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.30%
47

Black or African American Employees in PBGC

Target Workforce Black

All Male

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 2.49%

Voluntarily Identified 465 21.29%

Qualified Applicants 420 21.90%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

8.55%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

8.80%

Target Workforce Black

All Male

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 2.49%

Voluntarily Identified 488 25.00%

Qualified Applicants 420 23.82%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

10.04%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

9.57%

Target Workforce Black

All Male

0905 General Attorney

CLF 2.13%

Voluntarily Identified 150 10.00%

Qualified Applicants 145 10.34%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

4.69%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

4.85%

1102 Director, Procurement Target Workforce Black

All Male

3.01%

Voluntarily Identified 395 20.25%

Qualified Applicants 297 20.20%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies *

6.73%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies

6.71%

Target Workforce Black

All Male

1160 Supvy. Financial Analyst

CLF 3.50%

Voluntarily Identified 496 18.55%

Qualified Applicants 174 14.37%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

5.30%

ualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

4.11%
48

Target Workforce Black

All Male

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 6.61%

Voluntarily Identified 412 26.46%

Qualified Applicants 306 26.14%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

4.00%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

3.95%

Target Workforce Black

All Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 5.66%

Voluntarily Identified 465 29.46%

Qualified Applicants 420 28.81%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

5.20%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

5.09%

Target Workforce Black

All Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 5.66%

Voluntarily Identified 488 28.89%

Qualified Applicants 424 28.77%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

5.10%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

5.08%

Target Workforce Black

All Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 2.60%

Voluntarily Identified 150 19.33%

Qualified Applicants 145 20.00%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

7.43%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

7.69%

1102 Director, Procurement Target Workforce Black

All Female

CLF 5.47%

Voluntarily Identified 395 33.42%

Qualified Applicants 297 31.99%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies *

6.10%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies

5.85%
49

Target Workforce Black

All Female

1160 Supvy Financial Analyst

CLF 3.80%

Voluntarily Identified 496 16.73%

Qualified Applicants 174 16.09%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

4.40%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

4.23%

Target Workforce Black

All Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 4.50%

Voluntarily Identified 412 13.83%

Qualified Applicants 306 13.40%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

3.07%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.98%
50

Asian Employees in PBGC

Target Workforce Asian

All Male

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 3.06%

Voluntarily Identified 465 7.96%

Qualified Applicants 420 8.10%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.60%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.65%

Target Workforce Asian

All Male

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 3.06%

Voluntarily Identified 488 6.56%

Qualified Applicants 424 6.84%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.14%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.24%

Target Workforce Asian

All Male

0905 General Attorney

CLF 1.82%

Voluntarily Identified 150 .67%

Qualified Applicants 145 .69%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

0.37%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.38%

1102 Director, Procurement Target Workforce Asian

All Male

CLF 1.38%

Voluntarily Identified 395 4.56%

Qualified Applicants 297 4.38%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies *

3.30%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies

3.17%
51

Target Workforce Asian

All Male

1160 Supvy Financial Analyst

CLF 5.50%

Voluntarily Identified 496 12.50%

Qualified Applicants 174 16.67%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.27%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

3.03%

Target Workforce Asian

All Male

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 5.14%

Voluntarily Identified 412 17.72%

Qualified Applicants 306 20.92%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

3.44%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

4.07%

Target Workforce Asian

All Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 5.49%

Voluntarily Identified 465 9.68%

Qualified Applicants 420 9.52%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.76%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.73%

Target Workforce Asian

All Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 5.49%

Voluntarily Identified 488 7.79%

Qualified Applicants 424 8.96%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.42%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.63%

Target Workforce Asian

All Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 1.74%

Voluntarily Identified 150 2.67%

Qualified Applicants 145 2.76%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.53%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.59%
52

1102 Director, Procurement Target Workforce Asian

All Female

CLF 1.77%

Voluntarily Identified 395 4.56%

Qualified Applicants 297 5.39%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies *

2.58%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies

3.05%

Target Workforce Asian

All Female

1160 Supvy Financial Analyst

CLF 4.20%

Voluntarily Identified 496 7.46%

Qualified Applicants 174 9.20%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

1.78%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.19%

Target Workforce Asian

All Female

1510 Actuary

CLF 3.40%

Voluntarily Identified 412 50.00%

Qualified Applicants 306 50.00%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

14.71%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

14.71%

Target Workforce Asian

All Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 1.55%

Voluntarily Identified 412 3.64%

Qualified Applicants 306 3.59%

Voluntary Identified Applicants 

vs. CLF Discrepancies*

2.34%

Qualified Applicants vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.31%

Workforce Analysis (2018)

Hispanic females have less than anticipated representation in the voluntarily identified and 

qualified applicant pool compared to the CLF in the Supervisory Auditor mission-critical 

occupations.

White males have lower than anticipated representation in the voluntarily identified and qualified 

applicant pools compared to the CLF in six major occupations: Supervisory Accountant, 

Supervisory Auditor, General Attorney, Director Procurement, Supervisory Financial Analyst 

and IT Specialist.
53

White females have lower than anticipated representation in the voluntarily identified and 

qualified applicant pool compared to the CLF in five major occupations: Supervisory Accountant, 

Supervisory Auditor, Director Procurement, Supervisory Financial Analyst, and ITSpecialist.

Black males and females have higher than anticipated representation in the voluntarily identified 

applicant pools compared to the CLF in all major occupations.

Asian males have lower than anticipated representation in the voluntarily identified and qualified 

applicant pool compared to the CLF in the General Attorney mission-critical occupation.

Table B7: Applicants and Hires for Major Occupations-Distribution by Disability

Total 

Workforce

Total by Disability Status

No 

Disability

Not 

Identified

Disability Targeted 

Disability

2018 Total Workforce

#Total Applicants 6805 4325 2047 433 190

% Total Applicants 63.56% 30.08% 6.36% 2.79%

# Hired 98 61 33 4 1

% Hired 62.24% 33.67% 4.08% 1.02%

% Applicants Hired 1.44% 1.41% 1.61% 0.92% 0.53%

Discrepancy* 0.37%

Total 

Workforce

Total by Disability Status

No 

Disability

Not 

Identified

Disability Targeted 

Disability

2017 Total Workforce

#Total Applicants 4056 2179 1640 237 99

% Total Applicants 53.72% 40.43% 5.84% 2.44%

# Hired 86 37 46 3 0

% Hired 43.02% 53.49% 3.49% 0.00%

% Applicants Hired 2.12% 1.70% 2.80% 1.27% 0.00%

Discrepancy* 0.00%

Total 

Workforce

Total by Disability Status

No 

Disability

Not 

Identified

Disability Targeted 

Disability

2016 Total Workforce

#Total Applicants 8534 3820 4346 368 146

% Total Applicants 44.76% 50.93% 4.31% 1.71%

# Hired 79 34 41 4 4

% Hired 43.04% 51.90% 5.06% 5.06%

% Applicants Hired 0.93% 0.89% 0.94% 1.09% 2.74%

Discrepancy* 3.08%
54

3-year trend analysis

In 2017 and 2018, the hiring rate of applicants with targeted disabilities was less than 80% of 

the hiring rate of applicants with no disabilities.

Discrepancies were evaluated using the “80 Percent” method, which declares a 

discrepancy exists if the percentage of qualified applicants in a job group within a major 

occupation is less than 80% of their availability in the voluntarily identified applicant pool. 

The numbers highlighted in red indicate a discrepancy and are triggers that possible 

barriers may exist.

Table A7: Selections for Major Occupations 

Hispanic Employees in PBGC

*Of the 5 hires, No Hispanic Selections

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 2.19% 3.93%

Qualified Applicants 424 2.59% 3.54%

Selected 6 0.00% 16.67%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 4.24

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 4.71

*Of the 6 hires, One Hispanic Female Selected

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 2.52% 1.85%

Qualified Applicants 145 7.59% 4.83%

Selected 3 33.33% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

13.23 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

4.39 0

*Of the 3 hires, One Hispanic Male Selected

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 2.19% 3.93%

Qualified Applicants 420 4.52% 5.00%

Selected 5 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0
55

*Of the 4 hires, One Hispanic Female Selected

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

1160 Supvy. Financial Analyst

CLF 3.10% 2.00%

Qualified Applicants 174 6.32% 3.45%

Selected 7 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0

*Of the 7 hires, No Hispanics Selected

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

1510 Actuary

CLF 1.30% .60%

Qualified Applicants 2 50.00% 0.00%

Selected 3 33.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

25.38 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0.66 N/A

*Of the 3 hires, One Hispanic Male Selected

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 5.39% 2.17%

Qualified Applicants 306 9.15% 2.61%

Selected 3 33.33% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

6.18 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

3.64 0

*Of the 3 hires, One Hispanic Male Selected

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

1102 Director, Procurement

CLF 3.29% 3.80%

Qualified Applicants 297 6.06% 5.72%

Selected 4 0.00% 25.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 6.58

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 4.37
56

Workforce Analysis (2018):

Hispanic male and female Supervisory Accountants have lower than anticipated representation 

among PBGC selections relative to their ratios in the CLF and qualified Supervisory Accountant 

applicant pools.

Hispanic males have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC selections for Auditors 

relative to their ratios in the CLF.

Hispanic female applicants for the General Attorney major occupation have higher 

representation than the CLF but none were selected.

The number of qualified Hispanic male applicants and female applicants for the Supervisory 

Financial Analyst is greater than the CLF but none were selected.

Hispanic female IT Specialists have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC 

selections relative to their ratios in the CLF and qualified Supervisory IT Specialist applicant 

pool.

White Employees in PBGC

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 31.79% 44.23%

Qualified Applicants 466 10.24% 10.95%

Selected 5 40.00% 20.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

1.26 0.45

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

3.91 1.83

*Of the 5 hires, Two White Males and One White Female Selected

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 31.79% 44.23%

Qualified Applicants 424 11.56% 9.43%

Selected 6 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0

*Of the 6 hires, No Whites Selected
57

*Of the 3 hires, Two White Females Selected

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

1102 Director, Procurement

CLF 38.09% 41.87%

Qualified Applicants 297 14.14% 8.42%

Selected 4 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0

*Of the 4 hires, No Whites Selected

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

1160 Supvy. Financial Analyst

CLF 54.00%% 22.00%

Qualified Applicants 174 21.84% 12.07%

Selected 7 42.86% 42.86%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.79 1.95

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

1.96 3.55

*Of the 7 hires, Three White Males and Three White Females Selected

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

1510 Actuary

CLF 60.40% 27.00%

Qualified Applicants 2 0.00% 0.00%

Selected 3 33.33% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0.55 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

*Of the 3 hires One White Male and One White Female Selected

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 59.68% 26.68%

Qualified Applicants 145 22.07% 31.03%

Selected 3 0.00% 66.67%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 2.50

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 2.15
58

*Of the 3 hires, No Whites Selected

Workforce Analysis (2018):

White female Supervisory Accountants have less than anticipated representation among PBGC 

selections relative to their ratio in the Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF). White male and 

female applicants for Supervisory Auditor are lower than the RCLF and none that were qualified 

were selected.

White male Supervisory Financial Analyst have less than anticipated representation among 

PBGC selections relative to their ratios in the CLF. White male and female IT Specialist have 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC selections relative to their ratios in the CLF 

and the qualified IT Specialist applicant pool.

Black or African American Employees in PBGC

Total Workforce Black

All Male Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 2.49% 5.66%

Qualified Applicants 420 21.90% 28.81%

Selected 5 20.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

8.03 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0.91 0

*Of the 5 hires,1 Black Male Selected

Total Workforce Black

All Male Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 2.49% 5.66%

Qualified Applicants 424 23.82% 28.77%

Selected 6 33.33% 16.67%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

13.39 2.95

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

1.40 0.58

*Of the 6 hires, Two Black Males and One Black Female Selected

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 52.21% 20.89%

Qualified Applicants 306 17.32% 6.21%

Selected 3 0.00% 0.005

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0
59

*Of the 3 hires, No Blacks Selected

Total Workforce Black

All Male Female

1102 Director, Procurement

CLF 3.01% 5.47%

Qualified Applicants 297 20.20% 31.99%

Selected 4 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0

*Of the 4 hires, No Blacks Selected

Total Workforce Black

All Male Female

1160 Supvy. Financial 

Analyst

CLF 3.50% 3.80%

Qualified Applicants 174 14.37% 16.09%

Selected 7 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0

*Of the 7 hires, No Blacks Selected

Total Workforce Black

All Male Female

1510 Actuary

CLF 1.10% 1.20%

Qualified Applicants 2 0.00% 0.00%

Selected 3 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

N/A

*Of the 3 hires, No Blacks Selected

Total Workforce Black

All Male Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 2.13 2.60

Qualified Applicants 145 10.34% 20.00%

Selected 3 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0
60

*Of the 3 hires, Two Black Females Selected

Workforce Analysis (2018):

Black females have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC selections for 

Supervisory Accountant relative to their ratios in the CLF. The number of Black female qualified 

applicants for Supervisory Accountant is greater than the CLF and none were selected. Black 

male and female applicants for the General Attorney major occupation have higher 

representation than the CLF but none were selected. Black male and female applicants for the 

Supervisory Financial Analyst major occupation have higher representation than the CLF but 

none were selected. Black male IT Specialists had less than anticipated representation among 

PBGC selections relative to their ratio in the CLF and qualified IT Specialist applicant pool. Black 

males are 6.61% in the CLF for IT Specialists but none were selected.

Asian Employees in PBGC

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant

CLF 3.06% 5.49%

Qualified Applicants 420 8.10% 9.52%

Selected 5 20.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

6.54 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

2.47 0

*Of the 5 hires, One Asian Male Selected

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

CLF 3.06% 5.49%

Qualified Applicants 424 6.84% 8.96%

Selected 6 33.33% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

10.89 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

4.87 0

*Of the 6 hires, Two Asian Males Selected

Total Workforce Black

All Male Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 6.61% 4.50%

Qualified Applicants 306 26.14% 13.40%

Selected 3 0.00% 66.67%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 14.82

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 4.98
61

*Of the 3 hires, No Asians Selected

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

1102 Director, Procurement

CLF 1.38% 1.77%

Qualified Applicants 297 4.38% 5.39%

Selected 4 0.00% 25.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 14.12

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

N/A 4.64

*Of the 4 hires, One Asian Male and Two Asian Females Selected (Acting)

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

1160 Supvy. Financial 

Analyst

CLF 5.50% 4.20%

Qualified Applicants 174 16.67% 9.20%

Selected 7 14.29% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

2.60 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0.86 0

*Of the 7 hires, One Asian Male Selected

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

1510 Actuary

CLF 3.70% 3.40%

Qualified Applicants 2 0.00% 0.00%

Selected 3 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

*Of the 3 hires, No Asians Selected

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

0905 General Attorney

CLF 1.82% 1.74%

Qualified Applicants 145 .69% 2.76%

Selected 3 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0
62

*Of the 3 hires, No Asians Selected

Workforce Analysis (2018):

Asian females have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC selections for 

Supervisory Accountant relative to their ratios in the CLF. The number of Asian female qualified 

applicants for Supervisory Accountant was greater than the CLF and none were selected. Asian 

females have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC selections for Supervisory 

Auditor relative to their ratios in the CLF. The number of Asian female qualified applicants for 

Supervisory Auditor was greater than the CLF and none were selected. Asian male and female 

General Attorney have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC selections relative 

to their ratios in the CLF and qualified applicant pool. The number of qualified Asian female 

applicants was greater than their CLF representation however none wereselected.

Asian female Supervisory Financial Analysts had less than anticipated representation among 

PBGC selections relative to their ratios in the CLF and qualified applicant pool. Seven people 

were selected, and none were Asian female.

Asian male and female IT Specialists had less than anticipated representation among PBGC 

selections relative to their ratios in the CLF and qualified applicant pool.

*Discrepancies were evaluated using the “80 Percent” method which declares a 

discrepancy exists if the percentage of qualified applicants in a job group within a major 

occupation is less than 80% of their availability in the voluntarily identified applicant pool. 

Cells in red indicate a discrepancy. 

**Discrepancies in the ratio of applicants selected compared to the qualified applicant 

pool were evaluated using the “80 Percent” method, which declares a discrepancy exists 

if the percentage of applicants hired in a job group within a major occupation is less than 

80% of their availability in the qualified applicant pool. Cells in red indicate a 

discrepancy.

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

2210 IT Specialist

CLF 5.14% 1.55%

Qualified Applicants 306 20.92% 3.59%

Selected 3 0.00% 0.00%

Selected vs. CLF 

Discrepancies*

0 0

Selected vs Qualified 

Discrepancies**

0 0
63

Table A14: Separations by Type of Separation-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex –

Permanent Workforce

Hispanic Employees in PBGC

Total Workforce Hispanic or Latino

All Male Female

2018 Total Workforce 944 2.01% 2.22%

Voluntary 59 3.39% 0.00%

Total Separation 59 3.39% 0.00%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 1.69% 0.00%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 1.69% 0.00%

Total Workforce

All

2017 Total Workforce 953 1.89% 2.20%

Voluntary 76 2.63% 5.26%

Total Separation 77 2.60% 5.19%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 1.39% 1.00%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 1.38% 2.36%

Total Workforce

All

2016 Total Workforce 980 2.04% 2.45%

Voluntary 73 1.37% 1.37%

Total Separation 75 1.33% 1.33%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 0.00% 0.00%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 0.65% 0.54%

*Separation ratios were calculated by comparing rates of voluntary and total separations to EEO 

group representation within the total workforce in 2018-2016. Rates of separation for each group 

greater than 120% of the group’s representation in PBGC’s workforce are flagged as triggers.

Table A14: Separations by Type of Separation-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex –

Permanent Workforce

White Employees in PBGC

Total Workforce White

All Male Female

2018 Total Workforce 944 23.31% 17.16%

Voluntary 59 37.29% 13.56%

Total Separation 59 37.29% 13.56%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 1.60% 0.79%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 1.60% 0.79%

Total Workforce

All

2017 Total Workforce 953 24.13% 16.68%

Voluntary 76 34.21% 18.24%

Total Separation 77 33.77% 18.18%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 1.42% 1.09%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 1.40% 1.09%
64

Total Workforce

All

2016 Total Workforce 980 25.20% 17.04%

Voluntary 73 20.55% 21.92%

Total Separation 75 21.33% 21.33%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 0.82% 1.29%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 0.85% 1.25%

*Separation ratios were calculated by comparing rates of voluntary and total separations to EEO 

group representation within the total workforce in 2018-2016. Rates of separation for each group 

greater than 120% of the group’s representation in PBGC’s workforce are flagged as triggers.

Table A14: Separations by Type of Separation-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex –

Permanent Workforce - Black or African American Employees in PBGC

Total Workforce Black or African American

All Male Female

2018 Total Workforce 944 12.50% 29.66%

Voluntary 59 16.95% 18.64%

Total Separation 59 16.95% 18.64%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 0.99% 1.49%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 0.99% 1.49%

Total Workforce

All

2017 Total Workforce 953 12.80% 29.80%

Voluntary 76 6.58% 23.68%

Total Separation 77 6.49% 24.68%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 0.51% 0.79%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 0.51% 0.83%

Total Workforce

All

2016 Total Workforce 980 12.04% 29.185

Voluntary 73 9.59% 30.14%

Total Separation 75 9.33% 30.67%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 0.80% 1.03%

Total Separation vs. Workforce*

Table A14: Separations by Type of Separation-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex –

Permanent Workforce - Asian Employees in PBGC

Total Workforce Asian

All Male Female

2018 Total Workforce 944 5.93% 5.83%

Voluntary 59 6.78% 1.69%

Total Separation 59 6.78% 1.69%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 1.14% 0.29%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 1.14% 0.29%
65

Total Workforce

All

2017 Total Workforce 953 5.98% 5.56%

Voluntary 76 1.32% 6.58%

Total Separation 77 1.30% 6.49%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 0.22% 1.18%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 0.22% 1.17%

Total Workforce

All

2016 Total Workforce 980 5.41% 5.82%

Voluntary 73 2.74% 12.33%

Total Separation 75 2.67% 12.00%

Voluntary vs. Workforce* 0.51% 2.12%

Total Separation vs. Workforce* 0.49% 2.06%

*Separation ratios were calculated by comparing rates of voluntary and total separations to EEO 

group representation within the total workforce in 2018-2016. Rates of separation for each group 

greater than 120% of the group’s representation in PBGC’s workforce are flagged as triggers.

Workforce Analysis

Hispanic males, White males, Black males, and Asian males voluntarily separated from 

PBGC’s workforce at higher than their representation in PBGC’s total workforce. There were 

no conditions identified that contributed to the separations; however, we will continue to 

conduct barrier analysis.

Table B14: Separations by Type of Separation-Distribution by Disability – Permanent Workforce 

Disability Separations

Total 

Workforce

Total by Disability Status

No 

Disability

Not 

Identified

Disability Targeted 

Disability

2018 Total Workforce 944 805 46 93 15

% Total Workforce 85.28% 4.87% 9.85% 1.59%

#Voluntary Separations 59 51 4 4 0

%Voluntary Separations 86.44% 6.78% 6.78% 0.00%

Separation Rate 6.25% 6.34% 8.70% 4.30% 0.00%

Separation Ratio* 0.00

Total 

Workforce

2017 Total Workforce 953 825 43 85 14

% Total Workforce 86.57% 4.51% 8.92% 1.47%

#Voluntary Separations 76 63 6 7 0

%Voluntary Separations 82.89% 7.89% 9.21% 0.00%

Separation Rate 7.97% 7.64% 13.95% 8.24% 0.00%

Separation Ratio* 0.00
66

Total 

Workforce

All

2016 Total Workforce 980 850 46 84 13

%Total Workforce 86.73% 4.69% 8.57% 1.33%

#Voluntary Separations 73 61 3 9 1

%Voluntary Separations 83.56% 4.11% 12.33% 1.37%

Separation Rate 7.45% 7.18% 6.52% 10.71% 7.69%

Separation Ratio* 1.07%

*Separation ratios were calculated by dividing the rate of separation of employees with targeted 

disabilities by the rate of separation of employees with no disability

3-year trend Analysis

In 2018 and 2017 the rates of voluntary separations are lower than anticipated for employees 

with targeted disabilities compared to employees with no disabilities, with 0.00% of employees 

with targeted disabilities voluntarily separating from PBGC in 2018 and 2017.
67

• A8: New Hires by Type of Appointment-Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity and Sex

• A9: Selections for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major 

Occupations-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

• A10: Non-Competitive Promotions-Time in Grade-Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity and Sex

• A11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions (GS 13/14, GS15 and SES)-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Data Tables
68

Table A8: New Hires by Type of Appointment

Hispanic Applicants, Selection & Hires Permanent PBGC Workforce

There were 145 Hispanic male and female applicants in FY18 for various positions and major 

occupations within PBGC workforce. There were 4 Hispanic hires: 3 permanent and 1 

temporary.

Work Indicators Hispanic Males Percentage Change Hispanic Females Percentage 

Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 5.17% 4.79%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Permanent Hires Overall (A8): 35.71% 60.42% 50.00% -28.58% 64.29% 39.58% 50.00% 28.58%

Occupational Distributions (A8):

Hispanic Permanent Hires 4.76% 0.00% 2.44% -95.08% 2.38% 4.17% 2.44% -2.46%

Table A8: New Hires by Type of Appointment

Black/African American Applicants, Selection & Hires Permanent PBGC Workforce

There were 884 Black/African American male and female applicants in FY18 for various 

positions and major occupations within the PBGC workforce. There were 26 Black/African 

American hires: 2 males and 13 females (permanent) and 3 males and 8 females (temporary). 

Work Indicators Black or African American 

Males

Percentage Change Black or African American Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 5.49% 6.53%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Permanent Hires Overall (A8): 35.71% 60.42% 50.00% -28.58% 64.29% 39.58% 50.00% 28.58%

Occupational Distributions (A8):

Black Permanent Hires 4.76% 16.67% 10.98% -56.68% 30.95% 16.67% 24.39% 26.90%

Table A8: New Hires by Type of Appointment

White Applicants, Selection & Hires Permanent PBGC Workforce

There were 534 White male and female applicants in FY18 for various positions and major 

occupations within PBGC workforce. There were 32 White hires, 9 males and 7 females 

(permanent) and 8 males and 8 females (temporary).

Work Indicators White Males Percentage Change White Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 38.33% 34.03%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Permanent Hires Overall (A8): 35.71% 60.42% 50.00% -28.58% 64.29% 39.58% 50.00% 28.58%

Occupational Distributions (A8):

White Permanent Hires 21.43% 0.00% 18.29% 17.17% 16.67% 0.00% 15.85% 5.17%%
69

Table A8: New Hires by Type of Appointment

Asian Applicants, Selection & Hires Permanent PBGC Workforce

There were 345 Asian male and female applicants in FY18 for various positions and major 

occupations within PBGC workforce. There were 9 Asian hires, 2 males and 2 females 

permanent and 3 males and 2 females temporary.

Work Indicators Asian Males Percentage Change Asian Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 1.97% 1.93%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Permanent Hires Overall (A8): 35.71% 60.42% 50.00% -28.58% 64.29% 39.58% 50.00% 28.58%

Occupational Distributions (A8):

Asian Permanent Hires 4.76% 12.50% 18.29% -73.97% 4.76% 8.33% 6.10% -21.97%

Table A8: New Hires by Type of Appointment

Two or More Races Applicants, Selection & Hires Permanent PBGC Workforce

Two or more races of males and females are above their anticipated representation compared 

to the CLF from 2016-2018 among permanent hires.

Work Indicators Two or more races Males Percentage Change Two or more races Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 0.26% 0.28%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Permanent Hires Overall (A8): 35.71% 60.42% 50.00% -28.58% 64.29% 39.58% 50.00% 28.58%

Occupational Distributions (A8):

Two or More Permanent Hires 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% N/A 2.38% 0.00% 1.22% 95.08%

*Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander and American Indian males and females are consistently 

underrepresented compared to the CLF from 2016 to 2018 among permanent hires.

*Underrepresentation was evaluated by using the "80 Percent" method, which declares 

underrepresentation exists if the percentage of new hires in a job group is less than 80% of their 

availability in the CLF. Cells in red indicate underrepresentation. Cells in green indicate above 

representation.

Table B8b - PERMENANT NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT - Distribution by Disability

Total 

Workforce

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability

Not 

Identified Disability Targeted 

Disability Deafness Blindness Missing Limbs

Partial 

Paralysis

Total 

Paralysis

Convulsive 

Disorder

Mental 

Retardation

Mental 

Illness

Distortion - 

Limb/Spine

2016

Total 

Workforce 980 850 39 77 13 1 2 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 

% Total 

Workforce 74.39% 9.76% 15.85% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.22% 0.00% 1.22% 0.00% 

# Hired 82 61 8 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

% Hired 100% 88.54% 2.08% 7.29% 2.08% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

New Hires as 

a % of 

Workforce

8.37% 7.18% 20.51% 16.88% 23.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 

Discrepancy* 3.22% 
70

2017

Total

Workforce 953 825 43 85 14 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 5 0 

% Total

Workforce 90.11% 3.68% 6.21% 1.38% 0.11% 0.23% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.46% 0.11% 0.34% 0.00% 

# Hired 48 36 5 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

% Hired 100% 88.89% 4.76% 4.76% 1.59% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

New Hires as 

a % of 

Workforce

5.04% 4.36% 11.63% 8.24% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 

Discrepancy* 163.69%

2018

# Total

Workforce 944 805 46 93 15 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 

% Total

Workforce 90.74% 3.35% 5.92% 1.34% 0.11% 0.22% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.45% 0.11% 0.33% 0.00% 

# Hired 42 33 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

% Hired 100% 98.68% 1.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

New Hires as 

a % of 

Workforce

4.45% 4.10% 8.70% 5.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Discrepancy* 0.00%

Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR

OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Hispanic Workforce FY18

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant GS-0510-

14

Total Applicants 2 -- 8 0 -- 0 -- 0

Qualified Applicants 2 -- 3 0.00% -- 0.00% 0.00% -- 0.00%

Selected 0 -- 2 0 -- 0 0 -- 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Accountants - Hispanic males and females have lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified 

Supervisory Accountant applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 10 

applicants and 5 qualified applicants and 2 selections. No Hispanic applicants were selected. 

There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

Total Applicants 6 -- 6 0 -- 0 1 -- 1

Qualified Applicants 6 -- 6 0.00% -- 0.00% 16.70% -- 16.70%

Selected 2 -- 4 0 -- 0 1 -- 1

Analysis Results: Supervisory Auditor - Hispanic males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified 

Supervisory Auditor applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 12 qualified 

applicants and 6 selections. In both years FY16 and FY18, a Hispanic female applicant was 

selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17.
71

Analysis Results: Auditor - Hispanic males and females have a lower than anticipated 

representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for major 

occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified Auditor applicant 

pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 5 applicants, 5 qualified applicants and 0 

selections; In FY17, there were no Hispanic male or female applicants. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0958 Supervisory Employee Benefits 

Project Manager

Total Applicants 13 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 12 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Supervisory Employee Benefits Project Manager - Hispanic males and 

females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, 

workforce and qualified Auditor relative to their ratios in the CLF and qualified Supervisory 

Employee Benefits Project Manager applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a 

total of 13 applicants, 12 qualified applicants and 0 selections, there were no Hispanic 

applicants. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 and 

FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Supervisory Financial Analyst

Total Applicants -- 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Qualified Applicants -- 5 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected -- 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Financial Analyst - Hispanic males and females have a lower 

than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions 

for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified

Supervisory Financial Analyst applicant pools. Between FY16-FY18 there were a total of 8 

applicants, 8 qualified applicants and 2 selections. There were no Hispanic applicants and there 

were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Auditor

Total Applicants -- 5 -- -- 0 -- -- 1 --

Qualified Applicants -- 5 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 20.00% --

Selected -- 5 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --
72

Analysis Results: Financial Analyst - Hispanic males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified Financial 

Analyst applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there a total of 2 applicants, 2 qualified 

applicants and 0 selections. There were no Hispanic applicants. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Supervisory Actuary

Total Applicants 3 -- 0 -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 3 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00% --

Selected -- 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Supervisory Actuary - Hispanic males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified 

Supervisory Actuary applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there a total of 3 applicants, 3 

qualified applicants and 1 selection, there were no Hispanic applicants. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Actuary (Negotiations and 

Restructuring Actuarial Manager)

Total Applicants 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 1 -- --

Qualified Applicants 3 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 33.30% -- --

Selected 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 1 -- --

Analysis Results: Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) - Hispanic 

males and females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for 

internal competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, 

workforce and qualified Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) applicant 

pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were total of 3 applicants, 3 qualified applicants and 1 

selection. In FY16 there was one Hispanic Female applicant selected. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist 

(ENTARCH)

Total Applicants 12 -- -- 3 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 10 -- -- 30.00

% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 4 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Financial Analyst

Total Applicants 2 0 0

Qualified Applicants 2 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --
73

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) - Hispanic males and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and 

qualified Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there 

were a total of 12 applicants (3 Hispanic). Of that number, 10 were qualified applicants and 4 

were selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 

and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist 

(PLCYPLN)

Total Applicants -- 11 -- -- 2 -- -- 1 --

Qualified Applicants -- 11 -- -- 16.67% -- -- 8.33% --

Selected -- 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) - Hispanic males and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and 

qualified Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) applicant pools. Between FY16-FY18, there 

were a total of 11 applicants, 12 qualified applicants and 3 selections; in FY17 there were 2 

Hispanic male applicants and 1 Hispanic female applicant. There were no internal competitive 

promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Hispanic or Latino

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 IT Project Manager (INFOSEC)

Total Applicants -- -- 4 -- -- 1 -- -- 0

Qualified Applicants -- -- 2 -- -- 50.00

% -- -- 0.00% 

Selected -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0

Analysis Results: IT Project Manager (INFOSEC) - Hispanic males and females lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified IT Project 

Manager (INFOSEC) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 4 

applicants, 2 qualified applicants and 1 selection. There were no internal competitive promotions 

(for major occupations) in FY16 and FY17.

Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR

OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - FY18 White Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant GS-0510-

14

Total Applicants 2 -- 8 0 -- 1 0 -- 0

Qualified Applicants 2 -- 3 0.00% -- 0.00% 0.00% -- 0.00%

Selected 0 -- 2 0 -- 0 0 -- 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Accountants - White male and female have lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified 

Supervisory Accountant applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there a total of 10 applicants,
74

5 qualified applicants, 2 selected, no White applicants were selected. In FY16 there was one 

White male applicant, none qualified, and none selected. There were no internal competitive 

promotions (for major occupations) in FY17.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

Total Applicants 6 -- 6 2 -- 0 1 -- 0

Qualified Applicants 6 -- 6 33.30% -- 0.00% 16.70% -- 0.00%

Selected 2 -- 4 0 -- 0 1 -- 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Auditor – White males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified 

Supervisory Auditor applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 12 

applicants, 12 qualified applicants and 2 selections. In FY16 there were 2 White males and 1 

White female applicants, 2 White males and 1 White female qualified. There were no internal

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Auditor

Total Applicants -- 6 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 6 -- -- 16.67% -- -- 0.00% --

Selected -- 4 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Auditor - White males and females have a lower than anticipated 

representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for major 

occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified Auditor applicant 

pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 6 applicants, 6 qualified applicants and 4 

selections, there was 1 White Male selected. In FY17 there was one White male applicant, 

qualified and selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) 

in FY16 and 18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Femal 

e

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Auditor

Total Applicants -- 5 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 5 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 20.00% --

Selected -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Auditor - White males and females have a lower than anticipated 

representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for major 

occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified Auditor 

applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 5 applicants, 5 qualified 

applicants and 0 selections. In FY17, there were no White male or female applicants. There 

were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and 18.
75

Analysis Results: Supervisory Employee Benefits Project Manager - White males and 

females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, 

workforce and qualified Supervisory Employee Benefits Project Manager pools relative to their 

ratios in the CLF and qualified Supervisory Employee Benefits Project Manager applicant 

pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 13 applicants. Of these, there were 4 

White male applicants and 2 White female applicants, all qualified and none selected. There 

were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and 18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Financial Analyst

Total Applicants 2 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 2 -- -- 50.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Financial Analyst – White males and females have lower than anticipated 

representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for major 

occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified Financial Analyst 

applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 2 applicants, 2 qualified 

applicants and 0 selections. There were no internal competitive promotions' (for major 

occupations) in FY16 and 18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Supervisory Financial Analyst

Total Applicants -- 8 3 -- 2 1 -- 1 1

Qualified Applicants -- 8 3 -- 40.00% 33.33% -- 20.00% 33.33%

Selected -- 0 2 -- 0 2 -- 0 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Financial Analyst - White males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified 

Supervisory Financial Analyst applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18, there were a total of 

11 applicants, 11 qualified applicants and 2 selections of White males. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16.

* The A9 chart indicated that there was 1 male and 1 female however the selection shows 

2 males.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0958 Supervisory Employee 

Benefits Project Manager

Total Applicants 13 -- -- 4 -- -- 2 -- --

Qualified Applicants 12 -- -- 33.30% -- -- 16.70% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --
76

Analysis Results: Supervisory Actuary - White males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder grades, workforce and qualified 

Supervisory Actuary applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 3 applicants, 

3 qualified applicants and 1 selection; In FY17 there were 2 White male applicants, 2 White male 

qualified applicants and no white male selected. There were no internal competitive promotions 

(for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Actuary (Negotiations and 

Restructuring Actuarial Manager)

Total Applicants 3 -- -- 2 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 3 -- -- 66.70% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) - White males 

and females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce 

and qualified Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) applicant pools. 

Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 3 applicants, 3 qualified applicants and 1 

selection. In FY16 there was 2 White Male applicants, qualified and none selected. There were 

no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 andFY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Femal 

e

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH)

Total Applicants 12 -- -- 2 -- -- 1 -- --

Qualified Applicants 10 -- -- 20.00% -- -- 10.00% -- --

Selected 4 -- -- 2 -- -- 1 -- --

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) - White males and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and 

qualified Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there 

were a total of 12 applicants, 10 qualified applicants and 4 selections. In FY16 there were 2 

White Female applicants and 1 White male, however, there were no White males or females 

selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 and 

FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Supervisory Actuary

Total Applicants -- 3 -- -- 2 -- -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 3 -- -- 40.00% -- -- 20.00% --

Selected -- 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --
77

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) – White females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Supervisory 

IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 11 

applicants, however no White applicants were selected. There were no internal competitive 

promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 IT Project Manager (INFOSEC)

Total Applicants -- -- 4 -- -- 0 -- -- 0

Qualified Applicants -- -- 2 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00%

Selected -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0

Analysis Results: IT Project Manager (INFOSEC) - White males and females have a lower 

than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions 

for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified IT Project 

Manager (INFOSEC) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 4 

applicants, 2 qualified applicants and 1 selection; no White male or female selected. There were 

no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 andFY17.

Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR

OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Black Workforce FY18

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant GS-0510-14

Total Applicants 2 -- 8 1 -- 1 0 -- 3

Qualified Applicants 2 -- 3 50.00% -- 0.00% 0.00% -- 0.00%

Selected 0 -- 2 0 -- 0 0 -- 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Accountants - Black or African American males and females 

have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and 

qualified Supervisory Accountant applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total 

of 10 applicants, 5 qualified applicants, and 2 selected; no Black or African American applicants 

were selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) inFY17.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Auditor

Total Applicants -- 6 -- -- 2 -- -- 1 --

Qualified Applicants -- 6 -- -- 33.33% -- -- 16.67% --

Selected -- 4 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 --

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

White

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN)

Total Applicants -- 11 -- -- 3 -- -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 11 -- -- 25.00% -- -- 0.00% --

Selected -- 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --
78

Analysis Results: Auditor - Black or African American males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Auditor 

applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 6 qualified applicants and 4 

selections; 1 Black or African American male and female were selected. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18 Female

0511 Auditor

Total Applicants -- 5 -- -- 1 -- -- 2 --

Qualified Applicants -- 5 -- -- 20.00% -- -- 40.00% --

Selected -- 5 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Auditor - Black or African American males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Auditor 

applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 5 applicants, 5 qualified 

applicants and 0 selections; in FY17 there were 3 Black or African American applicants, qualified 

and none selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in 

FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

Total Applicants 6 -- 6 0 -- 3 2 -- 1

Qualified Applicants 6 -- 6 0.00% -- 50.00% 33.30% -- 16.67%

Selected 2 -- 4 0 -- 1 0 -- 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Auditor – Black or African American males and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and 

qualified Supervisory Auditor applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 12 

applicants, 12 qualified applicants and 2 selections. There were no internal competitive 

promotions (for major occupations) in FY17.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0958 Supervisory Employee Benefits 

Specialist

Total Applicants 13 -- -- 1 -- -- 5 -- --

Qualified Applicants 12 -- -- 8.30% -- -- 33.30% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Supervisory Employee Benefits Project Manager - Black or African American 

males and females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for 

internal competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, 

workforce and qualified Supervisory Employee Benefits Project Manager applicant pools. 

Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 13 applicants, 12 qualified applicants and 0 

selections. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 and 

FY18.
79

Analysis Results: Financial Analyst – Black or African American males and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and 

qualified Financial Analyst applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there a total of 2 

applicants, 2 qualified applicants and 0 selections. In FY16 there was 1 Black or African 

American applicant, qualified and none selected. There were no internal competitive promotions 

(for major occupations) in FY17 and 18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Supervisory Financial Analyst

Total Applicants -- 5 3 -- 0 0 -- 0 0

Qualified Applicants -- 5 3 -- 0.00% 0.00% -- 0.00% 0.00%

Selected -- 0 2 -- 0 0 -- 0 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Financial Analyst - Black or African American males and 

females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce 

e and qualified Supervisory Financial Analyst applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there 

were a total of 8 applicants, 8 qualified applicants and 2 selections. In FY17 there were 0 Black 

or African American applicants, qualified or selected. There were no internal competitive 

promotions (for major occupations) in FY16.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Supervisory Actuary

Total Applicants -- 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 3 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00% --

Selected -- 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Supervisory Actuary - Black or African American males and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and 

qualified Supervisory Actuary applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 3 

applicants, 3 qualified applicants and 1 selection; In FY17 there were 0 Black or African 

American applicants, qualified or selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for 

major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Actuary (Negotiations and 

Restructuring Actuarial Manager)

Total Applicants 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 3 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Financial Analyst

Total Applicants 2 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 2 -- -- 50.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --
80

Analysis Results: Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) - Black or 

African American males and females have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s 

selections for internal competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the 

feeder pool, workforce and qualified Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) 

applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 3 applicants, 3 qualified 

applicants and 1 selection. In FY16 there was 0 Black or African American applicants, qualified 

or selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and 

FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist 

(ENTARCH)

Total Applicants 12 -- -- 0 -- -- 3 -- --

Qualified Applicants 10 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 30.00% -- --

Selected 4 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) - Black or African American males 

and females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce 

and qualified Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 

there were a total of 12 applicants, 10 qualified applicants and 4 selections; in FY16 there were 

3 Black or African American female applicants, qualified and none selected. There were no 

internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist 

(PLCYPLN)

Total Applicants 11 -- 2 -- 2 --

Qualified Applicants -- 12 -- -- 25.00% -- -- 16.67% --

Selected -- 3 -- -- 2 -- -- 1 --

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) – Black or African American male and 

females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce 

and qualified Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 

there were a total of 11 applicants, 11 qualified applicants and 3 selections; in FY17 there were 

2 Black or African American males and 1 female applicant selected. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Black or African American

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 IT Project Manager (INFOSEC)

Total Applicants -- -- 4 -- -- 1 -- -- 2

Qualified Applicants -- -- 2 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 50.00%

Selected -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 1

Analysis Results: IT Project Manager (INFOSEC) - Black or African American males and 

females have lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce 

and qualified IT Project Manager (INFOSEC) applicant pools.
81

Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 4 applicants, 2 qualified applicants and 1 selection 

a Black or African American female selected. There were no internal competitive promotions 

(for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR

OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Asian Workforce FY18

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0510 Supervisory Accountant GS-0510-

14

Total Applicants 2 -- 8 1 -- 3 0 -- 0

Qualified Applicants 2 -- 3 50.00% -- 66.67% 0.00% -- 0.00%

Selected 0 -- 2 0 -- 1 0 -- 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Accountants - Asian male and female have lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Supervisory 

Accountant applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 10 applicants, 5 

qualified applicants, 2 selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major 

occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Auditor

Total Applicants -- 6 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 --

Qualified Applicants -- 6 -- -- 16.67% -- -- 16.67% --

Selected -- 4 -- -- 0 -- -- 1 --

Analysis Results: Auditor - Asian males and females have a lower than anticipated 

representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for major 

occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Auditor applicant 

pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 6 applicants, 6 qualified applicants and 4 

selections. In FY17 there were 2 Asian applicants, 1 male and 1 female, both qualified and 

selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and 

FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Auditor

Total Applicants -- 5 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 5 -- -- 20.00% -- -- 0.00% --

Selected -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Auditor - Asian males and females have a lower than anticipated 

representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for major 

occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Auditor applicant 

pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 5 applicants, 5 qualified applicants and 0 

selections; in FY17 there was 1 Asian male applicant, 1 Asian male qualified and no selection. 

There were no Asian female applicants, qualified or selected. There were no internal competitive 

promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.
82

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0511 Supervisory Auditor

Total Applicants 6 -- 6 0 -- 2 0 -- 0

Qualified Applicants 6 -- 6 0.00% -- 33.33% 0.00% -- 0.00%

Selected 2 -- 4 0 -- 2 0 -- 0

Analysis Results: Supervisory Actuary - Asian males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Supervisory 

Actuary applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 3 applicants, 3 qualified 

applicants and 1 selection; in FY17 there were 2 Asian male applicants, 2 Asian male qualified 

applicants and no Asian males selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for 

major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

0958 Supervisory Employee Benefits 

Specialist

Total Applicants 13 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 12 -- -- 8.30% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Supervisory Employee Benefits Project Manager - Asian males and females 

have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and 

qualified pools. Between FY16-FY18 there were a total of 13 applicants, 12 qualified applicants 

and 0 selections. In FY16 there was 1 Asian male applicant, 1 Asian Male qualified and none 

selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and 

FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Financial Analyst

Total Applicants 2 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 2 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Financial Analyst – Asian males and females have a lower than anticipated 

representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for major 

occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Financial Analyst 

applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 2 applicants, 2 qualified 

applicants and 0 selections. In FY16 there were no Asian applicants, qualified or selected. 

There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1160 Supervisory Financial Analyst

Relevant Applicant Pool -- 5 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Qualified Applicants -- 5 3 -- 0.00% 0.00% -- 40.00% 33.33%

Selected -- 0 2 -- 0 0 -- 0 0
83

Analysis Results: Supervisory Financial Analyst - Asian males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Supervisory 

Auditor applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 8 applicants, 8 qualified 

applicants and 2 selections. In FY17 there were 0 Asian Male applicants, qualified or selected, 

and there were 2 Asian female applicants, 2 Asian female qualified and none selected. There 

were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Supervisory Actuary

Total Applicants 3 -- -- 1 -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 3 -- -- 33.33% -- -- 0.00% --

Selected -- 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Supervisory Actuary - Asian males and females have a lower than 

anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions for 

major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified Supervisory 

Actuary applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 3 applicants, 3 qualified 

applicants and 1 selection; in FY17 there was 1 Asian male applicant, 1 Asian Male qualified 

and none selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in 

FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

1510 Actuary (Negotiations and 

Restructuring Actuarial Manager)

Total Applicants 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 3 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- --

Analysis Results: Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) - Asian males 

and females have a lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal 

competitive promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce 

and qualified Actuary (Negotiations and Restructuring Actuarial Manager) applicant pools. 

Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 3 applicants, 3 qualified applicants and 1 

selection. In FY16 there was 0 Asian applicants, qualified or selected. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY17 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist 

(ENTARCH)

Total Applicants 12 -- -- 3 -- -- 0 -- --

Qualified Applicants 10 -- -- 10.00% -- -- 0.00% -- --

Selected 4 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- --

Selected vs. RAP Discrepancies* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Selected vs. Qualified Applicant 

Discrepancies** -- -- 2.50 -- -- -- -- --

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) - Asian males and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and
84

qualified Supervisory IT Specialist (ENTARCH) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there 

were a total of 12 applicants, 10 qualified applicants and 4 selections. In FY16 there were 3 

Asian male applicants, 1 Asian male qualified and 1 Asian male selected. There were no internal 

competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 Supervisory IT Specialist 

(PLCYPLN)

Total Applicants -- 11 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 --

Qualified Applicants -- 11 -- -- 8.33% -- -- 0.00% --

Selected -- 3 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 --

Analysis Results: Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) – Asian male and females have a 

lower than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive 

promotions for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and 

qualified Supervisory IT Specialist (PLCYPLN) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there 

were a total of 11 qualified applicants and 3 selections. In FY17 there was 1 Asian male applicant 

that was determined to be qualified, however, no Asian was selected. There were 0 female 

applicants, qualified or selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major 

occupations) in FY16 and FY18.

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Asian

FY16 All FY17 All FY18 All FY16

Male

FY17

Male

FY18

Male

FY16

Female

FY17

Female

FY18

Female

2210 IT Project Manager (INFOSEC)

Total Applicants -- -- 4 -- -- 0 -- -- 0

Qualified Applicants -- -- 2 -- -- 0.00% -- -- 0.00%

Selected -- -- 1 -- -- 0 -- -- 0

Analysis Results: IT Project Manager (INFOSEC) - Asian males and females have a lower 

than anticipated representation among PBGC’s selections for internal competitive promotions 

for major occupations relative to their ratios in the feeder pool, workforce and qualified IT Project 

Manager (INFOSEC) applicant pools. Between FY16 and FY18 there were a total of 4 

applicants, 2 qualified applicants and 1 selection; no Asian male or female applicants, qualified 

or selected. There were no internal competitive promotions (for major occupations) in FY16 

and FY17.

*Discrepancies were evaluated using the “80 Percent” method which declares a 

discrepancy exists if the percentage of qualified applicants in a job group within a major 

occupation is less than 80% of their availability in the voluntarily identified applicant pool. 

Cells in red indicate a discrepancy.

**Discrepancies in the ratio of applicants selected compared to the qualified applicant 

pool were evaluated using the “80 Percent” method, which declares a discrepancy exists 

if the percentage of applicants hired in a job group within a major occupation is less than 

80% of their availability in the qualified applicant pool. Cells in red indicate a 

discrepancy. 
85

Table A10: Non-Competitive Promotions-Time In-Grade Distribution by Race/Ethnicity 

and Gender Hispanic Employees in PBGC Workforce Analysis Results:

From FY2016 to FY2018, Hispanic males and females did not receive Time-in-grade noncompetitive promotions although there were eligible candidates.

Work Indicators Hispanic Males Hispanic Females

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 5.17% 4.79%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Eligible 3.13% 1.18% 0.91% 3.13% 2.35% 1.82%

A10:

1 - 12 months 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

13 - 24 months 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

25+ months 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table A10: Non-Competitive Promotions-Time In Grade-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity 

and Gender White Employees in PBGC Workforce Analysis Results:

From FY2016 to FY2018, White males and females received lower rates of career ladder 

promotions relative to the number of eligible candidates, between the months 1-12, 13-24 and 

25+ months post Time-in-Grade eligibility.

Work Indicators White Males White Females

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 38.33% 34.03%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Eligible 10.94% 16.47% 16.36% 14.06% 17.65% 13.64%

A10:

1 - 12 months 0.00% 26.09% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00%

13 - 24 months 26.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

25+ months 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 1.00%

Table A10: Non-Competitive Promotions-Time In Grade-Distribution by Race/Ethnicity 

and Gender Black Employees in PBGC Workforce Analysis Results:

From FY2017 to FY2018, Black males and females received lower rates of career ladder 

promotions 1-12 months,13-24 months, and 25+months compared to their eligibility.

Work Indicators Black or African American 

Males

Black or African American 

Females

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 12.5% 29.66%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Eligible 17.19% 18.82% 13.64% 35.94% 29.41% 40.91%

A10:

1 - 12 months 50.00% 26.09% 0.00% 50.00% 34.78% 0.00%

13 - 24 months 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 46.67% 0.00% 0.00%

25+ months 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 1.00%
86

Table A10: Non-Competitive Promotions-Time-In-Grade Distribution by Race/Ethnicity 

and Gender Asian Employees in PBGC Workforce Analysis Results:

From FY2016 to FY2018, Asian males and females received lower rates of career ladder 

promotions 1-12 months,13-24 months, and 25+months compared to their eligibility.

Work Indicators Asian Males Asian Females

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 5.17% 4.79%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Eligible 7.81% 9.41% 7.27% 6.25% 4.71% 2.73%

A10:

1 - 12 months 0.00% 8.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

13 - 24 months 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

25+ months 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

*Promotion ratios were calculated by comparing Promotion Rates of each EEO group to 

that group's representation in the eligible workforce in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Promotion 

Rates for each group less than 80% of the group's representation in the eligible workforce 

were flagged in red as triggers. 

Table A11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

3-year trend analysis (2018-2016) Hispanic Employees in PBGC Workforce Analysis Results:

There is lower than anticipated representation for internal selections for senior level positions for 

Hispanic males at the GS-13, 14, 15 and SL. There were three qualified Hispanic males at the GS-14 

and 15 level but none were selected. There is lower than anticipated representation for internal 

selections for senior level positions for Hispanic females at the GS 15 and SL level. There was 1 

qualified Hispanic female at the GS-15 level in FY17, but the applicant was not selected. This should 

be interpreted with caution given the small applicant pools.

Hispanic Males Percentage Change Hispanic Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 5.17% 4.79%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 1.79% 1.30% 1.37% 2.68% 2.60% 3.65%

Grade Level: 13

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% -100.00%

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 7.69% 33.30% -100.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 20.00% 0.00% 50.00% -60.00%

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 -100.00%
87

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 1.99% 2.30% 2.66% 1.99% 1.64% 1.33%

Grade Level: 14

Total Applicant Received 11.11% 14.29% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 8.00% -100.00%

Qualified 12.50% 14.29% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 9.50% -100.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% -100.00%

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.26 -100.00%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 1.99% 2.76% 2.11% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00%

Grade Level: 15

Total Applicant Received 5.56% 16.67% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% N/A

Qualified 5.88% 16.67% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% N/A

Selected 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce % % % % % %

Grade Level: SES

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 2.63% 2.94% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Grade Level: SL

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table A11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

3-year trend analysis (2018-2016) White Employees in PBGC Workforce Analysis Results:

There is lower than anticipated representation for White males and females at the GS 13 level 

and there is a higher than anticipated representation rate at the GS 14 level for White females. 

This should be interpreted with caution given the small applicant pools.

White Males Percentage Change White Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 38.33% 34.03%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 16.07% 16.45% 19.63% 10.71% 11.26% 10.50%

Grade Level: 13

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% -100.00%

Qualified 0.00% 15.38% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% -100.00%

Selected 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% N/A 20.00% 0.00% 50.00% -60.00%

Discrepancy 0.00 2.17 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 1.50 -100.00%
88

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 31.89% 33.88% 33.89% 17.94% 17.43% 19.93%

Grade Level: 14

Total Applicant Received 22.22% 42.86% 36.00% -38.28% 11.11% 14.29% 4.00% 177.75%

Qualified 25.00% 42.86% 33.30% -24.92% 12.50% 14.29% 4.80% 160.42%

Selected 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% N/A 50.00% 50.00% 25.00% 100.00%

Discrepancy 2.00 1.17 0.00 N/A 4.00 3.50 5.21 -23.32%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 33.77% 35.86% 38.73% 26.49% 24.83% 23.24%

Grade Level: 15

Total Applicant Received 5.56% 27.78% 34.80% -84.02% 0.00% 16.67% 13.00% -100.00%

Qualified 5.88% 27.78% 35.00% -83.20% 0.00% 16.67% 15.00% -100.00%

Selected 0.00% 0.00 50.00% -100.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% -100.00%

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 1.43 -100.00% 0.00 3.00 1.67 -100.00%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce % % % % % %

Grade Level: SES

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Qualified 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 47.37% 47.06% 47.06% 28.95% 35.29% 32.35%

Grade Level: SL

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
89

Table A11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

3-year trend analysis (2018-2016) Black Employees in PBGC Workforce Analysis Results:

There is higher than anticipated representation for Black males at the GS 13 level and lower 

than anticipated representation rate for females at the GS-13 and 14 levels. This should be 

interpreted with caution given the small applicant pools.

Black Males Percentage Change Black Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force 

(A1)

5.49% 6.53%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 15.63% 17.32% 17.81% 37.95% 36.36% 33.33%

Grade Level: 13

Total Applicant Received 22.22% 25.00% 0.00% N/A 22.22% 0.00% 25.00% -11.12%

Qualified 20.00% 30.77% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 7.69% 33.30% -100.00%

Selected 20.00% 33.33% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 1.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 11.63% 12.17% 10.63% 21.26% 20.72% 21.26%

Grade Level: 14

Total Applicant Received 22.22% 0.00% 16.00% 38.88% 33.33% 0.00% 32.00% 4.16%

Qualified 12.50% 0.00% 19.00% -34.21% 27.27% 0.00% 28.60% -4.65%

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 33.33% 0.00% 25.00% 33.32%

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 -100.00%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 11.26% 10.34% 10.56% 14.57% 15.17% 15.49%

Grade Level: 15

Total Applicant Received 11.11% 11.11% 0.00% N/A 16.67% 11.11% 0.00% N/A

Qualified 11.76% 11.11% 0.00% 100.00 11.76% 11.11% 0.00% N/A

Selected 0.00% 50.00 0.00% N/A 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% N/A

Discrepancy 0.00 4.50 0.00 N/A 1.70 0.00 0.00 N/A

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce % % % % % %

Grade Level: SES

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 40.00% 33.33% 0.00% N/A

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 40.00% 33.33% 0.00% N/A

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% N/A

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 5.26% 2.94% 2.94% 10.53% 5.88% 5.88%

Grade Level: SL

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% N/A

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% N/A

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
90

Asian Employees in PBGC Workforce

While there is lower than anticipated representation for Asian females at the GS 13 and GS 14 

levels, and lower than anticipated representation for Asian males at the GS 14 level. This should 

be interpreted with caution given the small applicant pools.

Table A11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Asian Males Percentage Change Asian Females Percentage Change

Civilian Labor Force (A1) 1.97% 1.93%

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 6.70% 6.49% 6.39% 6.25% 6.49% 5.94%

Grade Level: 13

Total Applicant Received 55.56% 16.67% 25.00% 122.24% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% N/A

Qualified 80.00% 15.38% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% N/A

Selected 60.00% 0.00% 0.00% N/A 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% N/A

Discrepancy 0.75 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 2.17 0.00 N/A

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 7.31% 6.25% 4.98% 4.65% 4.61% 5.32%

Grade Level: 14

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 14.29% 4.00% -100.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% N/A

Qualified 0.00% 14.29% 4.80% 0.00 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% N/A

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 4.64% 4.83% 4.93% 6.62% 6.21% 4.93%

Grade Level: 15

Total Applicant Received 5.56% 5.56% 13.00% -57.23% 0.00% 5.56% 4.30% -100.00%

Qualified 5.88% 5.56% 10.00% -41.20% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% N/A

Selected 0.00% 0.00 25.00% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 2.50 -100.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce % % % % % %

Grade Level: SES

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY-18 FY-17 FY-16 FY-18 FY-17 FY-16

Total Workforce 2.63% 1.89% 2.94% 2.63% 2.20% 5.88%

Grade Level: SL

Total Applicant Received 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Qualified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Selected 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00

Discrepancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
U.S . Equa l Employmen t Opportunit y Commissio n 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

E EO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

CERTIFICATION of ESTABLISHMENT of CONTINUING 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS 

Breneci a Watso n a m th e 

(Inser t nam e above ) (Inser t officia l 

title/series/grad e above ) 

Principa l EE O Director/Officia l fo r Pensio n Benefi t Guarante e Corporatio n 

(Inser t Agency/Componen t Nam e above ) 

T h e agenc y ha s conducte d a n annua l self-assessmen t o f Sectio n an d Sectio n 50 1 program s agains t th e essentia l 

element s a s prescribe d b y EE O MD-715 . If a n essentia l elemen t wa s no t full y complian t wit h th e standard s o f EE O MD-715 , a 

furthe r evaluatio n wa s conducte d and , a s appropriate , EE O Plan s fo r Attainin g th e Essentia l Element s o f a Mode l EE O 

Program , ar e include d wit h thi s Federa l Agenc y Annua l EE O Progra m Statu s Report . 

T h e agenc y ha s als o analyze d it s wor k forc e profile s an d conducte d barrie r analyse s aime d a t detectin g whethe r an y 

managemen t o r personne l policy , procedur e o r practic e i s operatin g t o disadvantag e an y grou p base d o n race , nationa l origin , 

gende r o r disability . EE O Plan s t o Eliminat e Identifie d Barriers , a s appropriate , ar e include d wit h thi s Federa l Agenc y Annua l 

E E O Progra m Statu s Report . 

 certif y tha t prope r documentatio n o f thi s assessmen t i s i n plac e an d i s bein g maintaine d fo r EEO C revie w upo n request . 

Signatur e o f Principa l EE O Director/Officia l Dat e 

Certifie s tha t thi s Federa l Agenc y Annua l EE O Progra m Statu s Repor t i s i n complianc e wit h EE O

Signatur e o f Agenc y Hea d o r Agenc y Hea d Designe e Dat e 

91
92

EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

MD-715 - PART G

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment From agency Leadership

This element requires the agency head to communicate a commitment to equal employment opportunity and a 

discrimination-free workplace.

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

A.1 – The agency issues an effective, upto-date EEO policy statement.Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

A.1.a Does the agency annually issue a signed 

and dated EEO policy statement on agency 

letterhead that clearly communicates the 

agency’s commitment to EEO for all 

employees and applicants? If “yes”, please 

provide the annual issuance date in the 

comments column. [see MD-715, II(A)]

Yes November 21, 2017

A.1.b Does the EEO policy statement address all 

protected bases (age, color, disability, sex 

(including pregnancy, sexual orientation and 

gender identity), genetic information, 

national origin, race, religion, and reprisal) 

contained in the laws EEOC enforces? [see 

29 CFR § 1614.101(a)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

A.2 – The agency has communicated EEO 

policies and procedures to all employees.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

A.2.a Does the agency disseminate the following 

policies and procedures to all employees:

A.2.a.1 Anti-harassment policy? [see MD 715, II(A)] Yes

A.2.a.2 Reasonable accommodation procedures? 

[see 29 C.F.R § 1614.203(d)(3)]

No Updated procedures were submitted 

to EEOC for approval September 25, 

2018.

A.2.b Does the agency prominently post the 

following information throughout the 

workplace and on its public website:

A.2.b.1 The business contact information for its EEO 

Counselors, EEO Officers, Special Emphasis 

Program Managers, and EEO Director? [see 

29 C.F.R § 1614.102(b)(7)]

Yes

A.2.b.2 Written materials concerning the EEO 

program, laws, policy statements, and the 

operation of the EEO complaint process? 

[see 29 C.F.R § 1614.102(b)(5)]

Yes

A.2.b.3 Reasonable accommodation procedures? 

[see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3)(i)] If so,

please provide the internet address in the 

comments column.

No Updated procedures were submitted 

to EEOC for approval September 25, 

2018. 

A.2.c Does the agency inform its employees about 

the following topics:
93

A.2.c.1 EEO complaint process? [see 29 CFR §§ 

1614.102(a)(12) and 1614.102(b)(5)] If “yes”,

please provide how often.

Yes The EEO complaints process is 

always available on the OEEO’s 

intranet. New employees are also 

informed during orientation. In 

addition, OEEO provided training that 

informs the workforce of the EEO 

complaints process.

A.2.c.2 ADR process? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(C)] If 

“yes”, please provide how often.

Yes The ADR process is always available 

on the OEEO’s intranet. New 

employees are also informed during 

orientation.

A.2.c.3 Reasonable accommodation program? [see 

29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If “yes”,

please provide how often.

Yes The Reasonable Accommodation 

brochure is provided to all employees 

during NEO and the PBGC 

Reasonable Accommodation 

Coordinator provides a briefing to all 

new employees during NEO on 

reasonable accommodation 

procedures. In addition, the 

information is available on the 

intranet. 

A.2.c.4 Anti-harassment program? [see EEOC 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment 

by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1] If “yes”, 

please provide how often.

Yes HRD provides training regarding 

workplace behavior, Harassment 

Inquiry Committee (HIC), agency 

policy, arbitration/ mediation, and 

inappropriate behaviors/ethics in the 

workplace. During these sessions, 

employees are provided information 

tools such as the PBGC’s Antiharassment Policy brochure, the 

current OEEO Prevention of 

Workplace Harassment Policy 

Statement and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Policy 

Statement to give notice to federal 

employees of inappropriate behaviors 

in the workplace and the potential 

result of such actions.

A.2.c.5 Behaviors that are inappropriate in the 

workplace and could result in disciplinary 

action? [5 CFR § 2635.101(b)] If “yes”, 

please provide how often.

Yes Notices are also publicly displayed in 

the HRD’s front office and the agency 

intranet site.

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

A.3 – The agency assesses and ensures 

EEO principles are part of its culture.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Compliance Indicator

A.3.a Does the agency provide recognition to 

employees, supervisors, managers, and 

units demonstrating superior 

accomplishment in equal employment 

opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a) 

(9)] If “yes”, provide one or two examples in 

the comments section.

Yes EEO Merit Award and Certificates

A.3.b Does the agency utilize the Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey or other climate 

assessment tools to monitor the perception 

of EEO principles within the workforce? [see 

5 CFR Part 250]

Yes
94

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the agency’s Strategic Mission

This element requires that the agency’s EEO programs are structured to maintain a workplace that is free from 

discrimination and support the agency’s strategic mission.

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

B.1 - The reporting structure for the EEO 

program provides the principal EEO 

official with appropriate authority and 

resources to effectively carry out a 

successful EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

B.1.a Is the agency head the immediate supervisor 

of the person (“EEO Director”) who has dayto-day control over the EEO office? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]

Yes

B.1.a.1 If the EEO Director does not report to the 

agency head, does the EEO Director report 

to the same agency head designee as the 

mission-related programmatic offices? If 

“yes,” please provide the title of the agency 

head designee in the comments.

NA

B.1.a.2 Does the agency’s organizational chart 

clearly define the reporting structure for the 

EEO office? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]

Yes

B.1.b Does the EEO Director have a regular and 

effective means of advising the agency head 

and other senior management officials of the 

effectiveness, efficiency and legal 

compliance of the agency’s EEO program? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(1); MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

B.1.c During this reporting period, did the EEO 

Director present to the head of the agency, 

and other senior management officials, the 

"State of the agency" briefing covering the 

six essential elements of the model EEO 

program and the status of the barrier 

analysis process? [see MD-715 Instructions, 

Sec. I)] If “yes”, please provide the date of 

the briefing in the comments column.

Yes March 14, 2018

B.1.d Does the EEO Director regularly participate 

in senior-level staff meetings concerning 

personnel, budget, technology, and other 

workforce issues? [see MD-715, II(B)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

B.2 – The EEO Director controls all 

aspects of the EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Compliance Indicator

B.2.a Is the EEO Director responsible for the 

implementation of a continuing affirmative 

employment program to promote EEO and 

to identify and eliminate discriminatory 

policies, procedures, and practices? [see 

MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A); 29 CFR §1614.102(c)]

Yes

B.2.b Is the EEO Director responsible for 

overseeing the completion of EEO 

counseling [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(4)]

Yes

B.2.c Is the EEO Director responsible for 

overseeing the fair and thorough 

investigation of EEO complaints? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may

Yes
95

not be applicable for certain subordinate 

level components.]

B.2.d Is the EEO Director responsible for 

overseeing the timely issuance of final 

agency decisions? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may not be 

applicable for certain subordinate level 

components.] 

Yes

B.2.e Is the EEO Director responsible for ensuring 

compliance with EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR

§§ 1614.102(e); 1614.502]

Yes

B.2.f Is the EEO Director responsible for 

periodically evaluating the entire EEO 

program and providing recommendations for 

improvement to the agency head? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

Yes

B.2.g If the agency has subordinate level 

components, does the EEO Director provide 

effective guidance and coordination for the 

components? [see 29 CFR §§ 

1614.102(c)(2) and (c)(3)]

NA

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

B.3 - The EEO Director and other EEO 

professional staff are involved in, and 

consulted on, management/personnel 

actions. 

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

B.3.a Do EEO program officials participate in 

agency meetings regarding workforce 

changes that might impact EEO issues, 

including strategic planning, recruitment 

strategies, vacancy projections, succession 

planning, and selections for training/career 

development opportunities? [see MD-715, 

II(B)]

Yes

B.3.b Does the agency’s current strategic plan 

reference EEO / diversity and inclusion 

principles? [see MD-715, II(B)] If “yes”, 

please identify the EEO principles in the 

strategic plan in the comments column.

Yes PBGC Strategic reference: 

Encourage and support a diverse and 

inclusive work environment that 

encourages employee engagement; 

Foster a diverse, high- performing 

workforce; 

Foster a culture of inclusion that 

encourages collaboration, flexibility 

and fairness.

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

B.4 - The agency has sufficient budget 

and staffing to support the success of its 

EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

B.4.a Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(1), has 

the agency allocated sufficient funding and 

qualified staffing to successfully implement 

the EEO program, for the following areas:
96

B.4.a.1 to conduct a self

-assessment of the agency 

for possible program deficiencies? [see MD-

715, II(D)]

Yes

B.4.a.2 to enable the agency to conduct a thorough 

barrier analysis of its workforce? [see MD-

715, II(B)]

Yes

B.4.a.3 to timely, thoroughly, and fairly process EEO 

complaints, including EEO counseling, 

investigations, final agency decisions, and 

legal sufficiency reviews? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.102(c)(5) & 1614.105(b) – (f); MD-110,

Ch. 1(IV)(D) & 5(IV); MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

B.4.a.4 to provide all supervisors and employees 

with training on the EEO program, including 

but not limited to retaliation, harassment, 

religious accommodations, disability 

accommodations, the EEO complaint 

process, and ADR? [see MD-715, II(B) and 

III(C)] If not, please identify the type(s) of 

training with insufficient funding in the 

comments column.

Yes

B.4.a.5 to conduct thorough, accurate, and effective 

field audits of the EEO programs in 

components and the field offices, if 

applicable? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

NA

B.4.a.6 to publish and distribute EEO materials (e.g. 

harassment policies, EEO posters, 

reasonable accommodations procedures)? 

[see MD-715, II(B)]

Yes

B.4.a.7 to maintain accurate data collection and 

tracking systems for the following types of 

data: complaint tracking, workforce 

demographics, and applicant flow data? [see 

MD-715, II(E)]. If not, please identify the 

systems with insufficient funding in the 

comments section.

Yes

B.4.a.8 to effectively administer its special emphasis 

programs (such as, Federal Women’s 

Program, Hispanic Employment Program, 

and People with Disabilities Program 

Manager)? [5 USC § 7201; 38 USC § 4214;

5 CFR § 720.204; 5 CFR § 213.3102(t) and

(u); 5 CFR § 315.709]

Yes

B.4.a.9 to effectively manage its anti

-harassment 

program? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I); 

EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment 

by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1]

Yes

B.4.a.10 to effectively manage its reasonable 

accommodation program? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.203(d)(4)(ii)]

Yes

B.4.a.11 to ensure timely and complete compliance 

with EEOC orders? [see MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

B.4.b Does the EEO office have a budget that is 

separate from other offices within the 

agency? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(1)]

Yes

B.4.c Are the duties and responsibilities of EEO 

officials clearly defined? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(III)(A), 2(III), & 6(III)]

Yes

B.4.d Does the agency ensure that all new 

counselors and investigators, including 

contractors and collateral duty employees,

Yes
97

receive the required 32 hours of training, 

pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(A) of MD-110?

B.4.e Does the agency ensure that all experienced 

counselors and investigators, including 

contractors and collateral duty employees, 

receive the required 8 hours of annual 

refresher training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(C) of 

MD-110?

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

B.5 – The agency recruits, hires, 

develops, and retains supervisors and 

managers who have effective managerial, 

communications, and interpersonal 

skills.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

New Indicator

B.5.a Pursuant to 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5), have 

all managers and supervisors received 

training on their responsibilities under the 

following areas under the agency EEO 

program:

B.5.a.1 EEO Complaint Process? [see MD715(II)(B)]Yes

B.5.a.2 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures? 

[see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(d)(3)]

Yes

B.5.a.3 Anti-Harassment Policy? [see MD-715(II)(B)] Yes

B.5.a.4 Supervisory, managerial, communication, 

and interpersonal skills in order to supervise 

most effectively in a workplace with diverse 

employees and avoid disputes arising from 

ineffective communications? [see MD-715, 

II(B)]

Yes

B.5.a.5 ADR, with emphasis on the federal 

government’s interest in encouraging mutual 

resolution of disputes and the benefits 

associated with utilizing ADR? [see MD715(II)(E)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

B.6 – The agency involves managers in 

the implementation of its EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

New Indicator

B.6.a Are senior managers involved in the 

implementation of Special Emphasis 

Programs? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. 

I]

Yes

B.6.b Do senior managers participate in the barrier 

analysis process? [see MD-715 Instructions, 

Sec. I]

Yes

B.6.c When barriers are identified, do senior 

managers assist in developing agency EEO 

action plans (Part I, Part J, or the Executive 

Summary)? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. 

I]

Yes

B.6.d Do senior managers successfully implement 

EEO Action Plans and incorporate the EEO 

Action Plan Objectives into agency strategic 

plans? [29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5)]

Yes During FY18 action plans were 

established and implemented. We 

anticipate measuring results by 2020.
98

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability

This element requires the agency head to hold all managers, supervisors, and EEO officials responsible for the 

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

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

C.1 – The agency conducts regular 

internal audits of its component and field 

offices. 

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.1.a Does the agency regularly assess its 

component and field offices for possible 

EEO program deficiencies? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(c)(2)] If ”yes”, please provide the 

schedule for conducting audits in the 

comments section.

N/A PBGC does not have any field offices

C.1.b Does the agency regularly assess its 

component and field offices on their efforts 

to remove barriers from the workplace? [see 

29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If ”yes”, please 

provide the schedule for conducting audits in 

the comments section.

N/A PBGC does not have any field offices

C.1.c Do the component and field offices make 

reasonable efforts to comply with the 

recommendations of the field audit? [see 

MD-715, II(C)]

N/A PBGC does not have any field offices

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

C.2 – The agency has established 

procedures to prevent all forms of EEO 

discrimination.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

New Indicator

C.2.a Has the agency established comprehensive 

anti-harassment policy and procedures that 

comply with EEOC’s enforcement guidance? 

[see MD-715, II(C); Enforcement Guidance 

on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful 

Harassment by Supervisors (Enforcement 

Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 

(June 18, 1999)]

Yes

C.2.a.1 Does the anti-harassment policy require 

corrective action to prevent or eliminate 

conduct before it rises to the level of 

unlawful harassment? [see EEOC 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment 

by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1]

Yes

C.2.a.2 Has the agency established a firewall 

between the Anti-Harassment Coordinator 

and the EEO Director? [see EEOC Report, 

Model EEO Program Must Have an Effective 

Anti-Harassment Program (2006]

Yes

C.2.a.3 Does the agency have a separate procedure 

(outside the EEO complaint process) to 

address harassment allegations? [see 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment 

by Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), 

EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 

1999)]

Yes

C.2.a.4 Does the agency ensure that the EEO office 

informs the anti-harassment program of all 

EEO counseling activity alleging

Yes
99

harassment? [see Enforcement Guidance, 

V.C.]

C.2.a.5 Does the agency conduct a prompt inquiry 

(beginning within 10 days of notification) of 

all harassment allegations, including those 

initially raised in the EEO complaint 

process? [see Complainant v. Dep’t of 

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No.

0120123232 (May 21, 2015); Complainant v. 

Dep’t of Defense (Defense Commissary 

Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130331 

(May 29, 2015)] If “no”, please provide the 

percentage of timely-processed inquiries in 

the comment’s column.

Yes

C.2.a.6 Do the agency’s training materials on its 

anti-harassment policy include examples of 

disability-based harassment? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(2)]

Yes

C.2.b Has the agency established disability 

reasonable accommodation procedures that 

comply with EEOC’s regulations and 

guidance? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)]

Yes

C.2.b.1 Is there a designated agency official or other 

mechanism in place to coordinate or assist 

with processing requests for disability 

accommodations throughout the agency? 

[see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)(D)]

Yes

C.2.b.2 Has the agency established a firewall 

between the Reasonable Accommodation 

Program Manager and the EEO Director? 

[see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(A)]

Yes

C.2.b.3 Does the agency ensure that job applicants 

can request and receive reasonable 

accommodations during the application and 

placement processes? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(B)]

Yes

C.2.b.4 Do the reasonable accommodation 

procedures clearly state that the agency 

should process the request within a 

maximum amount of time (e.g., 20 business 

days), as established by the agency in its 

affirmative action plan? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(3)(i)(M)]

Yes

C.2.b.5 Does the agency process all accommodation 

requests within the time frame set forth in its 

reasonable accommodation procedures? 

[see MD-715, II(C)] If “no”, please provide 

the percentage of timely-processed requests 

in the comments column.

Yes

C.2.c Has the agency established procedures for 

processing requests for personal assistance 

services that comply with EEOC’s 

regulations, enforcement guidance, and 

other applicable executive orders, guidance, 

and standards? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(6)]

Yes

C.2.c.1 Does the agency post its procedures for 

processing requests for Personal Assistance 

Services on its public website? [see 29 CFR

§ 1614.203(d)(5)(v)] If “yes”, please provide 

the internet address in the comments 

column.

No The procedures will be posted in FY19
100

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

C.3 - The agency evaluates managers and 

supervisors on their efforts to ensure 

equal employment opportunity.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

New Indicator

C.3.a Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(5), do all 

managers and supervisors have an element 

in their performance appraisal that evaluates 

their commitment to agency EEO policies 

and principles and their participation in the 

EEO program?

Yes

C.3.b Does the agency require rating officials to 

evaluate the performance of managers and 

supervisors based on the following activities:

C.3.b.1 Resolve EEO 

problems/disagreements/conflicts, including 

the participation in ADR proceedings? [see 

MD-110, Ch. 3.I]

Yes

C.3.b.2 Ensure full cooperation of employees under 

his/her supervision with EEO officials, such 

as counselors and investigators? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(6)]

Yes

C.3.b.3 Ensure a workplace that is free from all 

forms of discrimination, including 

harassment and retaliation? [see MD-715, 

II(C)]

Yes

C.3.b.4 Ensure that subordinate supervisors have 

effective managerial, communication, and 

interpersonal skills to supervise in a 

workplace with diverse employees? [see 

MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

C.3.b.5 Provide religious accommodations when 

such accommodations do not cause an 

undue hardship? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(a)(7)]

Yes

C.3.b.6 Provide disability accommodations when 

such accommodations do not cause an 

undue hardship? [ see 29 CFR

§1614.102(a)(8)]

Yes

C.3.b.7 Support the EEO program in identifying and 

removing barriers to equal opportunity. [see 

MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.3.b.8 Support the anti-harassment program in 

investigating and correcting harassing 

conduct. [see Enforcement Guidance, V.C.2]

Yes

C.3.b.9 Comply with settlement agreements and 

orders issued by the agency, EEOC, and 

EEO-related cases from the Merit Systems 

Protection Board, labor arbitrators, and the 

Federal Labor Relations Authority? [see MD715, II(C)]

Yes

C.3.c Does the EEO Director recommend to the 

agency head improvements or corrections, 

including remedial or disciplinary actions, for 

managers and supervisors who have failed 

in their EEO responsibilities? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(c)(2)]

Yes

C.3.d When the EEO Director recommends 

remedial or disciplinary actions, are the 

recommendations regularly implemented by 

the agency? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

Yes
101

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

C.4 – The agency ensures effective 

coordination between its EEO programs 

and Human Resources (HR) program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.4.a

Do the HR Director and the EEO Director 

meet regularly to assess whether personnel 

programs, policies, and procedures conform 

to EEOC laws, instructions, and 

management directives? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(a)(2)]

Yes

C.4.b Has the agency established 

timetables/schedules to review at regular 

intervals its merit promotion program, 

employee recognition awards program, 

employee development/training programs, 

and management/personnel policies, 

procedures, and practices for systemic 

barriers that may be impeding full 

participation in the program by all EEO 

groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

C.4.c Does the EEO office have timely access to 

accurate and complete data (e.g., 

demographic data for workforce, applicants, 

training programs, etc.) required to prepare 

the MD-715 workforce data tables? [see 29 

CFR §1614.601(a)]

Yes

C.4.d Does the HR office timely provide the EEO 

office with access to other data (e.g., exit 

interview data, climate assessment surveys, 

and grievance data), upon request? [see 

MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e Pursuant to Section II(C) of MD-715, does 

the EEO office collaborate with the HR office 

to:

C.4.e.1 Implement the Affirmative Action Plan for 

Individuals with Disabilities? [see 29 CFR

§1614.203(d); MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.2 Develop and/or conduct outreach and 

recruiting initiatives? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.3 Develop and/or provide training for 

managers and employees? [see MD-715, 

II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.4 Identify and remove barriers to equal 

opportunity in the workplace? [see MD-715, 

II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.5 Assist in preparing the MD-715 report? [see 

MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

C.5 – Following a finding of 

discrimination, the agency explores 

whether it should take a disciplinary 

action. 

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.5.a Does the agency have a disciplinary policy 

and/or table of penalties that covers 

discriminatory conduct? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.102(a)(6); see also Douglas v.

Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280

(1981)]

Yes

C.5.b When appropriate, does the agency 

discipline or sanction managers and 

employees for discriminatory conduct? [see

Yes There were no managers or 

supervisors disciplined/sanctioned for 

this fiscal year.
102

29 CFR §1614.102(a)(6)] If “yes”, please 

state the number of disciplined/sanctioned 

individuals during this reporting period in the 

comments.

C.5.c If the agency has a finding of discrimination 

(or settles cases in which a finding was 

likely), does the agency inform managers 

and supervisors about the discriminatory 

conduct? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

C.6 – The EEO office advises 

managers/supervisors on EEO matters.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.6.a Does the EEO office provide 

management/supervisory officials with 

regular EEO updates on at least an annual 

basis, including EEO complaints, workforce 

demographics and data summaries, legal 

updates, barrier analysis plans, and special 

emphasis updates? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] If “yes”, please identify 

the frequency of the EEO updates in the 

comments column.

Yes Annually

C.6.b Are EEO officials readily available to answer 

managers’ and supervisors’ questions or 

concerns? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention

This element requires that the agency head make early efforts to prevent discrimination and to identify and 

eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity.

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

D.1 – The agency conducts a reasonable 

assessment to monitor progress towards 

achieving equal employment opportunity 

throughout the year.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

D.1.a Does the agency have a process for 

identifying triggers in the workplace? [see 

MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

D.1.b Does the agency regularly use the following 

sources of information for trigger 

identification: workforce data; 

complaint/grievance data; exit surveys; 

employee climate surveys; focus groups; 

affinity groups; union; program evaluations; 

special emphasis programs; reasonable 

accommodation program; anti-harassment 

program; and/or external special interest 

groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

D.1.c Does the agency conduct exit interviews or 

surveys that include questions on how the 

agency could improve the recruitment, 

hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement 

of individuals with disabilities? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(1)(iii)(C)]

Yes
103

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

D.2 – The agency identifies areas where 

barriers may exclude EEO groups 

(reasonable basis to act.)

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

New Indicator

D.2.a Does the agency have a process for 

analyzing the identified triggers to find 

possible barriers? [see MD-715, (II)(B)]

Yes

D.2.b Does the agency regularly examine the 

impact of management/personnel policies, 

procedures, and practices by race, national 

origin, sex, and disability? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(a)(3)]

Yes

D.2.c Does the agency consider whether any 

group of employees or applicants might be 

negatively impacted prior to making human 

resource decisions, such as re-organizations 

and realignments? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(a)(3)] 

Yes

D.2.d Does the agency regularly review the 

following sources of information to find 

barriers: complaint/grievance data, exit 

surveys, employee climate surveys, focus 

groups, affinity groups, union, program 

evaluations, anti-harassment program, 

special emphasis programs, reasonable 

accommodation program; anti-harassment 

program; and/or external special interest 

groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If 

“yes”, please identify the data sources in the 

comment’s column.

Yes iComplaints and OBIEE

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

D.3 – The agency establishes appropriate 

action plans to remove identified barriers.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

New Indicator

D.3.a. Does the agency effectively tailor action 

plans to address the identified barriers, in 

particular policies, procedures, or practices? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]

Yes No barriers have been identified

D.3.b If the agency identified one or more barriers 

during the reporting period, did the agency 

implement a plan in Part I, including meeting 

the target dates for the planned activities? 

[see MD-715, II(D)]

Yes No barriers identified during reporting 

period 

D.3.c Does the agency periodically review the 

effectiveness of the plans? [see MD-715, 

II(D)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

D.4 – The agency has an affirmative 

action plan for people with disabilities, 

including those with targeted disabilities.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

New Indicator
104

Measures

D.4.a

Does the agency post its affirmative action 

plan on its public website? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(4)] Please provide the internet 

address in the comments.

Yes

D.4.b

Does the agency take specific steps to 

ensure qualified people with disabilities are 

aware of and encouraged to apply for job 

vacancies? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(i)]

Yes

D.4.c

Does the agency ensure that disabilityrelated questions from members of the 

public are answered promptly and correctly? 

[see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(A)]

Yes

D.4.d

Has the agency taken specific steps that are 

reasonably designed to increase the number 

of persons with disabilities or targeted 

disabilities employed at the agency until it 

meets the goals? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(7)(ii)]

Yes

Essential Element E: Efficiency

This element requires the agency head to ensure that there are effective systems for evaluating the impact and 

effectiveness of the agency’s EEO programs and an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.

Compliance 

Indicator

E.1 - The agency maintains an efficient, 

fair, and impartial complaint resolution 

process. 

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

Measures

E.1.a Does the agency timely provide EEO 

counseling, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105?

Yes

E.1.b Does the agency provide written notification 

of rights and responsibilities in the EEO 

process during the initial counseling session, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105(b)(1)?

Yes

E.1.c Does the agency issue acknowledgment 

letters immediately upon receipt of a formal 

complaint, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)?

Yes

E.1.d Does the agency issue acceptance 

letters/dismissal decisions within a 

reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) after receipt 

of the written EEO Counselor report, 

pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)? If so, please 

provide the average processing time in the 

comments.

Yes Yes, the Agency issues accept 

letter/dismissal decisions within a 

reasonable time. The internal office 

policy is to issue within 14 days of 

receipt of the formal complaint

E.1.e Does the agency ensure all employees fully 

cooperate with EEO counselors and EEO 

personnel in the EEO process, including 

granting routine access to personnel records 

related to an investigation, pursuant to 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(6)?

Yes

E.1.f Does the agency timely complete 

investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR

§1614.108?

Yes

E.1.g If the agency does not timely complete 

investigations, does the agency notify 

complainants of the date by which the 

investigation will be completed and of their 

right to request a hearing or file a lawsuit, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108(g)?

Yes

E.1.h When the complainant does not request a 

hearing, does the agency timely issue the

Yes
105

final agency decision, pursuant to 29 CFR

§1614.110(b)?

E.1.i Does the agency timely issue final actions 

following receipt of the hearing file and the 

administrative judge’s decision, pursuant to 

29 CFR §1614.110(a)?

Yes

E.1.j If the agency uses contractors to implement 

any stage of the EEO complaint process, 

does the agency hold them accountable for 

poor work product and/or delays? [See MD110, Ch. 5(V)(A)] If “yes”, please describe 

how in the comment’s column.

Yes Yes, the Agency uses contract 

investigators to conduct EEO 

discrimination investigations. The 

EEO attorney-advisor requires 

weekly progress reports from the 

contract investigators during an 

investigation. In addition, the EEO 

attorney-advisor, reviews the report 

of investigation for legal sufficiency 

before it is issued. If there are any 

identified problems, the contract 

investigator is required to fix the 

problem.

E.1.k If the agency uses employees to implement 

any stage of the EEO complaint process, 

does the agency hold them accountable for 

poor work product and/or delays during 

performance review? [See MD-110, Ch.

5(V)(A)]

Yes

E.1.l Does the agency submit complaint files and 

other documents in the proper format to 

EEOC through the Federal Sector EEO 

Portal (FedSEP)? [See 29 CFR § 

1614.403(g)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

E.2 – The agency has a neutral EEO 

process. 

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments 

Revised Indicator

E.2.a Has the agency established a clear 

separation between its EEO complaint 

program and its defensive function? [see 

MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

Yes

E.2.b When seeking legal sufficiency reviews, 

does the EEO office have access to 

sufficient legal resources separate from the 

agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(D)] If “yes”, please identify the 

source/location of the attorney who conducts 

the legal sufficiency review in the comments 

column.

Yes The Equal Employment Opportunity 

Office has an Attorney Advisor on 

Staff to insure legal sufficiency 

reviews are separate and apart from 

the agency representative.

E.2.c If the EEO office relies on the agency’s 

defensive function to conduct the legal 

sufficiency review, is there a firewall 

between the reviewing attorney and the 

agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(D)]

Yes

E.2.d Does the agency ensure that its agency 

representative does not intrude upon EEO 

counseling, investigations, and final agency 

decisions? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

Yes

E.2.e If applicable, are processing time frames 

incorporated for the legal counsel’s 

sufficiency review for timely processing of 

complaints? [see EEOC Report, Attaining a 

Model Agency Program: Efficiency (Dec. 1, 

2004)]

Yes
106

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

E.3 - The agency has established and 

encouraged the widespread use of a fair 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

E.3.a Has the agency established an ADR 

program for use during both the precomplaint and formal complaint stages of the 

EEO process? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(b)(2)]

Yes

E.3.b Does the agency require managers and 

supervisors to participate in ADR once it has 

been offered? [see MD-715, II(A)(1)]

No While not required, it is strongly 

encouraged and managers 

participate. 

E.3.c Does the agency encourage all employees 

to use ADR, where ADR is appropriate? [see 

MD-110, Ch. 3(IV)(C)]

Yes

E.3.d Does the agency ensure a management 

official with settlement authority is accessible 

during the dispute resolution process? [see 

MD-110, Ch. 3(III)(A)(9)]

Yes

E.3.e Does the agency prohibit the responsible 

management official named in the dispute 

from having settlement authority? [see MD110, Ch. 3(I)]

Yes

E.3.f Does the agency annually evaluate the 

effectiveness of its ADR program? [see MD110, Ch. 3(II)(D)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

E.4 – The agency has effective and 

accurate data collection systems in place 

to evaluate its EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

E.4.a Does the agency have systems in place to 

accurately collect, monitor, and analyze the 

following data:

E.4.a.1 Complaint activity, including the issues and 

bases of the complaints, the aggrieved 

individuals/complainants, and the involved 

management official? [see MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

E.4.a.2 The race, national origin, sex, and disability 

status of agency employees? [see 29 CFR

§1614.601(a)]

Yes

E.4.a.3 Recruitment activities? [see MD-715, II(E)] Yes

E.4.a.4 External and internal applicant flow data 

concerning the applicants’ race, national 

origin, sex, and disability status? [see MD715, II(E)]

Yes

E.4.a.5 The processing of requests for reasonable 

accommodation? [29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)]

Yes

E.4.a.6 The processing of complaints for the antiharassment program? [see EEOC 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment 

by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.2]

Yes

E.4.b Does the agency have a system in place to 

re-survey the workforce on a regular basis? 

[MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes
107

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

E.5 – The agency identifies and 

disseminates significant trends and best 

practices in its EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

E.5.a Does the agency monitor trends in its EEO 

program to determine whether the agency is 

meeting its obligations under the statutes 

EEOC enforces? [see MD-715, II(E)] If “yes”, 

provide an example in the comments.

Yes By conducting Barrier and Trend 

Analysis. (See section E3 Workforce 

Analysis) 

E.5.b Does the agency review other agencies’ best 

practices and adopt them, where 

appropriate, to improve the effectiveness of 

its EEO program? [see MD-715, II(E)] If 

“yes”, provide an example in the comments.

Yes We always work to remain current 

regarding industry best practices. 

However, we have not identified 

practices that significantly differ from 

PBGC’s.

E.5.c Does the agency compare its performance in 

the EEO process to other federal agencies 

of similar size? [see MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

This element requires federal agencies to comply with EEO statutes and EEOC regulations, policy guidance, 

and other written instructions.

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

F.1 – The agency has processes in place 

to ensure timely and full compliance with 

EEOC Orders and settlement agreements.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

F.1.a Does the agency have a system of 

management controls to ensure that its 

officials timely comply with EEOC 

orders/directives and final agency actions? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(e); MD-715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.b Does the agency have a system of 

management controls to ensure the timely, 

accurate, and complete compliance with 

resolutions/settlement agreements? [see 

MD-715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.c Are there procedures in place to ensure the 

timely and predictable processing of ordered 

monetary relief? [see MD-715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.d Are procedures in place to process other 

forms of ordered relief promptly? [see MD715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.e When EEOC issues an order requiring 

compliance by the agency, does the agency 

hold its compliance officer(s) accountable for 

poor work product and/or delays during 

performance review? [see MD-110, Ch.

9(IX)(H)]

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures 

F.2 – The agency complies with the law, 

including EEOC regulations, 

management directives, orders, and other 

written instructions.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

Indicator moved from E-III Revised

F.2.a Does the agency timely respond and fully 

comply with EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR

§1614.502; MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

F.2.a.1 When a complainant requests a hearing, 

does the agency timely forward the 

investigative file to the appropriate EEOC 

hearing office? [see 29 CFR §1614.108(g)]

Yes
108

F.2.a.2 When there is a finding of discrimination that 

is not the subject of an appeal by the 

agency, does the agency ensure timely 

compliance with the orders of relief? [see 29 

CFR §1614.501]

Yes

F.2.a.3 When a complainant files an appeal, does 

the agency timely forward the investigative 

file to EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.403(e)]

Yes

F.2.a.4 Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.502, does the 

agency promptly provide EEOC with the 

required documentation for completing 

compliance?

Yes

Compliance 

Indicator

Measures

F.3 - The agency reports to EEOC its 

program efforts and accomplishments.

Measure 

Met? 

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

F.3.a Does the agency timely submit to EEOC an 

accurate and complete No FEAR Act report? 

[Public Law 107-174 (May 15, 2002),

§203(a)]

Yes

F.3.b Does the agency timely post on its public 

webpage its quarterly No FEAR Act data? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.703(d)]

Yes
109

MD-715 – Part I

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier

Please describe the status of each plan that the agency implemented to identify possible barriers in 

policies, procedures, or practices for employees and applicants by race, ethnicity, and gender.

If the agency did not conduct barrier analysis during the reporting period, please check the box.

Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier:

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table

Narrative Description of Trigger

When comparing representation rates of mission critical occupations to

the Occupational Civilian Labor Force benchmark, Hispanic males

have lower than anticipated participation rates in Accounting (0510),

Auditing (0511), General Attorney (0905), Employee Law Benefit

(0958), and Information Technology Specialist (2210).

Hispanic females also have consistently lower than anticipated

participation rates in mission-critical occupations: Accounting (0510),

Employee Benefits Law Specialist (0958), Contracting (1102), Financial

Hispanic 

representation

Analyst (1160), Actuary Science (1510) and Information Technology 

Specialist (2210).

in PBGC is

below the 

CLF

benchmark

All Data 

Tables Furthermore, when compared to the National Civilian Labor Force 

(NCLF), Hispanic employees have lower than anticipated 

representation in the PBGC workforce. The participation rates of 

Hispanic males and females in PBGC and the NCLF are as follows:

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger

EEO Group

Hispanic or Latino Males - YES

Hispanic or Latino Females - YES

Males Females Total

PBGC 2.01% 2.22% 4.23%

NCLF 5.17% 4.79% 9.96%
110

Barrier Analysis Process

Sources of Data

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes

The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity 

completed a review of FY 2018 workforce and human 

resources data for PBGC major occupations, applicant 

flow, recruitment activities and new hires. Triggers were 

identified through analysis of the FY 2018 workforce

tables.

In FY 2019 barrier analysis efforts will continue to focus 

on the applicant flow data, recruitment, and hiring. Other 

elements of the employee life cycle will also be analyzed 

to determine the impact of the recruitment and retention 

of Hispanics.

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes To identify complainant demographics

Grievance Data (Trends) No

Findings from Decisions 

(e.g., EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes)

Yes

To identify trends across the Federal government

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS)

Yes To assess employee satisfaction

Exit Interview Data No

Focus Groups No

Interviews No

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM)

Yes To identify trends and industry best practices

Other (Please Describe)

Status of Barrier Analysis Process

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No)

Yes No

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

The workforce data analysis suggest that barriers may exist for Hispanic employees in the 

hiring/selections processes of PBGC’s mission-critical occupations.
111

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan

Objective Date 

Initiated) Target Date)

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified Date Date Completed

Increase the hiring of Hispanic 

males and females in PBGC 

by expanding the applicant 

pool for mission-critical 

occupations with lower than 

anticipated participation rates. 

Work with management and 

staff to identify any barriers 

and develop effective 

strategies and action plans. 

Provide recommendations to 

agency management and 

HRD to overcome any 

identified triggers/barriers.

October 1,

2016

September 

30, 2020

Responsible Official(s)

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

HRD Directors and Staff, PBGC, 

Department Directors and 

Management Team

OEEO Director Brenecia Watson Yes

Lead EEO Specialist Hope Fuller Yes

EEO Specialist Cynthia Searles Yes

EEO Specialist Kimberly Rodgers Yes

Management Analyst Beverley Hebron Yes

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective

Target Date Planned Activities Modified 

Date Completion Date

March 30,

2020

Build relationships with organizations such as 

National Hispanic MBA Association, Hispanic 

National Bar Association, Latinos in Information 

Sciences and Technology
112

Target Date Planned Activities Modified 

Date Completion Date

September 

30, 2019

Review the applicant pool and exit interview data 

to identify trends/barriers in hiring and selection 

of Hispanic employees

September 

30, 2020

Evaluate policies and practices and observe how 

qualified applicants are selected into positions 

and assess whether the agency’s selection 

process has any deficiencies or potentialbarriers

September 

30, 2020

Assess the effectiveness of mentorships and 

developmental programs in increasing 

representation of groups that are below their rate 

of representation in senior level positions and the 

feeder pool for senior level positions.

Report of Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2018

OEEO completed statistical analysis of workforce data including 3-year trend 

analysis and Barrier and Trends Analysis (BATA).

In FY 2018, PBGC received applications from Hispanic males and females 

in five out of the eight mission critical occupations: Supervisory Accountant 

(0510), Supervisory Actuary (1510), Auditor (0511), General Attorney 

(0905), and Information Technology Specialist (2210). One female was 

selected for Supervisory Auditor. Two Hispanic males applied and received 

internal promotions in General Attorney and Actuary Science.

FY 2018

Leveraged the Hispanic Affirmative Employment Committee’s commitment 

in helping to identify issues that are of concern to PBGC’s Hispanic 

workforce. Implemented the Representation Matters Campaign so that all 

employees understand the importance of providing accurate demographic 

data and the impact accurate numbers can have on the agency.

FY 2018

HOLA, the Hispanic Affinity Group conducted activities to support the 

professional development of PBGC’s Hispanic workforce and to also create 

connections with the community in order to develop future interest in 

employment at PBGC.

• Professional development workshops for HOLA members –

LinkedIn and TSP (more details on our newsletterattached)

• Federal Hispanic Networking event in collaboration with other 

federal affinity groups (HECFAA-STATE&USAID, CLEO-CENSUS, 

HACE-USDA, ALAS-DOL, HEO-HHS, HIT, HEC-ED, 

LATINOS@NOAA, NHCFAE, NCHEPM) The event’s purpose was 

to get all the Hispanics Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) 

together to share topics on career advancement and mentoring. 

HOLAPBGC was lead coordinator. (more details on our newsletter 

attached)

• HOLA-HACU Mentorship Program- This summer we established 

the HOLA-HACU mentorship program in which we paired the
113

summer interns with HOLA members and agency professionals 

based on their fields and career aspirations. Each HACU intern 

was assigned a mentor. For example, two interns expressed 

interest in pursuing law, so they were paired with two attorneys in 

OGC. In addition, a Hispanic Supervisory Financial Analyst also 

served as lead mentor for all interns.

• Community Service Events with Don Bosco Cristo Rey High 

School in Takoma Md- HOLA members volunteered their time to 

help Hispanic high school seniors with their FAFSA (college 

financial aid) and to review their college essays and personal 

statements. HOLA members also created a list of scholarships 

available to Hispanics and minorities and distributed to the 

students.

• Annual Hispanic Heritage Month Observance event – This year’s 

theme was The Power of Latina Women, and included an 

educational exhibit about many powerful Latinas in the Arts, STEM, 

Philanthropy, Sports and Politics. The event also featured a short 

film documentary about Afro Latinas perceptions in themedia.

FY 2018 HRD partnered with hiring managers and affinity groups to broaden 

targeted recruitment efforts to reach a diverse applicant pool.
114

MD-715 – Part I

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier

Please describe the status of each plan that the agency implemented to identify possible barriers in 

policies, procedures, or practices for employees and applicants by race, ethnicity, and gender.

If the agency did not conduct barrier analysis during the reporting period, please check the box.

Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier:

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table

Narrative Description of Trigger

Comparing 

grade 

representation 

to its 

benchmark.

A/B1 

A/B4-1 

A/B4-2

There is a significant decline in female representation in grades GS14, GS-15, and SL in comparison to their representation rate in the 

civilian labor force.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger

EEO Group

All Women - YES

Barrier Analysis Process

Sources of Data

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Female representation in grades, in major occupations, 

in manager/supervisory positions.

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes To identify the demographics making complaints

Grievance Data (Trends) No

Findings from Decisions 

(e.g., EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes)

No

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS) Yes To understand employee perceptions

Exit Interview Data No

Focus Groups Pending; A focus group is planned for FY19

Interviews No

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM) Yes To view trends across the government.
115

Sources of Data

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Other (Please Describe)

Status of Barrier Analysis Process

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No)

No No

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

None identified

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan

Objective Date 

Initiated

Target 

Date

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or 

No)

Modified 

Date

Date 

Completed

Provide resources (trainings, 

workshops) that support when 

in the development of their 

own careers.

06/01/2018 Ongoing

Yes

Provide the agency trainings 

and workshops on strategies 

to support equal employment 

opportunity.

06/01/2018 Ongoing

Yes

Responsible Official(s)

Title Name

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan?

(Yes or No)

OEEO Director Brenecia Watson Yes

Lead EEO Specialist Hope Fuller Yes

EEO Specialist Cynthia Searles Yes
116

Title Name

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan?

(Yes or No)

EEO Specialist Kimberly Rodgers Yes

Management Analyst Beverley Hebron Yes

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective

Target Date Planned Activities Modified 

Date

Completion 

Date

07/30/2019

Conduct a focus group comprised of women in 

PBGC to gather anecdotal data and develop 

hypothesis on issues impacting women at the 

senior level.

Report of Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2017

Developed the Federal Women’s Affirmative Employment Committee 

(FWAEC) and the Hispanic Affirmative employment Committee 

(HAEC).

2018

Leveraged FWAEC’s commitment in helping to remove barriers that 

impede equal opportunity by empowering members to assist in barrier 

analysis.

FWAEC has developed a focus group for February 2019.

During FY18, FWAEC provided resume writing workshop to provide 

useable tools to those seeking career advancement.

HAEC Sponsored a workshop on the importance of diverse 

representation in PBGC’s workshop.

2018 HRD partnered with hiring managers and affinity groups to broaden 

targeted recruitment efforts to reach a diverse applicant pool.
117

MD-715 – Part J

Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, 

and Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To capture agencies’ affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with targeted 

disabilities (PWTD), EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and MD-715 require agencies to 

describe how their plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and 

employees with disabilities. All agencies, regardless of size, must complete this Part of the MD-715 

report.

Please note: The triggers identified in this Part J are based solely on individual self-identification 

obtained through OPM’s Standard Form 256. We anticipate the total count of PWDs and PWTDs 

will increase and some triggers will be eliminated as additional individuals with disabilities are 

identified through the agency’s reasonable accommodations program and through appointments 

under hiring authorities that take disability intoaccount.

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals

EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific numerical goals 

for increasing the participation of persons with reportable and targeted disabilities in the federal 

government.

1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD by 

grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes X No 0

Where there is representation in the cluster GS-1 to GS-10, PWD did not have a trigger. PWD did not 

have a trigger for grades GS-11 or GS-12, however in the cluster GS-13 to SL, there is a trigger 

because representation rates decrease for the following grades:

GS-13: 9.78%,

GS-14: 7.62%

GS-15: 7.28%

SL: 5.26%

2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD by 

grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Where there is representation, and where the sample size is large enough, we have determined that 

there is not a trigger for grades GS-04 thru GS-14. However, there is a trigger for grade GS-14 with 

only a .66% representation rate and SL with zero representation of PWTD.

3. Describe how the agencyhas communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers and/or 

recruiters.

Each year numerical goals are communicated to the Corporation’s Senior leaders at the state of the 

agency briefing. That information is also included in the annual MD-715 report which is available on 

PBGC’s intranet and the public internet.
118

Section II: Model Disability Program

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1), agencies must ensure sufficient staff, training and resources to 

recruit and hire persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, administer the 

reasonable accommodation program and special emphasis program, and oversee any other disability 

hiring and advancement program the agency has in place.

A. Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program

1. Has the agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability program 

during the reporting period? If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to improve the staffing for the 

upcoming year.

Yes X No 0

2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the agency’s disability employment program by the 

office, staff employment status, and responsible official.

Disability Program Task

# of FTE Staff by Employment 

Status Responsible Official 

Full (Name, Title, Office, Email)

Time

Part 

Time

Collateral 

Duty

Processing applications from PWD 

and PWTD

7 0 0 Brandy Pelham, 

Supervisory HR Specialist,

Answering questions from the public 

about hiring authorities that take 

disability into account

1 1 Donald Beasley 

Selective Placement

Program Coordinator HRD; 

Karen Esser Diversity and 

Inclusion Program 

Manager, HRD, 

esser.karen@pbgc.gov

Processing reasonable 

accommodation requests from 

applicants and employees

1 Donald Beasley 

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

Coordinator

Section 508 Compliance Section 508 

Compliance 

Team, 

headed by 

the Office of 

Information 

Technology

Angela Watkins

IT Specialist and Section 

508 Compliance Team 

Chair

Architectural Barriers Act Compliance 1 Terri Garner, 

Industrial Specialist 

Workplace Solutions 

Department

Special Emphasis Program for PWD 

and PWTD

1 Loraine Johnson

Special Emphasis Program 

Manager
119

3. Has the agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out their 

responsibilities during the reporting period? If “yes”, describe the training that disability program 

staff have received. If “no”, describe the training planned for the upcomingyear.

Yes X No 0

One employee attended NELI’s two-day public sector employment law seminar that included a 

segment on disability.

B. Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the DisabilityProgram

Has the agency provided sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement the 

disability program during the reporting period? If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to ensure all 

aspects of the disability program have sufficient funding and other resources.

Yes X No 0

HRD manages a centralized budget set aside to purchase items needed as a reasonable 

accommodation.

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1)(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to increase the 

recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to identify 

outcomes of the agency’s recruitment program plan for PWD and PWTD.

A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants withDisabilities

4. Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, 

including individuals with targeted disabilities.

Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC) receives inquiries from job applicants with 

disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities daily via email. Staffing Specialists in the 

Staffing and Classification Division receive applications from applicants with disabilities, including 

individuals with targeted disabilities, through the application process. The specialists review the 

provided documentation and make a determination as to whether the applicant is eligible for veterans’ 

preference and/or the Schedule A hiring authority. The specialists collaborate with the SPPC as 

necessary.

5. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(3), describe the agency’s use of hiring authorities that take 

disability into account (e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in the 

permanent workforce.

Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC) receives inquiries from job applicants with 

disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities daily via email and forwards Schedule A 

letters and resumes to the agency’s Disability Program Staffing Specialist. The Staffing Specialist 

determines which hiring authorities the applicant is eligible for and whether the applicant is minimally 

qualified for the position. The Staffing Specialist then refers eligible and minimally qualified 

applicants to the Hiring Official with an explanation of how they should be considered.
120

6. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability intoaccount 

(e.g., Schedule A), explain how the agency (1) determines if the individual is eligible for 

appointment under such authority and (2) forwards the individual's application to the relevant 

hiring officials with an explanation of how and when the individual may be appointed.

Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC) receives inquiries from job applicants with 

disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities daily via email and forwards Schedule A 

letters and resumes to the agency’s Disability Program Staffing Specialist. The Staffing Specialist 

determines which hiring authorities the applicant is eligible for and whether the applicant is minimally 

qualified for the position. The Staffing Specialist then refers eligible and minimally qualified 

applicants to the Hiring Official with an explanation of how they should be considered.

7. Has the agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities that take 

disability into account (e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe the type(s) of training and 

frequency. If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to provide thistraining.

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

SPPC offered one training in FY18 that informed PBGC managers of the ABC’s of Schedule A hiring 

and how it is used at PBGC.

B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability EmploymentOrganizations

Describe the agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist PWD, 

including PWTD, in securing and maintaining employment.

C. PROGRESSION TOWARDS GOALS (RECRUITMENT AND HIRING)

1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers existfor 

PWD and/or PWTD among the new hires in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, please 

describe the triggers below.

a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Triggers exist for hires in all eight major occupations for PWTD as no PWTDs were hired in any of the 

occupations. Triggers exist for all but the following three occupations for PWD because the hires 

exceeded the 12% goal:

Auditing @ 14.29% 

Actuarial Science @ 50%

Information Technology Management @ 50%

However, it should be noted that the sample size was limited causing the number to appear above 

the goal.

SPPC forwards PBGC vacancy announcements via email to numerous organizations that assist 

PWDs in securing and maintaining employment. The Staffing and Classification Division attends 

career fairs specifically targeted to disabled veterans, including veterans with targeted disabilities, to 

discuss hiring opportunities at the agency as well as the application process and the various hiring 

authorities under which the attendees might be eligible. Starting in FY 2019, the Staffing and 

Classification Division accepted resumes from disabled veterans, including veterans with targeted 

disabilities, and is determining which of them may be referred noncompetitively under one or more 

hiring authorities.
121

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD 

among the new hires for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please 

describe the triggers below.

a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Of all the PWDs and PWTDs that applied for MCOs, only one PWD was hired for series 0511-

Auditing. However, there were no applicants for series 1510- Actuarial Science.

3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD 

among the qualified internal applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If 

“yes”, please describe the triggers below.

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD 

among employees promoted to any of the mission-criticaloccupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please 

describe the triggers below.

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

There were no internal applications for any of the major occupations that did hire employees.

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R §1614.203(d)(1)(iii), agencies are required to provide sufficient advancement 

opportunities for employees with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and 

mentoring programs, career development opportunities, awards programs, promotions, and similar 

programs that address advancement. In this section, agencies should identify, and provide data on 

programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for employees withdisabilities.

A. Advancement Program Plan

Describe the agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for 

advancement.

In order to increase the representation of disabled veterans in the PBGC Pathways (Student Intern) 

Program, the Staffing and Classification Division has established a hiring and retention plan for 

those individuals.
122

B. Career Development Opportunities

8. Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its 

employees.

9. In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that require 

competition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate. [Collection begins with 

the FY 2018 MD-715 report, which is due on February 28,2019.]

Career Development 

Opportunities

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applicants 

(#)

Selectees 

(#)

Applicants 

(%)

Selectees 

(%)

Applicants 

(%)

Selectees 

(%)

Internship Programs N/A

Fellowship Programs N/A

Mentoring Programs N/A

Coaching Programs N/A

Training Programs N/A

Detail Programs N/A

Other Career 

Development Programs

N/A

10. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career 

development programs? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the 

applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

Not applicable. The agency does not have career development programs that require competition.

PBGC has a variety of career development programs that require supervisory approval but not 

competition, including: (1) Project Management Certification; (2) executive coaching; (3) conflict 

coaching; (4) detail opportunities; (5) Pathways and HACU internships; (6) multiple training 

opportunities for employees at all grade levels; (7) training program for new supervisors. In addition, 

in FY 2017, the agency launched a pilot leadership development mentoring program for nonbargaining unit employees at the GS-13, 14 and 15 grade levels. All NBU employees at these grade 

levels were invited to apply and those who participated were paired with a Senior Level mentor.

Starting in FY 2016, the agency established a Veterans Integration Program (VIP) that is designed 

to equip Federal employees who will be working with newly-hired veterans with the tools and skills 

needed to assist veterans with their transition the federal workforce (through instructor-led and webbased training). PBGC continues to use career ladder promotions as a recruitment strategy to hire 

at the entry level with development, growth, and promotion potential.
123

11. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career 

development programs identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool 

for applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text 

box.

a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

Not applicable. See above.

C. Awards

1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD 

and/or PWTD for any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If “yes”, please 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD 

and/or PWTD for quality step increases or performance-based pay increases? If “yes”, please 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes X No 0

PWTDs did not receive QSIs in FY18.

3. If the agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are PWD and/or PWTD 

recognized disproportionately less than employees without disabilities? (The appropriate 

benchmark is the inclusion rate.) If “yes”, describe the employee recognition program and 

relevant data in the text box.

a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
124

D. Promotions

1. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicantsand/or 

selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the 

relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for 

selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Grade GS-15

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. Grade GS-14

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

d. Grade GS-13

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X
125

2. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicantsand/or 

selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the 

relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for 

selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. Grade GS-15

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. Grade GS-14

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

d. Grade GS-13

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a triggerinvolving 

PWD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the 

approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the textbox.

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes 0 No X

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes 0 No X

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the 

approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the textbox.

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes 0 No X
126

5. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicantsand/or 

selectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the 

relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for 

selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. Supervisors

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

6. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicantsand/or 

selectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the 

relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for 

selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. Supervisors

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X
127

7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a triggerinvolving 

PWD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Yes 0 No X

8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a triggerinvolving 

PWTD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To be a model employer for persons with disabilities, agencies must have policies and programs in 

place to retain employees with disabilities. In this section, agencies should: (1) analyze workforce 

separation data to identify barriers retaining employees with disabilities; (2) describe efforts to ensure 

accessibility of technology and facilities; and (3) provide information on the reasonable accommodation 

program and workplace personal assistance services.

A. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations

1. In this reporting period, did the agency convert all eligible Schedule A employees with a 

disability into the competitive service after two years of satisfactory service (5 C.F.R. § 

213.3102(u)(6)(i))? If “no”, please explain why the agency did not convert all eligible Schedule A 

employees.

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

The agency did convert all Schedule A employees into the competitive service.

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among voluntary and 

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger 

below.

a. Voluntary Separations (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes 0 No X
128

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary and 

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes”, describe 

the trigger below.

Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, please explain why they 

left the agency using exit interview results and other datasources.

Not Applicable

B. Accessibility of Technology andFacilities

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and 

employees of their rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b), 

concerning the accessibility of agency technology, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

§ 4151-4157), concerning the accessibility of agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to 

inform individuals where to file complaints if other agencies are responsible for a violation.

1. Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its noticeexplaining 

employees’ and applicants’ rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a 

description of how to file a complaint.

Anyone with an accessibility issue related to navigating the pbgc.gov site should contact 

the webmaster@pbgc.gov (per The PBGC Website Policies and Procedures and the 

Accessibility section).

In compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (link is external), PBGC is 

committed to providing access to its Web pages to all people-disabled or not-seeking 

information about PBGC. According to its policies for accessibility (link is external), 

the agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with 

applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the 

public.

If you use assistive technology (such as a Braille reader, a screen reader, or TTY) 

and the format of any material on this Web site interferes with your ability to access 

information, please contact the PBGC Webmaster atwebmaster@pbgc.gov (link 

sends e-mail) or 202-326-4343. To enable us to respond in a manner most helpful to 

you, please indicate the nature of your accessibility problem, the preferred format in 

which to receive the material, the Web address of the requested material, and your 

contact information. Users who need accessibility assistance can also contact us by 

phone through the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-400-7242 for 

TTY/Voice communication.
129

2. Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining 

employees’ and applicants’ rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of 

how to file a complaint.

Not available

3. Describe any programs, policies, or practices that the agency has undertaken, or plans on 

undertaking over the next fiscal year, designed to improve accessibility of agency facilities 

and/or technology.

PBGC continues ensure access to the building for people with disabilities.

In FY 2018, the agency’s Section 508 Compliance Team conducted training sessions across the 

agency to raise awareness of Section 508 responsibilities and also introduced a new “Acclimate to 

Section 508 Learning Series” that provided hands-on instruction on how to make Word documents 

accessible to People with Disabilities. This series will continue in FY 2019.

C. Reasonable Accommodation Program

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and make 

available to all job applicants and employees, reasonable accommodation procedures.

1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable 

accommodations during the reporting period. (Please do not include previouslyapproved 

requests with repetitive accommodations, such as interpretingservices.)

30 days

2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the agency’s 

reasonable accommodation program. Some examples of an effective program include timely 

processing requests, timely providing approved accommodations, conducting training for 

managers and supervisors, and monitoring accommodation requests fortrends.

(1) PBGC effectively operates a Reasonable Accommodation Program for qualified individualswith 

disabilities, including having a centralized reasonable accommodation fund and designated 

Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator;

(2) During FY 2018, PBGC received and timely processed 64 reasonable accommodationrequests.

(3) PBGC actively collaborates with the Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP)and 

the Job Accommodations Network (JAN);

(4) PBGC ensures easy access and availability of interpreter services for applicants andemployees 

who are deaf or hard of hearing through continued operation of its Interpreter Services Program;

(5) PBGC highlights disability topics through a Disability Awareness Series, with speakers, 

information and articles in the PBGC newsletter;

(6) PBGC includes information about the Workforce Recruitment Program, Diversity and Inclusion, 

Special Emphasis Observances, and the Reasonable Accommodation Program on its HRD intranet 

webpage;

(7) PBGC maintains a videophone in its lobby to accommodate deaf and hard of hearingvisitors;

(8) PBGC has an annual mandatory reasonable accommodation and Diversity & Inclusion training 

requirement for all supervisors and managers and hosted and delivered multiple training sessions in 

these areas;
130

(9) The HRD Reasonable Accommodation brochure is provided to all employees during New 

Employee Orientation (NEO) and the PBGC Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator provides a 

briefing to all new employees during NEO on reasonable accommodation procedures. In addition, 

the information is available on the intranet via the Employee and Labor Relations Management 

Division (ELRMD) link entitled “Reasonable Accommodations” at:

http://intranet/human_resources/emp_labor_relations/accommodations.cfm

and on the internet at: 

http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/reasonable_accom.pdf

D. Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in theWorkplace

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action, are 

required to provide personal assistance services (PAS) to employees who need them because of a 

targeted disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the agency.

Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS 

requirement. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests for PAS, 

timely providing approved services, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and 

monitoring PAS requests for trends.

The PAS policy is included in the Reasonable Accommodations Policy; however, it is currently not 

posted on the agency’s intranet and is awaiting approval by the EEOC.

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data

A. EEO Complaint data involving Harassment

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaintalleging 

harassment, as compared to the government-wideaverage?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status 

result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability 

status during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the agency.

Not Applicable due to no findings.

B. EEO Complaint Data involving ReasonableAccommodation

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging 

failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0
131

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to providereasonable 

accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlementagreement?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a 

reasonable accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the correctivemeasures 

taken by the agency.

Not Applicable due to no findings.

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers

Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests that a 

policy, procedure, or practice may be impeding the employment opportunities of a protected EEO group.

1. Has the agency identified anybarriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect 

employment opportunities for PWD and/or PWTD?

Yes 0 No X

2. Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD and/or PWTD? 

Yes 0 No 0 N/A X

3. Identifyeach trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s), 

objective(s), responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, 

accomplishments.

Trigger 1

While there may be a trigger in terms of representation, most of the sample sizes are 

too small to determine if there were barriers. However, as we continue to conduct 

barrier analysis, we will continue to look for issues that limit equal employment 

opportunity for PWD and PWTD.

Barrier(s) Not Identified

Objective(s) To increase representation in PBGC of PWDs and PWTDs.

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address the 

Plan?

(Yes or No)

HRD, OEEO, Agency leadership No

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No)

Ongoing No

Sources of Data

Sources 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Representation Rates

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes Bases and Issues if applicable

Grievance Data (Trends) No

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes)

No

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., FEVS) Yes Employee Perceptions
132

Exit Interview Data No

Focus Groups No

Interviews No

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, MSPB, 

GAO, OPM) Yes EEOC data on disability findings

Other (Please Describe)

Target Date Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding 

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date

Completion 

Date

Ongoing HRD will continue to train and educate 

on disability topics, including mandatory 

RA training for managers and 

supervisors.

Ongoing The agency will continue to operate a 

robust inter-departmental Section 508 

Compliance Team and offer hands-on 

Section 508 accessibility training to all 

employees.

FY 2020 OEEO will explore how it can also 

provide programs for PWD and PWTD.

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY18 The disability functions are managed by human resources and they have provided 

training that included topics on disability awareness.

4. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing any ofthe 

planned activities.

The agency has not identified any barriers; thus this question is not applicable.

5. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact ofthose 

activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

Not Applicable

6. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the 

agency intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year.

OEEO will conduct barrier analysis to address the identified triggers.
133

MD-715 Data Tables (A1 & B1)

Appendix
PENSIO N BENEFI T GUARANT Y CORPORTATIO N Pa y Perio d fro m 20172 1 t o 20182 1 

Tabl e Al : TOTA L WORKFORC E - Distributio n b y Race/Ethnicit y an d Se x 

Employmen t Tenur e TOTA L WORKFORC E 

RACE/ETHNICIT Y 

Employmen t Tenur e TOTA L WORKFORC E Hispani c o r Latin o 

Non - Hispani c o r 

Latin o 

Employmen t Tenur e TOTA L WORKFORC E Hispani c o r Latin o Whit e 

Blac k o r 

Africa n America n Asia n 

Nativ e Hawaiia n o r 

Othe r Pacifi c 

Am

A l l | mal e | femal e mal e | femal e mal e | femal e mal e | femal e mal e | femal e mal e [ femal e m

TOTAL 

Prio r F Y 

8 9 5 3 4 3 1 5 2 2 1 8 2 1 2 3 0 1 5 9 1 2 2 2 8 4 5 7 5 3 0 0 

Prio r F Y % 100 % 45.23 % 54.77 % 1.8 9 2 . 2 24.1 3 16.6 8 12. 8 29. 8 5.9 8 5.5 6 0 0 

Current F Y 

944 416 528 19 21 220 162 118 280 56 55 0 0 

Current F Y % 100% 44.07% 55.93% 2.01 2.22 23.31 17.16 12.5 29.66 5.93 5.83 0 0 

PBGC Overal l % 40.47 % 42.16 % 11.76 % •' . 

C L F 201 0 % 100 % 51.84 % 48.16 % 5.17 % 4.79 % 38.33 % 34.03 % 5.49 % 6.53 % 1.97 % 1.93 % 0.07 % 0.07 % 

C LF Overall % 72.36% 12.02% 3.90% 0 .14% 

O r g CL F % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 

Alternat e Benchmar k % 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Differenc e 8 - 9 - 1 5 6 1 0 - 1 0 3 - 4 - 4 - 1 2 0 0 

Rati o Chang e % 0.00 % -1.16 % 1.16 % 0.12 % 0.02 % -0.83 % 0.48 % -0.30 % -0.14 % -0.05 % 0.26 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 

N e t Chang e % -0.94 % -3.48 % 1.15 % 5.56 % 0.00 % -4.35 % 1.89 % -3.28 % -1.41 % -1.75 % 3.77 % 0 % 0 % 

PERMANENT 

Prio r F Y 

9 0 8 4 1 6 4 9 2 1 8 1 8 2 2 2 1 5 2 1 1 7 2 6 7 5 5 5 1 0 0 

Prio r F Y % 100 % 45.81 % 54.19 % 1.98 % 1.98 % 24.45 % 16.74 % 12.89 % 29.41 % 6.06 % 5.62 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 

Current F Y 

# 900 398 502 18 20 212 152 269 54 52 0 0 

Current F Y % 100% 44.22% 55.78% 2.00% 2.22% 23.56% 16.89% 12.33% 29.89% 6.00% 5.78% 0.00% 0.00% 

Differenc e - 8 - 1 8 1 0 0 2 - 1 0 0 - 6 2 - 1 1 0 0 

Rati o Chang e % 0 % -1.59 % 1.59 % 0.02 % 0.24 % -0.89 % 0.15 % -0.55 % 0.48 % -0.06 % 0.16 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 

N e t Chang e % -0.88 % -4.33 % 2.03 % 0.00 % 11.11 % -4.50 % 0.00 % -5.13 % 0.75 % -1.82 % 1.96 % 0 % 0 % 

TEMPORARY 

Prio r F Y 

# 4 5 1 5 3 0 0 3 8 7 5 1 7 2 2 0 0 

Prio r F Y % 100 % 33.33 % 66.67 % 0 6.6 7 17.7 8 15.5 6 11.1 1 37.7 8 4.4 4 4.4 4 0 0 

Curren t FY 

8 4 4 1 8 2 6 1 1 8 1 0 7 1 1 2 3 0 0 

Curren t FY % 100 % 40.91 % 59.09 % 2.2 7 2.2 7 18.1 8 22.7 3 15.9 1 2 5 4.5 5 6.8 2 0 0 

Differenc e # - 1 3 - 4 1 - 2 0 3 2 - 6 0 1 0 0 

Rati o Chang e % 0 % 7.58 % -7.58 % 2.27 % -4.39 % 0.40 % 7.17 % 4.80 % -12.78 % 0.10 % 2.37 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 

N e t Chang e % -2.22 % 20.00 % -13.33 % 0 % -66.67 % 0.00 % 42.86 % 40.00 % -35.29 % 0.00 % 50.00 % 0 % 0 % 

134
PBG C PENSIO N BENEFI T GUARANT Y CORPORATIO N (AL L OCCS ) Pa y Perio d fro m 20172 1 t o 20182 1 

Tabl e B l - Tota l Workforc e - Distributio n b y Disabilit y 

Tota l b y Disabilit y Statu s Detai l fo r Targete d Disabilitie s 

(06-98 ) (16,19 ) (64-69 ) (71-79 ) - 8 2 - 9 0 - 9 1 

N o N o t Disabilit y Disabilit y Deafnes s Blindnes s Missin g Partia l Convulsiv e Menta l Distortio n 

Employmen t Tenur e Tota l 

Disabilit y Identifie d Limbs / 

Extremitie s 

Paralysi s Paralysi s Disorder / 

Epileps y 

Retardation / 

Sever e 

Intellectua l 

Disabilit y 

Illness / 

Psychiatri c 

Disabilt y 

Limb-Spin

Dwarfis m 

TOTAL WORKFORCE - Permanent and Temporary 

# 9 5 3 8 2 5 4 3 8 5 1 4 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 5 

Prio r FY 100 % 86.57 % 4.51 % 8.92 % 1.47 % 0.10 % 0.21 % 0.00 % 0.21 % 0.00 % 0.42 % 0.00 % 0.52 % 0.0

# 944 805 46 93 15 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 6 

Current FY 100% 85.28% 4.87% 9.85% 1.59% 0.11% 0.21% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 0.42% 0.00% 0.64% 0.0

Federal # 12% 2.00% 

Differenc e # - 9 - 2 0 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Chang e % 0.00 % -1.29 % 0.36 % 0.93 % 0.12 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.11 % 0.0

N e t Chang e % -0.94 % -2.42 % 6.98 % 9.41 % 7.14 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 % 0.00 % 0 % 0.00 % 0 % 20.00 % 

PERMANENT WORKFORCE 

# 9 0 8 7 8 5 4 2 8 1 1 4 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 5 

Prio r FY 100 % 86.45 % 4.63 % 8.92 % 1.54 % 0.11 % 0.22 % 0.00 % 0.22 % 0.00 % 0.44 % 0.00 % 0.55 % 0.0

# 9 0 0 7 7 0 4 1 8 9 1 5 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 6 

Curren t FY % 100 % 85.56 % 4.56 % 9.89 % 1.67 % 0.11 % 0.22 % 0.00 % 0.22 % 0.00 % 0.44 % 0.00 % 0.67 % 0.0

Differenc e # - 8 - 1 5 - 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Rati o 

Chang e % 0.00 % -0.90 % -0.07 % 0.97 % 0.12 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.12 % 0.0

N e t Chang e % -0.88 % -1.91 % -2.38 % 9.88 % 7.14 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 % 0.00 % 0 % 0.00 % 0 % 20.00 % 

TEMPORARY WORKFORCE 

# 4 5 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Prio r FY % 100 % 88.89 % 2.22 % 8.89 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.0

# 4 4 3 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Curren t FY % 100 % 79.55 % 11.36 % 9.09 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.0

Differenc e # - 1 - 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rati o 

Chang e % 0.00 % -9.34 % 9.14 % 0.20 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.0

N e t Chang e % -2.22 % -12.50 % 400.00 % 0.00 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 

135